MODULAR INSTRUCTEON 0F
PRESERVICE 'FEACHERS TO INCREASE
THEIR EMPATHIG RESPONSES
EN CLASSROOM DEALOGUE.

mssertation for the Segree of Ph. D.
MENCHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
JAMIE BLAME YULE
1975

 
  

Michigan Sure
University

-
wF-F-l-KI'F'Y- ‘_—.—_ —

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
MODULAR INSTRUCTION 0F PRESERVICE TEACHERS
TO INCREASE THEIR EMPATHIC RESPONSES
IN CLASSROOM DIALOGUE

presented by

Jamie Blaine Yule

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. degreein Teacher Education

fl /
a . "// I -
ZL. ,flL/bké/
Major 6768801 \

 

 

  

—/ '-
1 ’\

 

Date August 22, I925

0-7 639

    
    

   

.lI MOMS“

I BOOK FWPFRY INS.

2: LIT.- I' ”a;r.:)['qs
' mum]

I; -
iL‘-‘§. - .. a

 

"IIIIIIIIIIICIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIHI ‘7-$—-::’42.. .
00010 4749 F_/an‘

R‘E‘?‘

MW- we

...-.\ sun-t
. --\:‘ . (m: .‘“ ‘ I‘ll: 5&3!
if“; "I ‘ If. .__ i a}. .3 gnaw“-
¢ 4

I g DU 7/

 

 

 

ABSTRACT
MODULAR INSTRUCTION 0F PRESERVICE TEACHERS

TO INCREASE THEIR EMPATHIC RESPONSES
IN CLASSROOM DIALOGUE

By

Jamie Blaine Yule

The purpose of this study was to determine if preservice
teachers could be taught to increase in their classroom dialogue
the responses they make which reflect understanding of pupils'
expressed thoughts and feelings. Specifically, the study was
undertaken to determine if such responses could be learned from
an instructional module eSpecially designed to teach some per-
ceiving and responding skills necessary for improved understand-
ing in teacher communication.

Thirty-six elementary and secondary preservice teachers
were selected as treatment and control subjects from among
participants in a two-term competency-based field experience
portion of the teacher education curriculum. All subjects made
short tape recordings of a single lesson they taught in a local
classroom just prior to their full-time student teaching experi-
ence. The treatment, the study of a module entitled Interpersonal
Relations Skills, was then begun. The module was rated by treat-

ment subjects as they completed their study of it.

Jamie B. Yule

The subjects' cooperating teachers responded in writing
to the Communication Index-Student Form, thus providing a measure
of their own ability to communicate with understanding. Near the
end of student teaching all subjects tape-recorded six hours of
their classroom interaction irrespective of the activities in-
volved. The tapes were reviewed for the presence of dialogue
segments, samples of which were randomly chosen for rating. These
segments, the pre-treatment tapes and the cooperating teachers'
responses to the Communication Index were all rated on the
Carkhuff Empathy Scale by trained raters at the Consortium for
Humanizing Education at Texas Women's University. All c00pera-
ting teachers and the pupils of secondary subjects rated those
subjects on the degree of understanding they exemplified. The
cooperating teachers used the Student Teacher Rating Scale which
was constructed by the researcher for this study, while secondary
pupils responded to a modified form of the Assessment Inventory
developed by Dixon and Horse. (This instrument was not suitable
for elementary children and so was used with secondary pupils
only.) Single mean scores were obtained for subjects on both
of these instruments.

Treatment subjects did not respond to their pupils with
greater understanding at the end of the field experience than
did control subjects. Neither were they seen by their coopera-

ting teachers nor were the secondary treatment subjects seen by

Jamie B. Yule
their pupils as more understanding than control subjects. No
relationship was found between the empathic understanding demon-
strated by treatment subjects and their perception of the value
and usefulness of the module.

Because of circumstances unique to the research
situation, there is reason to believe the module was not fully
nor adequately used by the treatment subjects. A series of
specific recommendations are offered for the operational repli-
cation of this study. The findings were that:

l) cooperating teachers, secondary pupils and subjects
all believed that teacher understanding is strongly related to
good teaching;

2) cooperating teachers and trained raters showed
significant agreement on the extent to which student teacher
behaviors exemplified understanding of pupils;

3) treatment subjects strongly endorsed the module,
Interpersonal Relations Skills, and indicated that they believed
the content was important, that they used what they had learned,
and that the module should be included in the CBTE program for

use by all preservice teachers.

MODULAR INSTRUCTION OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS
TO INCREASE THEIR EMPATHIC RESPONSES
IN CLASSROOM DIALOGUE

BY
Jamie Blaine Yule

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

I975

For

Mother, Marie, Suz and Val

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Grateful appreciation is extended to:

Dr. W. Henry Kennedy, my advisor and dissertation
director, for fine professional guidance
given with much kindness and generosity;

Members of my committee: Dr. Harvey Clarizio,
Dr. Donald Freeman and Dr. Beatrice Paolucci
for encouragement and heIpful suggestions;

Steve Olejnik for assistance in research design
and analysis of the data;

Dr. Robert Hatfield for encouragement and cooperation
in making students participating in the CBTE
program available for study;

Cluster consultants: Doris Abbott, Carol Bicken-
bach, Curt Guy, Suzanne Lawson, Erma Robinson,
Vi Schmitt, Carol Wagner and Ron Whitmore for
helpfulness in collecting the data;

Dr. David Aspy and Ms. Flora Roebuck of the
Consortium for Humanizing Education for
assistance in the rating of data.

Chapter
I.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem .
Rationale for the Study. .

Theoretical Basis of the Study

Hypotheses . . . . . . . .
Definition of Terms. . . .
Assumptions. . . . . . . .
Limitations. . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE

Introduction . . . . . . .
Scope of the Review. . . .
Notes on Terminology . . .
Correlational Studies. . .
Empathic Understanding and

”Good” Teachers

Experimental Studies . . . . . . . . . . .
Multiple Method Experiments . . .

Carkhuff Model. . . . .

Single Method Experiments . . . .

Considerations for Teacher Educators

Summary. . . . . . . . . .

PROCEDURE

Design of the Study. . . . . . . .
The sample C O C C O O O O O O C

Use of the Module. . . . .
Collection of the Data . .

Instrumentation and Treatment of the

Tape Recordings . . . . . . . . .
Rating the Tape Recordings. . . .
Communication Index-Student Form.
Student Teacher Rating Scale. . .

Assessment Inventory. .
Module Evaluation Form.
Carkhuff Empathy Scale.
The Module . . . . . . . .
Summary. . . . . . . . . .

IV. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE

Statistical Tests. . . . .
Analysis of Hypotheses . .
Hypothesis I. . . . . .
Hypothesis Il . . . . .
Hypothesis III. . . . .
Hypothesis IV . . . . .
Hypothesis V. . . . . .
Discussion of the Findings

FINDINGS

Treatment Subjects' Post-Treatment Scores .
Ratings by COOperating Teachers and Raters.
Ratings by Cooperating Teachers and
Treatment and Control Subjects'

Post-Treatment Scores.

Correlations Between Other Selected

Variables. . . . . . .
Evaluation of Module. .
Summary. . . . . . . . . .
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions. . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . .

APPENDIX A. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . .

Pupils.

89

89
9O
9O
92
93
9A
9A
9A

I0]
102
I05
lO6
108
III

III
ll3

119
I36
Ih3a
21h

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
I. Demographic Variables of Study Subjects . . . . . . . 57

2. Use and Scoring of Instructional/Assessment
Instruments. . C . C C C C O C C . O . O O O . . O 67

3. Total Amount and Distribution of Dialogue Segments
in Recordings of Subjects' Classroom Activities
as Identified by Gross Review of Tapes . . . . . . 70

A. ANOVA for Empathy Scores from Treatment and Control
Subjects' Teaching after Ten Weeks . . . . . . . . 9|

5. ANOVA for Treatment and Control Subjects' Ratings
by Cooperating Teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

6. ANOVA for Secondary Treatment and Control Subjects'
Ratings by Pupils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

7. Correlations Between Variables for All Subjects,
Treatment and Control Subjects . . . . . . . . . . 95

8. Means of Fall and Winter Empathy Ratings of
Recordings Made by Treatment and Control
SUbjects O O O O O C O O C O O O O I O O O O O O O 96

9. Pre-Treatment Empathy Score Correlations with

Selected Variables for Treatment and
Control Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

vi

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study was to determine if preservice
teachers could be taught to increase in their classroom dialogue
the responses they make which reflect understanding of pupils'
expressed thoughts and feelings. Specifically, the study was
undertaken to determine if such responses could be learned from
an instructional module especially designed to teach some per-
ceiving and responding skills necessary for improved understand-
ing in teacher communication.
Rationale for the Study
In the past a commonly held view of teaching-learning
involved the passing of information from one mind to another.
The teacher lectured, Opined, wrote learned papers,arranged the
classroom organization, selected appropriate books to be stud-
ied and generally shared knowledge with the less informed. The
learner listened, answered, responded, took notes, read assign-
ments and tried to retain the information being shared. The
teacher's role was essentially active, and that of the learner

was essentially passive.

Although this picture of teaching as information-sharing
is overdrawn for emphasis, it is still very much a part of the
educational scene, albeit in less obvious ways. Combs, Avila and
Purkey (l97l) observed that one way we have attempted to improve
the quality of education is to increase the number of courses
offered, to improve information delivery systems by capitalizing
more fully upon technological hardware, to develop more sophisti-
cated teaching methods: in short, to improve quality in education
by increasing the amount of information available to individuals.

Today student disaffection for formal education is
manifest in demands for greater curricular flexibility, rising
dropout rates, arguments against the irrelevance of instruction
and in favor of the value of ”real life experiences.“ Such expres-
sions have made many thoughtful persOns aware of the genuine
inadequacy of instructional systems which are essentially infor-
mation-disseminating. Learning, it appears, requires more than
acquiring information. It requires meaning as well.

It is axiomatic to observe that when learning occurs,
behavior consequently changes. Indeed it is common to infer that
students have learned when their behaviors change in certain
desirable ways. Behavior does not change, however, unless the
information which has been acquired has genuine meaning to the
individual. Is it not reasonable to infer, therefore, that when
students who are exposed to a plethora of information do not
show subsequent behavior changes, it is because the meaning for

them of such information is limited or non-existent?

Information is not meaningful until the learner addresses
it with the totality of himself. In other words, learning is a
deeply personal activity which involves aspects of the whole
learner such as perception, memory, problem-solving, imagination,
reflection, feelings, attitudes, values, habits, experiences,
standards, expectations, goals, self-concept, skills, kinesthetic
sensations and physiological states.

Helping learners (who have been successfully conditioned
to believe that learning is information-gathering) perceive
learning as a growth process in which the entire self is engaged
requires a changed orientation on the part of educators. It
requires teachers, for example, who recognize that exploring,
questioning, talking about, reflecting upon and repeatedly using
some kinds of information are all legitimate classroom activities
through which students internalize and personalize information,
through which they find meaning. It requires that teachers be
prepared to place a primary emphasis upon how persons perceive
and relate to the content of what is being learned, rather than
primarily upon how the subject may be sequenced and delimited to
be most accessible to learners. How learners perceive the sub-
ject matter and how the teacher organizes it are not dichotomous
or contradictory aspects of teaching; they are compatible and
necessary. The question at hand is not their value but their
emphasis. A

It is the process of learning which is being considered.

How can teachers be prepared to “. . . maximize the frequency

with which they foster more self-starting, self-directed, actively
inquiring patterns of learning behavior in their pupils” (Peck 8
Tucker, I973, p. 9A7)? How can they be prepared to be effective
teachers who can “. . . facilitate learning, enhance creative
thinking and increase the probability of discovery learning”
(Asbury 8 Costantino, I972, p. 8A)?

One answer to these questions which appears to have
promise is to educate teachers to be more facilitative, rather
than so highly directive or dogmatic, in their interactions with
children. Although some amount of teacher directiveness is both
desirable and necessary, classrooms are generally dominated by
directive teacher behaviors (Peck 8 Tucker, I973). To recommend,
therefore, that teachers be prepared to be more facilitative is
not to suggest the abolition of directive teacher behaviors, but
rather their reduction in favor of those behaviors which attend
to the attitudes, feelings and viewpoints of pupils. There is
a growing body of research findings which indicates that teachers
who respond to their pupils with empathy, regard and genuineness,
help those pupils to grow in positive ways, cognitively and
effectively.

A number of studies employing the Flanders System of
Interaction Analysis suggest that preparing teachers to be more
indirect in their interactions with learners is desirable.
Generally “indirectness of teacher behavior tends to be associ-

ated positively with assessment growth, favorableness of pupil

attitudes, and creativity growth“ (Soar, I973, p. 209). Indirect
teacher behaviors in the Flanders System include those which at-
tend to students' feelings, praise and encourage students, use
students' thoughts and ideas as the basis for further reflection
and study, and stimulate student thought through the use of ques-
tions. Flanders and Simon (I969) surveyed a set of widely sepa-
rated research studies and concluded that

. . . it can now be stated with fairly high confidence

that the percentage of teacher statements that make

use of ideas and opinions previously expressed by

pupjls is directly related to average class scores on

attitude scales of teacher attractiveness, liking the

class, etc., as well as to average achievement scores

adjusted for initial ability. (p. l426)

Taken together these two observations suggest that
teachers who attend to students' thoughts and feelings and who
encourage learners actively to find personal meaning in informa-
tion at hand stimulate student growth and development. Indeed
Peck and Tucker (I973) noted that ”what the interaction studies
do appear to show is that the teacher has to act in ways that
specifically allow and encourage such pupil initiative, or it
does not occur to any great extent” (p. 9A8).

Carkhuff (l97l) noted that the quality of the relation-
ship between teacher and student cannot be overlooked:

. . .effective education is a function of the inter-
personal skills which make for an effective teacher-
student relationship plus an effective teacher program.
When either relationship or program is present, benefits
accrue to the student. When both relationship and

programs are present, maximum benefits accrue to the
student. (p. ll)

Looking even more specifically at how the teacher functions
in this effective relationship, Asbury and Costantino (I972) de-
scribed l'the counseling mode of teaching” in which ”. . . the
'counselor-teacher' . . . serves as a motivator, facilitator, dis-
cussant, sounding board, consultant, or as an academic counselor”
(p. 8A). Carkhuff and Truax (I966) likewise compared effective
teaching skills with effective counseling skills:

. . . those teachers who are facilitative, who “hook“
the students in a lifelong learning and growing process
involving or leading to self-exploration, self-direction
and dependence and self-realization . . . are not un-
like the effective counselors, those who provide the
highest levels of these facilitative conditions. (p. 726)

In short, these writers suggest that meaningful learning
results when teachers perceive themselves as facilitators in a
helping relationship with learners.

To function as an effective facilitator of student growth,
a teacher must learn to concentrate upon meaning as well as behav-
ior, that is, upon what Combs (I972) called “sensitivity or empa-
thy . . . a belief about what are the important data in a human
interaction: how it looks to the helper and how it looks to the
persons he is working with” (p. 288). In his research of the
helping professions Combs found that one critical factor which
separated good helpers from poor is the capacity to see non-
objectively, i.e., subjectively, empathically or sensitively.

”Good helpers are characteristically concerned about how things

look to the people they are working with“ (p. 289).

A confirming view was expressed by Asbury and Costantino
(I972). “Empathy and understanding must come first if the teacher
is to be a real helper and not just help himself . . . . It seems
to us that teachers are weakest in achieving and communicating
empathy and respect'l (p. 88).

The realization that teachers need help in learning how
to be facilitative in their classroom relationships and how to
perceive and communicate empathic understanding to students is
a recent one. Jones (I973) noted that materials designed express-
ly to teach these skills to teachers are almost non-existent.

It is, therefore, reasonable and important to develop
for teachers instructional materials which will help them learn
to understand their students' thoughts and feelings, and to com-
municate such understanding to them. Moreover, these materials
need to be tried with student teachers in the field so that their
effectiveness and efficiency in increasing the level of empathic
functioning in preservice teachers may be assessed.

Theoretical Basis of the Study

Humanistic psychology, with its focus upon the optimally
developed, fully functioning person, has generated abundant re-
search among psychotherapists regarding the dynamics of client-
centered counseling. Rogers has studied the counselor-client
relationship to determine what, if any, elements are present in
that relationship which facilitate the “. . . growth, deveIOpment,

maturity, improved functioning, improved coping with life” of the

client (Rogers, l96l, p. 39). He isolated three conditions,
i.e., counselor behaviors, which he labeled “necessary and
sufficient” for therapeutic personality change: congruence,
unconditional positive regard and empathy (Rogers, I957). These
conditions, he asserted, must be present not only in the
counselor-client dyad, but in any relationship which facilitates
growth, development and improved functioning of its component
members. These relationships may be one-to-one, or they may be
individual-group interactions which are intended as helping
relationships (l96l).

Carkhuff and Truax (I966), also studying the helping
relationship, stated that there are ”. . . three elements . . .
that cut across the more parochial theories of effective
'helping' processes and appear to be common elements in a wide
variety of interpersonal approaches“ (p. 725). These elements
are: (l) the ability to sensitively and accurately understand
the patient in such a manner as to communicate this deep under-
standing; (2) nonpossessive warmth and acceptance of the client
by the counselor; (3) the necessity for the counselor to be
integrated, mature and genuine.

Two commonalities between the findings of Carkhuff and
Truax, and Rogers are apparent. First, the three dimensions
which each studied are very similar despite the differing term-
inology used to describe them. What Carkhuff and Truax called
deep understanding, Rogers called empathy. Likewise,

nonpossessive warmth and acceptance may be translated as

unconditional positive regard, and genuineness and integration

as congruence. Second, these three are present in a wide variety

of helping interactions and are not limited merely to the counselor-
client relationship.

To these three primary conditions, Carkhuff and his
colleagues added several new dimensions, and developed and standard-
ized scales for rating them. Collectively these dimensions are
empathy, respect, genuineness, concreteness, self-disclosure,
confrontation and immediacy. These are the helper-offered condi-
tions which form the crux of the Carkhuff model of helping, briefly

outlined below.

 

 

 

 

Facilitation Phase I Action Phase
HELPER: HELPER: I HELPER:
Empathy Concreteness Confrontation
Respect Genuineness lmmediacy
Warmth Self-disclosure
HELPEE: Iv HELPEE: HELPEE:
Exploration ;Understanding__.) Action

 

Helping Process. Adapted from Carkhuff's I970 model
for use with educators. (Adapted from Human Relations
Development by George M. Gazda, Frank R. Asbury, Fred J. Balzer,
William C. Childers, R. Eric Desselle, and Richard P. Walters.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, lnc., I973, p. 25.)

 

As schematically represented above, the helping process
assists the individual being helped, i.e., the helpee, first to
explore his own problems; then to deveIOp deeper understanding
about them and to discover some possible constructive ways in
which to solve or alleviate those problems; and finally to

decide upon some definite course of action and to pursue it.

ID

The helpee is assisted in this process by the helper who
systematically provides the dimensions which will best facili-
tate successful problem-solving by the helpee. The helper
initially responds to the helpee with empathy, warmth and re-
spect, conditions which maximize the helpee's efforts to explore
his situation with minimal frustration and confusion. When the
helpee has reached a plateau of self-exploration, the helper
adds other dimensions which press the helpee for greater speci-
ficity (concreteness), which model real and honest behaviors for
the helpee (genuineness) and which encourage greater closeness
between the two individuals through the sharing of helpful,
personal experiences by the helper when these are appropriate
(self-disclosure). Finally, the helper assists the helpee to-
ward decisive action by adding confrontation to the dialogue,
that is, assisting the helpee to face the reality of his situ-
ation, and encouraging the helpee to recognize what is really
going on between the helper and the helpee ”here and now”
(immediacy).

Gazda et al. (I973) wrote, “We know of no other model
for human relations training which has been so thoroughly re-
searched and so carefully developed, and we therefore offer it
to the trainer and trainee with considerable confidence in its

validity“ (p. 22).

ll

Carkhuff and Truax (I966) emphasized the importance of

the facilitative dimensions in interpersonal relationships.

If the current evidence is reliable and a lack of

such elements as empathy, warmth and genuineness

tends to impede or retard positive movement, while

the presence of higher levels of these conditions

leads to constructive gain, then the model for

interpersonal processes may be a reversible one:

the model can be used to predict positive movement

and gain as well as to predict negative movement

or deterioration. (pp. 725-726)
Of the facilitative dimensions, empathy appears most crucial.

Empathic understanding . . . is the key ingredient

in the establishment of a viable communication

process . . . . Empathy is perhaps the most criti-

cal of all helping dimensions. Without empathy

there is no basis for helping. (Carkhuff, l969c,
PP- 96. 82-83)

Research by Carkhuff, Gazda and their colleagues
indicates that these dimensions, particularly the primary con-
ditions, may be systematically taught to others so that their
levels of functioning increase significantly. An extensive
training program has been developed in which a highly facilita-
tive trainer interacts with a group of lO-I2 trainees and serves
the dual role of facilitator and model for the learners.
Initially, trainees are helped to recognize (discriminate) both
the thought, and the feeling content of stimulus statements which
are presented by the trainer and analyzed by the group as a whole.
Systematically the trainees are helped to discriminate in more
complex situations, e.g., one-to-one, role-playing. Finally,
they learn to communicate accurately and effectively through a

series of experiences which are also increasingly complex.

l2

Both Carkhuff and Gazda stress the value to learners of the
highly facilitative model and the opportunity for self-exploration
which group interaction provides.

With the identification of (I) core dimensions which
are essential to the helping process in a variety of interpersonal
relationships, (2) systematic training procedures and (3) behav-
iorally defined scales for rating individuals vis-aevis these
dimensions, it is logical to examine how preservice teachers might
be helped to use these dimensions in classroom interaction. More
specifically, how can young teachers be taught to be or helped to
become more empathic?

I. Can a module be designed which systematically teaches
learners to perceive (discriminate) others' thoughts and feelings
accurately and to respond (communicate) with statements which
convey understanding of others?

2. Can empathy, i.e., perceiving and responding to others'
statements accurately, be learned from a model presented in a
printed, modularized format?

3. Will preservice teachers be able to transfer what they
have learned from a module to classroom interaction?

4. Can preservice teachers learn to use empathic responses
not just with individuals but also with groups, as in a classroom?

5. Will students and cooperating teachers be able to
recognize increased understanding in student teachers who have
used an instructional module designed to teach them to communicate

empathically?

I3

Consideration of these questions led to the formation
of five hypotheses for further investigation, and, after assess-
ment instruments had been selected, to the criterion by which
each would be accepted. The individual instruments are discussed
in Chapter Three, and all are briefly described on Table 2 in
that same chapter. Contrary to scoring schemes frequently used
for rating instruments, on both the Student Teacher Rating Scale
and the Assessment Inventory low scores are most desirable. The
criteria for hypotheses two and three, therefore, stipulate that
scores for treatment subjects will be lgwgg than for control

subjects.

for acceptance of each are stated below.

IA

Hypotheses

The research hypotheses of this study and the criterion

Hypotheses

Treatment subjects will re- l.
spond to pupils in classroom
dialogue with statements

which reflect greater under-
standing than will control
subjects after ten weeks of
student teaching.

Treatment subjects will be 2.
seen by their c00perating

teachers as more understand-

ing of their pupils than

will control subjects.

Treatment subjects (second- 3.
ary) will be seen by their

pupils as more understand-

ing than will control sub-

jects (secondary)

The extent to which treat- A.
ment subjects respond with
understanding to pupils in

the classroom is related

to the rated empathy levels

of their c00perating

teachers.

The extent to which treat- 5.
ment subjects respond with
understanding to pupils in

the classroom is related to

their perception of the value

and usefulness of the

treatment module.

Criteria

Mean score of the treat-
ment subjects' teaching
as rated on the Carkhuff
Empathy Scale will be
significantly higher

(p <'.05) than that of
the control subjects.

Mean rating by cooperat-
ing teachers on the Stud-
ent Teacher Rating Scale
will be significantly
lower (p. < .05) for
treatment than for
control subjects.

Mean pupil response to
the Assessment Inventory
will be significantly
lower (p <..05) for
treatment than for
control subjects.

A significant (p ( .05)
correlation will exist
between the rating of
treatment subjects'
teaching and the Communi-
cation Index score of

their cooperating teachers
with both being rated on
the Carkhuff Empathy Scale.

A significant (p( .05)
positive correlation will
exist between the treat-
ment subjects' mean score
on the Module Evaluation
Form and their teaching
score as rated on the
Carkhuff Empathy Scale.

l5

Definition of Terms

 

To enhance the clarity of this report, terms used

repeatedly to convey specific meanings are defined below.

Cooperating teacher -

also supervising teacher, teacher-critic.

An elementary or secondary classroom teacher
employed by a school district who assists
and guides the work of a preservice teacher
during student teaching.

Core conditions - empathy, respect, genuineness, confrontation,

Empathy - the ability

concreteness, self-disclosure and immediacy.

to sensitively and accurately understand
another's thoughts and feelings in such a
manner as to communicate this understanding;
to sense another's “anger, fear or confusion
as if it were your own, yet without your own
anger, fear or confusion getting bound up in
it . . . .“ (Rogers, I957, p. 99) and to
express accurately to the other what it is
you sense.

Facilitative conditions - also primary conditions. Empathy

(understanding), positive regard (respect)
and congruence (genuineness).

Facilitative level - the point at which any core condition, when

Facilitator - one who

demonstrated by a helper, is at least
minimally helpful to another in understand-
ing and working through his/her own
situation.

assists and encourages another in self-
directed learning, problem-solving, self-
exploration and similar self-oriented
growth inducing activities.

Helpee - one who is receiving the assistance and encouragement

of a facilitator in exploring and solving
his own problems.

Helping relationship - “a relationship in which at least one of

the parties has the intent of promoting

the growth, development, maturity, improved
functioning, improved coping with life of
the other“ (Rogers, l96l, p. 39).

l6

Module - a learning packet, designed for individualized use by
students, which includes behaviorally
stated objectives and recommended learning
activities apprOpriate to each, means for
self-assessment and feedback, and assess-
ments with specified criteria for each
objective.

Preservice teacher - an individual actively involved in
preparation for elementary or secondary
teaching who has not yet become certified
to teach.

Pupils - learners attending elementary or secondary schools.

Student teacher - a preservice teacher engaged in a full-time
classroom teaching practicum under the
guidance and supervision of one or more
experienced teachers in a program super-
vised by college or university faculty.

Assumptions
This study is based upon the following assumptions:
l. The relationship between the teacher and a pupil or
group of pupils is normally a helping relationship in that it

is the teacher's intention to stimulate positive growth in pupils.

2. Teachers generally want to be understanding persons, and
want to be seen that way by their pupils.

3. Responding accurately to pupils' thoughts and feelings
is a useful dimension in the classroom, but it is not the only
way that teachers can apprOpriately respond to pupils.

h. Understanding or empathy in teacher behavior is a
dimension which permits, stimulates and/or facilitates positive
growth in pupils.

5. Given objective rating scales, cooperating teachers and

pupils are capable of assessing the extent to which student teach-

ers have demonstrated understanding of their pupils in the classroom.

l7

Limitations

 

The scope of this study was limited in the following
ways:

I. No attempt was made to relate subjects' ability to learn
more accurate empathic responses with personality and cognitive
variables such as global-analytic perceptual modes, intelligence,
self-actualization, self-concept, creativity or dogmatism and
rigidity.

2. Subjects for this study were selected from among students
participating in and oriented to an individualized, competency-
based teacher education program. Students enrolled in more
traditionally organized teacher-directed programs were not
studied.

3. Subjects were not randomly assigned to the treatment and
control groups, nor was it possible to use any variables as covari-
ants. This research is consequently quasi-experimental in nature.

A. Tape recordings of classroom interaction, from which some
of the data for this study were obtained, were made and provided
by the subjects. In spite of the instructions provided to the
subjects, the amount and nature of tape recorded material recorded
and submitted by each subject largely depended upon factors not

controlled by the researcher and varied among individuals.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE

Introduction

 

It has been within approximately the past ten years that
educators have begun to speak seriously of teaching as a helping

profession, and to explore the meaning of that concept in terms

 

of teacher role, teacher education and teacher-pupil relation-

ships. The fields of psychotherapy and of guidance and counsel-

ing have provided abundant evidence that individuals in these

helping professions who are empathic, respectful and genuine

make it possible for persons with serious personal problems to

understand themselves and their problems more fully and to de-

velop more wholesome attitudes and behaviors. The question

raised by educators is most logical: if these counselor charac-

teristics help troubled persons to become healthier and more

self-directed, would not the same characteristics in teachers

encourage children, faced with the normal problems implicit in

the learning and growing process, to become more self-directed,

more exploratory, more oriented to problem-solving, more confident

in their own capacity to find good answers to their own questions?
Because questions of this sort have been seriously

raised in only the past few years, research efforts in this

direction are rather limited. As might be expected, the findings

l8

l9

of studies which have been conducted are inconclusive and
sometimes contradictory. Nonetheless, evidence is beginning
to mount which indicates that facilitative teachers, who respond
to their pupils with empathy, regard and genuineness, help those
pupils to grow in positive ways, cognitively and affectively.
Aspy and Hadlock (I967) found, for instance, that
pupils with teachers who were highly facilitative showed six
times as much growth as measured by standardized achievement
tests as did pupils with less facilitative teachers. Aspy (I972)
found that pupils of high functioning teachers made significant
gains on standardized word and language subtests whereas pupils
of low functioning teachers did not. Data from a study by
Kratochvil, Carkhuff and Berenson (I969) appear to confirm this
finding. Stoffer (I970) reported that children with academic
difficulty and behavior problems gained significantly on
standardized achievement tests and decreased their problem be-
haviors when tutored by highly empathic volunteers. Lewis,
Lovell and Jesse (I965) discovered a significant positive cor-
relation between the extent to which children perceived facili-
tative characteristics in their teachers and their scores on
standardized tests. Christensen (I960) reported a significant
relationship between teacher warmth and children's scores on
vocabulary and arithmetic achievement tests. Hefele (l97l)
discovered that primary and secondary pupils of teachers trained

to be facilitative performed at significantly higher levels on

20

language and reading skills, motivation for learning and general
academic achievement. Aspy and Roebuck (I972) reported that
higher level thinking among pupils was found to be significantly
related to the positive regard demonstrated by their teachers.

Social relationships also appear to be affected by the
facilitative characteristics of teachers. For example, teachers
who are highly empathic were found to enjoy better relationships
with pupils and with other teachers (Berenson, I97l; Cyphers,
I973; Shaddock, I973). Pupils of highly facilitative teachers
were also found to be less frequently truant (Aspy 5 Hadlock,
I967).

While not conclusive, all of these studies suggest
that there is real promise in the belief that pupil growth may
be improved by increasing the facilitative characteristics of
teachers. Empathy, in particular, has been stressed as the most
crucial characteristic of all. Therefore, to examine more
closely not only the consequences of facilitative teaching, but
the means by which facilitative conditions may be strengthened

in teachers, is appropriate and timely.

2l

Scope of the Review

The literature of human relations is vast. Even the
literature addressing human relations and interactions within
the teaching-learning milieu is topically, quantitatively and
historically extensive. This review is, therefore, limited to
those aspects of the literature which focus upon the effect of
teacher-offered understanding, genuineness and respect upon
pupil development and behavior, and also those studies which
have investigated the ways in which these facilitative conditions,
particularly understanding, may be taught to or deveIOped in
teachers.

Within approximately the past decade considerable
interest has arisen among educators and researchers in studying
the interaction which occurs between teachers and pupils. The
assumption is that it is within the dynamic teacher-pupil rela-
tionship, rather than within the activities of teachers or the
activities of pupils per se, that clues may be found about the
effects one has on the other. The development and refinement
of the Flanders System of Interaction Analysis has provided a
practical yet precise instrument for the assessment of verbal
classroom behaviors, and the very availability of this system
seems to have stimulated a good bit of the current interest in
studying verbal interaction. Moreover, one senses a general
agreement abroad in the educational literature that perhaps one
reason the large amount of research on teaching and teacher

education has generated such a limited number of new ideas,

22

perspectives and conceptualizations is that those behaviors of
teachers and/or pupils chosen for study have been too global,
too complex, too undifferentiated. The examination of small bits
of interaction for particular patterns, behaviors or relation-
ships between the component parts appears to be a promising ave-
nue for research. A number of studies reviewed in this chapter
used such an approach in examining the relationship between
teacher understanding and other variables.
Notes on Terminology

Some clarification of the terminology used in the ensuing
discussion may be helpful. Understanding, respect and genuine-
ness are used interchangeably with the terms empathy, positive
regard and congruence, respectively. These three dimensions to-
gether are called the facilitative or primary conditions. Con—
sidered with self-disclosure, concreteness, confrontation and
immediacy, they are collectively termed the core conditions.
Five-point rating scales have been developed for the mensuration
of each. Since empathy is considered the most fundamental of
all these dimensions, an empathy scale (such as that devised by
Truax, by Carkhuff or by Aspy) is most often used in research.
On all of these five-point scales, level three (3.0) represents
a minimally helpful or facilitative level of functioning, with
higher scores indicating more facilitative behavior and lower
scores less. A change of one level indicates a change in the
level of functioning from one full number to the next, e.g.,

from l.5 to 2.5. Teachers with scores on any scales below level

23

three are often classified as low, low functioning, low condition
or less facilitative teachers. Antonyms of these descriptors are
used with teachers rated at three or above. Occasionally a
single score is obtained for subjects based on separate ratings
for understanding, respect and genuineness; such a mean score is
called a gross facilitative score or rating. Empathic under-
standing, as examined in this study, involves two related skills:
perceiving or distinguishing helpful responses and behaviors from
unhelpful ones, and generating or producing helpful responses to
statements made by others. These two skills are sometimes
measured separately on either the Discrimination Index or the
Communication Index.

Correlational Studies

Correlational studies examine naturally occurring
differences on independent variables and do not involve deliber-
ate treatment. There is a small group of such studies that
tentatively suggests that when some or all of the three facili-
tative conditions are present in teacher behaviors there are
noticeable, measurable differences in pupils.

Aspy (I972) rated a group of elementary school teachers
on the conditions of understanding, genuineness and respect, and
also administered five subtests of the Stanford Achievement Test
to their pupils, once in September and again in May. The pupils
of high condition teachers showed significant gains on word

meaning, paragraph meaning, word study skills and language,

2h

whereas those of low contion teachers did not. In a similar
investigation Aspy and Hadlock (I967) reported that pupils of
the highest functioning teacher showed an average gain of two
and a half academic years as measured by achievement test scores
during the course of one academic year. Over the same period of
time pupils of the lowest functioning teacher showed an average
gain of six months. In addition, an inverse relationship was
discovered between level of teacher functioning and pupil
truancy.

These findings were supported by Stoffer's (I970) study
of 35 mothers who, although not professionally educated as teach-
ers, volunteered to tutor elementary school pupils who were
experiencing academic difficulty and behavior problems in school.
A significant correlation of .37 was found to exist between the
tutors' rated empathy and the children's gain scores on standard-
ized achievement tests; the relationship which existed between
tutor empathy and decreases in problem behavior of the children
was positive but was not statistically significant.

Standardized achievement tests, with their preponderance
of recall questions, demand little of pupils beyond memory and
recognition. Since the facilitative conditions in teachers appear
to be correlated with knowledge as a “product“ variable, Aspy
and Roebuck (I972) investigated their relationship with a I'process"
variable, the differentiated levels of cognitive functioning among

elementary school pupils in the classroom. They discovered that

25

the only facilitative condition significantly correlated with
higher level thinking across all grade levels studied was posi-
tive regard. “Taken together, the two studies [Aspy, Aspy E
Roebuck] seem to indicate that all three interpersonal conditions
facilitate Cognitive gain but that once the cognitive processes
move beyond Level I, positive regard is more directly facilitative
of cognitive functioning or 'thinking' as a process within the
instructional situation'l (p. 366).

If, as Rogers and others have stated, high levels of
these three dimensions exist in those psychotherapeutic relation-
ships which facilitate the greatest positive growth in clients,
then it is reasonable to hypothesize that pupils who perceive a
relationship with their teacher that is in the direction of an
ideal psychotherapeutic relationship will make greater academic
gains than those who do not perceive such a relationship. Lewis,
Lovell and Jesse (I965) developed a Teacher-Pupil Relationship
Inventory based upon Hiene's statements of an ”ideal” psycho-
therapeutic relationship. (Some of the items which seem to de-
scribe teacher empathy, or a feeling in the respondent of being
understood, are very similar to items in the Dixon and Morse
Empathy Assessment Inventory which was used in the present study.
Sample T-P.R.l. items: ”I had the feeling that here was one
person I could really trust“; ”The teacher always seemed to know
what I was trying to get across to him.”) A significant positive

correlation existed between the sixth graders'perceptions of

26

their relationship with their teacher and their scores on the
Iowa Test of Basic Skills subtests.
Results such as those obtained by Lewis et al. verify

Flanders' (I959) view:

. . . teachers share with therapists the need to

establish rapport with the total class and with

individual students, to understand student feel-

ings and attitudes, and to make constructive use

of emotional energy in order to accomplish

work . . . . The most successful teachers un-

doubtedly develop a sensitivity to the ideas and

feelings of students that is quite similar to
the sensitivities of a therapist. (p. 30)

A similar observation was made by Carkhuff and Truax (I966) who
wrote that
. . . those teachers who are facilitative, who)
”hook'l the students in a lifelong learning and
growing process involving or leading to self-
exploration, self-direction and dependence and
self-realization . . . are not unlike the

effective counselors, those who provide the
highest levels of these facilitative conditions.

(.9. 726)

Christensen (I960) found that the vocabulary and
arithmetic achievement of fourth graders as measured by standard-
ized tests was significantly related to only one affective teacher
variable considered--warmth. Both Morgan (l97h) and Christenberry
(I975) examined the relationship between demonstrated levels of
empathic understanding and teaching effectiveness as judged by
supervisors; the former studied student teachers of emotionally
disturbed children in two states and the latter, paraprofessional
teacher-trainees of young children. Neither researcher found any

significant correlation between the two variables.

27

Not all researchers have discovered significant
relationships between the facilitative conditions demonstrated
by teachers and pupil achievement and/or behavior. White (I969)
tried, but failed, to replicate the findings of the Aspy study
with pupils in special education classes using a two-year gain
score on the Metropolitan Achievement Tests Battery as the
dependent variable.

An extensive investigation of 80 fifth grade pupils,
their parents and their past and present teachers was conducted
by Kratochvil, Carkhuff and Berenson in I969. These researchers
examined the cumulative effects of the facilitative conditions
provided by parents and teachers upon the intellectual, emotional
and physical functioning of the children. The relationships be-
tween variables were not significant, nor did they approach
significance. The only area in which pupils of high functioning
teachers demonstrated significantly more growth than those of
low functioning teachers was in reading achievment, and then only
when: (I) growth in reading ability was crucial (grades one
through three) and (2) the highest functioning teacher was
functioning at about 3.00, a minimally facilitative level. In
comparison, ASpy was studying third grade pupils whose teachers
were rated during reading lessons and who were tested on reading,
vocabulary and comprehension subtests. Moreover, the average
empathy level of the high functioning teachers be studied was h.O.

The highest level of teacher functioning across three facilitative

28

conditions in the Kratochvil study was 3.75. These two studies
corroborate one another insofar as they underscore the influence
which highly facilitative teachers have upon reading, and by
extrapolation upon the language and the concept development of
primary school children.

Collectively, these correlational studies seem to
suggest several things. First, teacher understanding, respect
and genuineness are helpful but not sufficient components of the
teaching-learning situation. It appears that other unidentified
variables may be operating so that they either encourage or block
the efficient utilization of these dimensions in pupil learning.
Second, it is the verbal skills of pupils which are most affected
by the presence of facilitative conditions in the classroom.
Third, teachers must function well above what is ”average” or
”normal“ in providing the facilitative conditions before notice-
able results accrue in pupil performance. Of the studies cited
above, only Aspy reported teachers in the sample who functioned
well above I'normal".

Empathic Understanding and "Good'l Teachers

Exactly what constitutes "good'I teaching is a moot
point, and yet individuals seem to be able to agree to a remark-
able extent on what ”good” teachers do that is effective. So
pervasive is this agreement that one investigation (Combs, I965)
revealed that teachers judged as “poor” by ordinary standards

knew equally as well as those judged ”good“ what a good teaching

29

situation ought to be like! “Apparently,“ Combs noted, ”everyone
knows what a good helping relationship ggght to be like even if
he cannot produce it“ (p. I8).

Understanding is a quality often mentioned by individuals
in describing effective teachers. One of the four most frequently
mentioned reasons for liking “Teacher A” best as reported by
3,725 high school seniors was “interested in and understands
pupils” (Hamachek, I972, p. 232). In summarizing a number of com-
prehensive studies Hamachek concluded, ”. . . when it comes to
classroom behavior, interaction patterns, and teaching styles,
teachers who are superior in encouraging motivation and learning
in students seem to exhibit . . . [the] capacity to perceive the
‘world from the student's point of view" (p. 237). He also sug-
gested (I969) that, “What seems to make a difference [between
good and poor teachers] is the teacher's personal style in 22m:

municating what he knows” (p. 3Al). Taken together these two

 

observations show a remarkable similarity to the way in which
Carkhuff and Truax define empathy: the ability to sensitively
and accurately understand another's thoughts and feelings in such
a manner as to communicate this understanding.

Dixon and Morse (l96l) asked 2000 secondary pupils to
rate their student teachers on an Empathy Assessment Inventory,
and also to make a global rating of their ”goodness'I as teachers.
The student teachers with the best empathy ratings were seen by

their pupils as being significantly better teachers. Similar

30

results obtained when the c00perating teachers were asked to rate
the same student teachers on teaching effectiveness.

The kind of understanding or empathy being described by
pupils and teachers in these studies seems to be substantially
different from a teacher's understanding of pupils in the sense
of knowing about them. Indeed, cognitive or intellectual under-
standing of pupils appears to be unrelated to teacher effective-
ness as seen by those same pupils (Gage, I958). After studying
a group of ninth grade pupils, Lewis and Wigel (l96h) wrote:

We see that the important aspect of interpersonal
relations that we call understanding is not
essentially determined by intellectual knowledge
of the subject being understood as measured in
this study. The feeling of being understood is,
however, accompanied by the belief that the under-
stander shares with the subject some subtle aspects
of his outlooks and beliefs . . . . These ideas
suggest that if we intend to stimulate in others a
feeling of being understood, it is not important
that we gain considerable information about them
but rather that we help them see that we are able
to perceive other persons and situations as they
do. (p. l58)

Gazda (l97l) has stated quite simply the essence of the
relationship between empathic understanding and good teaching.
”If a student is to learn from a teacher he must be valued by
that teacher; he must be understood by that teacher; and the teach-
er must be able to communicate with him . . . ” (p. 50).

Experimental Studies

If empathic understanding in the teacher facilitates

growth and development in pupils, the next question is obvious.

How can empathic understanding be taught to or developed in

teachers? The answers to that question seem to be numerous.

3l

An overview of the literature shows that while some
individuals and/or institutions concentrate upon teaching pre-
service teachers specific discrimination and communication skills
necessary for demonstrating the kind of understanding described
by Rogers and Carkhuff, others have subsumed the teaching—
learning of empathy under broader more inclusive programs. Modes
for increasing empathic understanding and improving interpersonal
skills in teachers which have been cited in the literature
include: academic study, e.g., term paper, lecturing; programmed
texts; cassettes with printed materials; role-playing; dyadic
programmed instruction; systematic media-feedback approach using
microteaching and laboratory facilities; videotape teacher model-
ing of target behaviors; direct experiences with children in
recreational/social settings; T-groups, sensitivity and human re-
lations training sessions; affective training experiences
(unspecified); an l8-hour workshop over a long weekend; an eight-
week block as part of a course; a SA-hour course on Interpersonal
Relations Training; a component of a two-year secondary teacher
education program; Gordon's Teacher Effectiveness Training pro-
gram; the Northern Systems Company sociodrama training program;
and the Carkhuff method, Systematic Human Relations Training Model
for Lay Helpers. This is not an exhaustive list nor are the items
contained in it necessarily mutually exclusive, but it does illus-
trate the diversity of the approaches being used in the affective
education of teachers. As Jones (I973) pointed out, teachers may

be educated in interpersonal skills in several ways: through

32

direct human relations skills development, and through facilitating
their personal growth as individuals. The modes listed above re-
flect a thrust in one or the other of these directions.

Multiple Method Experiments

 

Investigators have attempted to compare the relative
effectiveness of several modes of instruction. Dell (I967) exam-
ined the impact of role-playing and of lecturing about empathy
on college sophomores in a Human Growth and Development class, and
determined that both methods were ineffective in increasing empa-
thic ability in students.

Thorman (I968) compared the relative effectiveness of
three methods of training prospective teachers in interpersonal
skills: academic study of interpersonal relations with the writing
of a term paper on the topic, laboratory training in human rela-
tions with a T-group trainer, and professional pre-student teach-
ing laboratory experiences which placed students with groups of
secondary school age youngsters in recreational/social settings.
Data indicated that these three forms of training did not differ-
entially affect the pre-student teachers' attitudes or behavioral
characteristics. One year later Stedfeld (I969) studied the
classroom behaviors of Thorman's subjects and found no difference
in how members of the three groups used interpersonal skills in
their teaching.

Bidwell (I966) hypothesized that preservice secondary
teachers who participated in dyadic programmed instruction would

demonstrate greater increases in empathic understanding,

33

congruence and regard than those who were taught by other
(unspecified) methods, but the data did not support that hypoth-
esis. No one instructional pattern was found to be more effective
for teaching these three dimensions than any other.

More noticeable differences accrued in studies in which
the content and/or the organization of the learning procedure
was more precisely delineated than they appear to be in the stud-
ies mentioned above. In an investigation by Cyphers (I973),
student teachers in three groups were exposed to (I) an empathic
video teacher model, (2) an empathic model presented in a pro-
grammed text and (3) a text of pupil statements only, without a
teacher model. Exercises were provided by which subjects could
l'respond" to the model and practice what they had learned. Rat-
ings of empathy were made by observing the classroom teaching of
the subjects both before and after treatment. Student teachers
exposed to the video teacher model showed the greatest increase
in empathy, however both groups (I) and (2) were significantly
superior to group (3) subjects on this dimension. Moreover,
both pupils and cooperating teachers perceived student teachers
in groups (I) and (2) as having significantly more understanding
relationships with pupils than those in group (3). This study
provides evidence that empathy can be effectively taught to
teachers through both video and printed modeling and, of equal
importance, that the empathic skills so learned can be effect-

ively transferred to and used in classroom interaction.

3h

Also working with student teachers, Shaddock (I973)
provided eight hours of training for one group using the Carkhuff
Systematic Human Relations Training Model for Lay Helpers and for
another group using the Northern Systems Company's sociodrama
training program. A control group received no training. Both
treatments were found to produce significantly higher levels of
facilitative functioning than did no treatment and, likewise,
secondary pupils perceived that better relationships existed be-
tween themselves and the treatment subjects than with the control
subjects. No superiority was found for one method over the other.

Although involving undergraduate psychology students
rather than education majors, a study by Payne, Weiss and Kapp
(I972) provides data which not only help to explain some of the
variations in the findings cited above, but also suggest some
bases upon which effective instructional procedures may be de-
signed. This investigation was conducted to determine the rela-
tive efficaciousness of didactic, experiential and modeling
factors in the learning of empathy. The subjects were grouped
across the variables such that a variety of treatment combina-
tions resulted, and the subjects were rated for empathic under-
standing on the basis of their verbal responses to taped stimulus
statements. All subjects who had received didactic instruction
responded with greater empathy than those who had not, but sub-
jects with pgip didactic instruction and highly facilitative

models performed with considerably more empathy than subjects

35

receiving any other combination of instructional modes. In other
words, it helps students to learn empathy if the teacher informs
the learners of what to do and how to do it, and then demonstrates
very well the kind of behavior expected of them.
Carkhuff (l969b) repeatedly wrote of the importance of
modeling in learning interpersonal skills.
By and large traditional training programs have
focused upon secondary dimensions exclusively,
that is, upon one or the other potential preferred
mode of treatment which they have assumed to be
preeminent. Similarly, the traditional programs
have tended to be exclusively didactic . . . or
experiential . . . . The modeling source of
learning has been universally neglected . . . .
The results obtained in studies of a host of
lower-level training programs have demonstrated
the effectiveness of integrating the didactic,
experiential and modeling aspects of learning
around primary core conditions [enpathy, respect,
genuineness] . (pp. I5I-l52)

And again,
. . . the trainer is the key ingredient insofar
as he offers a model of apperson who is living
effectively. (p. 20l)

If the presence of a high level model is vital for the
effective internalization of interpersonal skills by learners,
then considerable care should be given by program designers toward
incorporating such models. Whether or not the model must be a live
individual with whom learners may interact, as Carkhuff implies,
is another matter. Cyphers' findings provide evidence that a
highly empathic model presented in a programmed format (with

which the learner may interact) is effective in raising the level

of learner empathy. Dillard (l97h) used modeling in audio tapes

36

and Huber (I972) used film models. Both stimulated significant
growth in the interpersonal functioning of preservice teachers.

Viewed as a whole, these comparative studies suggest
several generalizations. First, the educational procedure
should be specific in the instructional techniques it employs.
Students involved in such programs should know clearly the goal
they are expected to reach and the appropriate sequence of steps
for reaching it. Second, when the aggregate skills and/or con-
tent to be learned are specific and apparent, they are more
effectively learned. Third, the method per se is perhaps not
as critical a variable as the two points mentioned above, nor
as variables such as the length of treatment time, the opportun-
ity for learner involvement, practice and feedback, or the extent
to which the learner recognizes a meaningful relationship between
what is being learned and its value as a teaching skill. Fourth,
those procedures which provide highly facilitative models will
be most likely to stimulate higher levels of functioning in
learners.
Carkhuff Model

Probably the mode most frequently used in research
studies for increasing the level of empathic understanding in
both preservice and inservice teachers is the Carkhuff model,
”. . . a systematic, experiential training program which is de-
signed to teach trainees to communicate appropriate levels of
empathy, respect, genuineness, concreteness, confrontation, and

immediacy in human interaction” (Jones, I973, p. 5).

37

The sequence of training moves from a didactic/
experiential format to one in which the communications generated
by the learner are stressed. Initially the learners are assessed
.upon their ability to discriminate and to communicate effective
responses. Following discussion of desirable helper character-
istics and the conditions necessary for a helping relationship,
the learners are taught how to judge the effectiveness of inter-
personal communications and how to identify emotional states from
vocal expressions. Eventually the learners practice making their
own responses, first by writing replies in simulated situations
and later by responding in actual situations. Finally a post-
treatment assessment of discrimination and communication ability
is administered to each learner.

Dillard (I974) summarized the Carkhuff model in this
way:

This ten-step training sequence consists of NO to 60
hours of training. A salient feature of this model

is the planned, graduated degree of difficulty of the
skills involved. The mode of communication goes from
written to oral responses. Both the number and length
of responses are gradually increased. The helping
situations move from simulation or role-playing to
real situations. (p. 90)

It was from this basic format that Gazda and others
developed a training sequence specifically for educators. Their
sequence incorporates the written-oral response and the simulated-

actual situation continua found in the Carkhuff model. In addition,

the importance of minimal stress upon learners and the use of

38

volitional responses from learners are emphasized.
An effective trainer must model high levels of
perceptual acuity and be able to respond at a
high level. Therefore, the effective trainer
arranges the training program along the same
dimensions that are essential for_helping. A
sequence that reduces threat and shows respect
for the security of the trainee is outlined . . . .
The same sequence can be used to train for per-
ceiving and for responding. Essentially, the
procedure is to move from the least threatening
procedures to those more threatening as greater
exposure of the trainee is introduced. (Gazda
et al.. l973. PP- 45-46) ‘

The Gazda training sequence begins by having learners
anonymously identify the surface feelings of a stimulus state-
ment, and having the group and trainer together rate the level
of each identification on an appropriate scale. The same rating
procedure is used as participants learn to identify both affect
and content in written and role-played statements. Learners
then provide personally relevant statements to which other
learners respond by labeling the affect and content. Finally
the participants respond to student volunteers who provide ”safe“
personally relevant stimulus statements. This last step in the
sequence is repeated a number of times with the statements moving
from surface to deeper more complex kinds of material. It is in
the Carkhuff, and especially the Gazda, models that the genesis
of the module format developed for the present study may be found.
Single Method Eyperiments

Use of the Carkhuff model with teachers appears to be

quite successful in stimulating both teacher and pupil behaviors

which have been associated with a productive learning process.

39

When student teachers are systematically trained first to
discriminate (recognize) and then to communicate (respond)
at facilitative levels of empathic understanding and other
facilitative dimensions, various results may be observed, not
only in their own classroom functioning, but in that of their
pupils as well. After training periods ranging from 20 to 32
hours, student teachers showed significant positive changes in
levels of facilitative interpersonal functioning as measured by
written responses to the Communication Index (Berenson, I97l;
Norton, I973; Shaddock, I973) and as measured by videotape
ratings of their teaching (Hefele, l97l). They were also seen
as being more competent teachers who established better rela-
tionships with pupils by their cooperating teachers (Berenson),
their pupils (Berenson, Shaddock) and their college supervisors
(Berenson). In verbal classroom interaction, student teachers
who had been trained by this method, compared to those who had
not, gave significantly more praise and encouragement to pupils,
accepted and clarified pupils' feelings and ideas more, criti-
cized less and placed less emphasis on the subject matter content
of lessons--all teaching patterns which have been shown in pre-
vious research to be positively related to pupil growth (Amidon
8 Flanders, I967). Moreover, they were more capable at solving
problems in planning, management and teacher-pupil relations as
measured by a Teaching Situation Reaction Test (Berenson).
While treatment subjects in the Berenson study did not

rate themselves any more highly on general teaching competency

40

than the control subjects did, those whom Hefele studied who
were functioning at higher levels clearly were able to assess
competency in their co0perating teachers. They selected
teacher-critics as practicum supervisors who were functioning

at significantly higher levels. They also opted to work in
classes where there was a normally high level of process in-
volvement by students. From these results it may be inferred
that student teachers who have been trained in interpersonal
skills find stimulation and satisfaction in those environments
where they are most likely to be able to use such skills and

to experience others using them as well. Hefele's finding that
treatment subjects succeeded in eliciting higher levels of in-
volvement from their pupils is consistent with Ryans' (l96l)
earlier observation that teacher behavior judged as “understand-
ing and friendly” is positively and highly associated with
observed ”purposeful and productive” pupil behaviors. Teachers
who understand their pupils, and show it, seem to be able to get
children ”into" the subject to be learned and to help those chil-
dren sustain on-task behaviors.

One of the findings in the Hefele study of greatest
practical significance was the academic growth of both elementary
and secondary pupils of teachers trained with the Carkhuff model
to increase their facilitative characteristics. These pupils
achieved significantly higher levels of performance on language
and reading skills, motivation for learning, general academic

achievement and satisfactoriness of achievement than pupils of

Al

untrained teachers. Performance levels in this study were
derived from ratings by school supervisors.

Two studies using the Carkhuff model with inservice
teachers are included in this discussion because of the con-
flicting, and potentially useful, results reported in them.

Bierman, Carkhuff and Santilli (cited in Peck & Tucker,
I973) conducted a brief empathic training program for preschool
teachers, social workers, non-professional teacher aides and
family assistants, all of whom were involved in Head Start pro-
grams. Didactic instruction was minimized, but a high empathy
trainer worked with the participants and provided quasi-thera-
peutic experiences for them as the program proceeded. Although
the training period was short, the participants as a group in-
creased their empathic sensitivity from a ”. . . starting level
where they essentially ignored others' feelings [near l.O]
to an average posttraining level where they achieved a high
degree of reflective responsiveness to others' feelings [over 3.01”
(p. 959). The figures, inserted by the writer, refer to rating
points on the Carkhuff Empathy Scale. They illustrate the dramat-
ic and remarkable growth shown by the professional and non-profes-
sional participants alike in this program. In comparison, the
mean gain in functioning across the three facilitative conditions
for treatment subjects in the Berenson study was one full level,
and in the Hefele study, a little over half a level.

Miller (l97l) conducted a long weekend of interpersonal

relations skills training with eight volunteer elementary teachers.

#2

Although the subjects learned to discriminate and communicate
empathic responses more effectively, as measured by the Carkhuff
lndices, they were not able to use those skills in classroom
interactions. Both the treatment and control groups regressed

in interpersonal functioning in the classroom over the two week
period following the training program. Since both groups simul-
taneously regressed, it is reasonable to assume that some external
confounding variable, perhaps something within the school system
for which they worked, was affecting all the subjects. Nonethe-
less, the fact that treatment subjects who were already experienced,
professional teachers regressed underscores once again the neces-
sity for incorporating transfer-facilitating activities and experi-
ences into interpersonal relations skills programs.

The summary which Berenson (l97l) wrote seems aptly to
describe the studies discussed above which have incorporated the
Carkhuff training model.

This study appears to support the efficacy of a

human relations training program in a teacher
education context. Specifically, training which
focuses on the conditions of empathy, positive

regard, genuineness, concreteness, immediacy,
significant other references, and confrontation

and which systematically employs the experiential,
didactic and modeling sources of learning has been
shown to be significantly related to a wide vari-

ety of desirable outcomes for teacher trainees. (p. 8l)

Teacher Effectiveness Training (T.E.T), a procedure
developed by Gordon, is similar to the Carkhuff model in that

it stresses discrimination between helpful and non-helpful teach-

er responses and also teaches participants non-directive feedback

1+3

skills or ”active listening.“ It is dissimilar insofar as the
primary learning modes are didactic and experiential, with
modeling playing a secondary role. There are several features
of T.E.T. which make it unique. The notion of determining who
owns the problem is central to subsequent decisions about who

to help and what helping responses to make. Attention is also
given to techniques through which environments may be modified
in order to reduce the likelihood of conflicts and through which
interpersonal conflicts may be resolved.

The T.E.T. sequence first sensitizes participants to
“non-therapeutic” responses that teachers usually make, and then
establishes the notion of acceptance or non-acceptance of an-
other's behavior through written responses to simulated situa-
Itions. Learning to decide who owns the problem is followed by
practice in ”active listening” (non-directive feedback skill)
and in confrontation skill which permits the modification of be-
havior of others that is unacceptable to the teacher. Finally,
instruction is given on how to modify the environment to prevent
problems, how to resolve conflicts in a “no-lose” way and how to
deal with “value collisions.“

Using the sequence above with preservice teachers,
Dillard required each subject to make weekly five-minute audio-
tapes of problem-centered discussions with a younger child.
These l2 tapes were used both as deveIOpmentaI activities for
subjects and, ultimately, as study data which were rated. As

evidenced by the preservice teacher's response on tape to an

41.

individual pupil, Teacher Effectiveness Training was an
efficacious means of assisting teachers to use more facilitative
responses when communicating with students, and fewer non-
facilitative responses when reacting to problem messages from
students. Dillard does not define his use of the word “facili-
tative“, but both the criterion measure for the tape ratings

and the emphasis in the training sequence on non-directive feed-
back skills suggest a level three response on the Carkhuff
Empathy Scale.

The Teaching Problems Laboratory films by Donald
Cruickshank were the independent variable in a study by Huber
(I972) of I60 elementary and secondary education pupils. Sub-
jects who had viewed the films later achieved empathy scores on
the Affective Sensitivity Scale which were significantly higher
than those of control subjects. In spite of this statistically
significant score differential, the question of transfer to the
classroom remains. Can these treatment subjects use what they
-have learned in a teaching-learning situation? The Affective
Sensitivity Scale measures the empathic understanding represented
by subject-generated responses to filmed counselor-client inter-
actions. The situations depicted in the film show counseling
relationships which are not directly geared to the educational
setting. Considering the difficulty which frequently arises when
student teachers try to apply campus-acquired skills in field-

based settings, it would seem desirable to use instructional

#5

materials, practice-feedback activities and criterion measures
which have a teacher-pupil orientation.

Multiple microteaching sessions, which were audio- or
videotaped and interspersed with training sessions, are reported
by several investigators working with preservice teachers. Some
human relations or “counseling" skills (Burns, l97h) which had
been previously identified by lvey--“attending behavior, open
invitation to talk, minimal encourages [535], reflection of
feeling and paraphrasing'(abstract, p. 276l)-- were sequent-‘
ially practiced and mastered by learners using an inflexible
regimen: (I) initial videotaping, (2) analysis of tape with
supervisor, (3) strategy changes and practice, (A) second video-
taping, (5) tape observation, discussion and feedback with super-
visor. This sequence was used by each subject in a one-to-one
counseling situation, with a small group and, as a part of the
regular student teaching experience, with a large group of pupils.
This program of systematic practice-feedback and highly specific
content led to a significant increase in the classroom use of
the skills mentioned above. This system is unique in that trans-
fer-facilitating activities and experiences are an intrinsic part
of the sequence. The skills, reflection of feeling and paraphras-
ing, appear to be closely related to the “active listening” or
non-directive feedback skills in the Teacher Effectiveness Training
program, and to the level three empathic response in the Carkhuff

model.

1,5

Waggener (l97l) reported the use of a “specially
structured group experience,“ designed to increase the empathy,
genuineness and positive regard exhibited by student teachers,
which was interspersed with laboratory microteaching over a
period of three successive weeks. While the changes in these
three facilitative conditions was greater for treatment subjects
than for control subjects, the change was not significant.
Although the nature of the group experience is not shown, this
result suggests once again that the method per se is probably
not as critical a variable as the specificity of the program
content, objectives and sequence. A comparison of the use of
the microteaching technique in the Burns and Waggener studies

illustrates this point.

Considerations for Teacher Educators

The difficulties involved in transferring interpersonal
relations skills from the laboratory where they are learned to
the classroom where they are used is a problem to which program
designers and teacher educators must attend. It is simply not
enough to be able to recognize helpful teacher behavior nor to
know the mechanics of facilitative responses nor, even, to be
able to use them with one or several learners in artificial situ-
ations which are removed from the classroom milieu.

It is erroneous to assume that because a teacher can
recognize the differences between helpful and not helpful teacher

responses s/he can consequently provide facilitative interactions

A7

with pupils in the classroom. Discrimination appears to be a
necessary but insufficient condition for communication. Using
the Index of Discrimination, therefore, as a measure of func-
tional teacher empathy is inappropriate and misleading. Indeed,
it is questionable to what extent the Index of Communication,
which requires respondent-generated responses to less than a
dozen statements, accurately reflects the mean level of function-
ing of the classroom teacher over a period of weeks and months.
Lueder (I973) measured teachers' discrimination levels on the
Index of Discrimination and found no relationship between their
scores and the way junior high school pupils perceived the qual-
ity of their relationships with those teachers. His findings
are consistent with Carkhuff's (l966a) observation.

Perhaps the major clinical problem confronting the

helping profession involves the communication/

discrimination differential . . . . One can only

conjecture concerning the underlying dynamics of

why people cannot translate discrimination into

communication, a problem not unrelated to the

insight/action discrepancy in client treatment.

It simply cannot be assumed that a high level of

discrimination translates itself into communiCa-

tion. Perhaps more behavioristic means must be

employed to successfully achieve the desired

training goal of high-level communication. (p. I30)

Such remarks suggest that training procedures which

necessitate repeated interaction with the target population,
rather than with just peer learners, would be useful in helping

teachers transfer newly acquired skills to the classroom and use

them effectively in communicating with pupils. Furthermore, if

A8

such mandatory interaction were accompanied by immediate feedback
coupled with opportunities to interact again using strategies
modified by that feedback, chances of decreasing the discrimination/
communication differential seem likely.

Consideration should also be given by teacher educators
to the indicators, albeit few indicators, that secondary school
pupils may react differently than younger pupils to the facilita-
tive qualities demonstrated by their teachers. When Ryans (l96l)
twice investigated the relationship between ”understanding,
friendly“ teacher behavior and ”purposeful and productive” pupil
behavior, he found both times that the relationship for secondary
pupils was considerably less strong than for elementary school
pupils; indeed, in one study he found no relationship between
these variables and the older pupils. Similarly, Lewis, Lovell
and Jesse (I965) studied sixth and ninth grade pupils to determine
if there was a significant positive correlation between their
gains on achievement tests and the extent to which they viewed
their relationship with their teacher as congruent with an ”ideal“
psychotherapeutic relationship. They found the correlation, but
only with the sixth graders. Obviously there are so many differ-
ences between the environments and relationships experienced by
elementary and secondary students that broad generalizations can-
not be made. For example, the fact that elementary pupils
customarily spend many hours a day--the bulk of their school

time--with one teacher while secondary pupils rarely spend more

A9

than an hour a day with one teacher is a plausible explanation
for the evidence offered by these two studies. It may be that
older pupils are every bit as sensitive to and affected by em-
pathic teachers as younger ones, but they have less opportunity
to come in contact with and be influenced by those teachers. If
this guess were correct, then more, not less, emphasis should be
placed on raising the level of empathic understanding among
secondary teachers across a wide range of subject fields.

There is little evidence available concerning the
extent to which interpersonal skills, once learned by teachers,
hold up and are Operational over a period of time. If transfer
during the learning process is facilitated and the level of com-
munication is initially high, then it might be assumed that the
teacher would use, continue to use and be reinforced for using
those skills over a period of time. This is, however, merely an
assumption. The only study involving repeated measures found by
the writer was one conducted by Bender (l97h) with guidance
trainees. Using didactic instruction with one group of subjects
and programmed materials accompanied by cassettes with the other,
Bender examined the empathic level of written responses to verbal
stimulus statements by subjects in both groups after two weeks
and, again, after four weeks. He concluded that both approaches
were successful in respect to both short and long term effects,
and that there was no significant regression for either group

over the four week span. Nonetheless, a four week duration can

SO

hardly be considered a long term in relation to the months, and
sometimes years, which elapse between the time of teacher prep-
aration and the time when teaching skills are regularly used in
classroom interaction. Campbell and Stanley (I963) noted that
“. . . long term effects are not only quantitatively different,
but also qualitatively different,” and cautioned against
”. . . pinning all of our experimental evaluation of teaching
methods on immediate posttests or measures at any single point
in time“ (p. 3I). Considering how little is known about the
retention of interpersonal skills such as empathic understanding,
research employing repeated measures over extended time would be
both useful and timely.

The extent to which the acquired interpersonal skills
of teachers hold up over time is not the only concern. How do
children, once stimulated and helped by a highly facilitative
teacher, fare when exposed thereafter to lower functioning
teachers? Again, there is little evidence, but the study by
Kratochvil et al. (I969) cited earlier does give a clue. These
researchers examined the cumulative effect upon children's
intellectual, physical and emotional functioning of the facili-
tative conditions provided by both their parents and teachers.
Teachers whom the children had had throughout their first five
years of school were included in the study. No significant rela-
tionships between any of the variables were found. The children's

reading achievement when they were in grades one through three,

5I

however, was significantly greater when they were taught by
highly facilitative teachers. Taking these results together,
one might infer that the growth experienced by the children when
they were with high level teachers dissipated as they subse-
quently responded to lower level teachers. Perhaps teachers who
participate in programs to increase their interpersonal skills
should be made aware of the possible later deterioration in
pupil performance and be taught additional skills so that they
could systematically prepare pupils for handling future experi-
ences which will not be helpful, but will be retarding to their
growth (Carkhuff, l969c).

Finally, attention should be given to the way in which
interaction between student teachers and their respective co-
operating teachers affects the empathy level of each. Underhill

(I968) found that generally a student teacher's empathy level

moved toward the empathy level of the cooperating teacher. Hefele

(l97l) emphasized the reciprocal nature of the relationship. While

 

he reported that the level of student teacher functioning increased

as expected, he also found a deteriorative change in the average

level of functioning of the cooperating teachers. Such interaction

could have multiple causes; nonetheless a clearer understanding

of the dynamics of such a professional dyad would be most desirable

and useful for designers of teacher education programs.

52

Summar

Although research findings are mixed and are certainly
not conclusive, both correlational and experimental studies pro-
vide evidence that when teachers show facilitative levels of
empathy, as well as genuineness and respect, in interactions with
their pupils, positive, desirable behaviors on the part of both
teachers and pupils may be observed. Teachers tend to use a
more indirect teaching style, are inclined to show greater capac-
ity for solving relationship and management problems and for
assessing higher levels of functioning in other teachers, and
are frequently seen by their pupils and generally by their super-
visors as being more effective teachers who establish and maintain
better relationships with pupils. Pupils are likely to show gain
scores on achievement tests (particularly in reading and language
areas), less truancy, more frequent use of higher level thought
processes, reduction in classroom behavioral problems, greater
liking for their teachers and more productive, on-task behaviors.

Empathic understanding, as assessed on written
Discrimination and Communication Indices as well as on rated
classroom performance, can be taught to preservice teachers in
relatively short periods of time well enough to raise their lev-
els of functioning appreciably. Diverse methods for teaching
interpersonal skills have been used with varying effectiveness.
The most promising procedures employ didactic, experiential

and modeling (in various forms) modes of learning, and contain

53

discrete, specific, related skills which teachers learn to use
effectively by practicing with target pOpulations and receiving
regular feedback. The Carkhuff Systematic Human Relations Train-
ing Model for Lay Helpers appears to be the most widely researched
program to date.

Some considerations for teacher educators include the
difficulty of transfer from laboratory to classroom, the discrep-
ancy between the ability to discriminate and the ability to com-
municate, differences in responses to facilitative teachers by
elementary and secondary pupils, and the extent to which higher

levels of interpersonal functioning, once acquired, hold up over

a period of time.

 

CHAPTER III
PROCEDURE

Design of the Study

An experimental design was selected for the present
study to determine if the ability to respond with understanding
to the expressed thoughts and feelings of others could be taught
to preservice teachers through an instructional module, and used
by them in classes which they were teaching. The treatment, or
the independent variable, was the instructional module.

The design that Campbell and Stanley (I963) call the
Posttest-Only Control Group Design was chosen. This design
specifies that both the treatment and the control groups are
randomly selected. After the treatment is given, both groups
are assessed by the same criterion measure(s). The discussion

which follows explains in detail how this design was implemented.

The Sample

The subjects of this study were 36 elementary and
secondary preservice teachers enrolled in a two-term competency-
based teacher education program (CBTE) at Michigan State
University during fall and winter terms of the l97h-75 academic

year. This CBTE program encompasses only the field experiences

5h

55

of preservice teachers and does not include other aspects of
professional preparation such as educational psychology or
special methods.

During the first term, students allocate eight to ten
hours a week to the CBTE program, with the bulk of that time
being spent in the university CBTE laboratory. The remainder
of the time is allotted to classroom activities that are regu-
larly scheduled in Lansing elementary, junior and senior high
schools. Second term participants, located full time in the
same Lansing schools to which they were previously assigned,
assume classroom teaching responsibilities and use the CBTE
laboratory with declining frequency throughout the term. Typ-
ically, then, CBTE participants are campus-based first term and
field-based second term.

All student teachers at Michigan State University are
assigned to student teaching centers throughout the state by
the Student Teaching Office. Student teachers assigned to the
Lansing center, whose schedules permit participation in a two-
term field experience program, are strongly encouraged to enroll
in CBTE. During fall term of I974, slightly over lOO student
teachers began their work in this program, and were asked to
indicate which two-hour time segments they had free during the
week so that a laboratory period could be scheduled for them.
Nearly all indicated between two to five different time periods

which were available. Participants were grouped into laboratory

56

sections, taught by graduate students, on the basis of their
time availability. Nearly all of the CBTE participants indi-
cated multiple time periods when they were free for laboratory
group meetings, and their assignment to groups was made solely
on the basis of time availability by individuals who did not
know them. Student teachers in the two laboratory groups
supervised by the researcher were named as study subjects, and 5!
these individuals were believed to be assigned to these groups
purely by chance. Thus, for the purposes of this study, they

were considered to be randomly assigned. By a flip of a coin,

 

one group (N=l7) was designated as the treatment group, the
other (N=2l) as the control. Before the end of fall term two
students in the control group withdrew from the CBTE program,
leaving a sample of 36 subjects.

The mean age of subjects was 23.3 years, thus providing
a sample somewhat older than the usual group of student teachers.
The ratio of secondary majors to elementary majors, and of
women to men, was about two to one in both instances. Table l
provides additional information about the sample. Nearly all
subjects had some teaching experience before entering the CBTE
program, e.g., tutoring, Sunday school teaching, camp counselor,
teacher's aide, scouting and sports program direction, music

lessons.

57

TABLE I

DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES OF STUDY SUBJECTS
(AVERAGES AND FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS)

 

 

Treatment Control All Subjects
(N=l 7) (N= I 9) (N=36)

 

 

 

 

 

Age

Mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.77 23.79 23.3]
Median . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2l 22 2l.5
GPA

Mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.03 3.09 3.06
Sex

Men. . . . . . . . ..... . . 6 6 l2
Women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . II I3 24
Teaching Level

Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8 l3
Secondary. . . . . . . . . . . . l2 ll 23
Family35tatus

Married. . . . . . . . . . . . . IO I3 23
Are parents. . . . . . . . . . . l A

Major Field (Secondafl)

 

 

Art. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l --- l
Business . . . . . . . . . . . . l 2
Communication arts . . . . . . l --- l
English. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A 6
Foreign languages. . . . . . . . --- I l
Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . --- l I
Home economics . . . . . . . . . --- l l
Mathematics. . . . . . . . . . . 3 --- 3
Physical sciences. . . . . . . . l r l 2
Social sciences. . . . . . . . 3 2 5
Highest Degree Held

Associate. . . . . . . . . . . . ~-- I l
Baccalaureate. . . . . . . . . . 2 3 5
Masters. . . . . . . . . . . . . l --- I

Military Experience. . . . . . . 3 3 6

 

58

Based upon self-report information it appears that
control subjects had a somewhat stronger background in the general
area of human relations than did.treatment subjects. Six control
subjects had taken between eight and Zl credits in psychology and/
or human relations courses, while five reported having participated
in structured sensitivity training sessions and/or interpersonal
process courses. One control subject wrote:

I have taken Dr. _____'s course, Sensitivity to

Children, and feel this helped me immensely. The

class was very effective in this area . . . . I

have found it rather difficult to use these skills

with the class I am new teaching as a whole,

although they have been helpful in dealing with

individual students.
Five individuals in the control group indicated they had read and
enjoyed such books as I'm Okay, You're Okay, Born to Win, Between
Parent and Child and similar titles.

In contrast, three treatment subjects indicated they had
taken between l6 and 23 credits in psychology, and only two indi-
cated that they had participated in structured sensitivity or
interpersonal relations groups. None made notation of having read
books in the area of human relations and interaction.

All subjects seemed to value understanding and sensitivity
in teachers. They were in complete agreement with statements such
as “Being able to relate to students in an understanding way is
one important quality a teacher should have” and ”An 'ideal' teach-
er shows a fairly equal balance between teaching subject matter on

the one hand and relating with warmth and sensitivity to students'

needs on the other.“

59

Use of the Module

 

During fall term all subjects were informed that the
researcher was involved in the development and production of
materials for future use in the CBTE program. They were each
given a tape cassette and asked to record one of the short
lessons which they were regularly teaching each week in their
assigned schools. The lessons varied from l5 to 30 minutes in
length. They were told that the tape would help CBTE program
designers know how to improve and deveIOp the program.

Near the end of fall term, after the cassettes had
been returned, the treatment subjects were given the module,
Interpersonal Relations Skills (Appendix C). This module was
designed by the researcher for use in this study; its develop-
ment is discussed later in this chapter. The module had been
duplicated, collated and stapled in learning packet form. One
copy was given to each treatment subject. The researcher ex-
plained how the module was organized, and directed the subjects
to look at specific pages and activities so as to insure their
familiarity with the format and sequence of the module. Ques-
tions from the subjects were encouraged and were answered as
fully and completely as possible. The treatment subjects were
told that the module was being developed for future inclusion
in the CBTE program, and that their use and evaluation of it
would be of substantial help in producing good quality

instructional materials. They were told that they could keep

60

the module after they had worked through it, and they were
encouraged to write in it, make marginal notes about features
they liked or disliked and so forth. No instruction about the
subject matter of the module was given during laboratory group
meetings or at any other time except as noted below.

Every effort was made to minimize the fact that while
all other CBTE participants, including the control group, were
working on l8 required competencies, the treatment subjects
were working on the same l8 plus an additional competency repre-
sented by the treatment module. All subjects were made aware of
the fact that CBTE participants in laboratory groups other than
those supervised by the researcher would also be asked to respond
to and evaluate other materials being developed for the CBTE
program. Initially, serious consideration was given to deleting
one of the required l8 competencies for treatment subjects and
replacing it with the competency in the treatment module. This
plan did not prove feasible because the CBIEgStudent Handbook,
program outlines and requirements and other similar directives
had all been printed and sold to the program participants through
the bookstore during the first week of fall term. It was con-
cluded that a program change such as the substitution noted above
would create confusion and provoke unnecessary questioning. Since
all l7 treatment subjects were cooperative and indicated a will-
ingness to work through the module in addition to the I8 other
competencies already required of them, the substitution plan was

not implemented. Several of the treatment subjects indicated

6I

that they thought the subject matter of the module represented
an important area in which they had received little or no pre-
vious instruction. They felt that their opportunity to use the
treatment module was a “bonus“ they were glad to receive.

The time schedule of the study indicated that treatment
subjects would start to use the module during fall term when
they were in the laboratory frequently, and would finish the
module early in winter term when they had access to pupils with
whom they could interact. The completion date was selected by
the treatment subjects. At the time the module was given to
them they were told by the researcher that they should have
completed their study of the module “by the early part of winter
term.” They were asked to select a due date which seemed reason-
able and feasible for them to meet. A date in late January was
set, and all the treatment subjects were directed to write that
date boldly on the front of their modules. It is clear that at
this point the treatment subjects were not yet feeling the great
pressure and rush to complete the IB required competencies which
was to occur during winter term.

Care was taken not to provide copies of the module to
any of the teachers or supervisors in the Lansing schools, nor
to any of the student teachers, graduate students or staff per-
sons associated with the CBTE program. Treatment subjects were
not encouraged to share the module with their cooperating teachers

or with other student teachers, although they were not specifically

62

instructed to refrain from doing so. Although cooperating
teachers and supervisors working in CBTE regularly received in-
service education related to the IS required competencies, no
inservice education regarding the treatment module was provided
for anyone. CBTE participants and personnel recognized that the
module was ”under development” and was not yet available for
general distribution and study.

Four out of the five enablers in the module specified
that they must be assessed in the CBTE laboratory. The other
enabler was of such a nature that it could be assessed by the
cooperating teachers in spite of the fact that they were completely
unfamiliar with the module and the enabler. Since the researcher
was the only person familiar with the module and its requirements,
all CBTE personnel were instructed to refer subjects seeking
assessment of module enablers to the researcher who maintained.
regular daily hours in the laboratory.

Enablers one and two are assessed by means of paper and
pencil multiple choice type tests. When they asked to be assessed,
treatment subjects were given the test without comment. Upon
completion they were requested to check their own tests using a
master answer key. If they asked questions about items they had
missed, explanation was given as fully and completely as possible.
New or unrelated information or instruction was not offered. If
subjects did not voluntarily ask questions after checking their

tests, they were asked, ”Do you know why the items you missed

63

were marked wrong?” If they said no, a full explanation was given.
If they answered yes, they were asked to explain the reasons for
their incorrect answers.

Enablers four and five are assessed by evaluating how
adequately treatment subjects identified actual segments of teacher-
pupil interactions which met specified criteria. Almost all the
subjects who completed these enablers indicated sentiments similar
to those expressed by one subject who exclaimed, “You just can't
find statements like that! Teachers don't talk that way!” The
statements to which she referred were those which were non-directive
and which accurately reflected back to pupils the feelings they had
expressed. Such statements appeared to be almost non-existent in
the classrooms where treatment subjects were working. (These
observatidns were consistent with the relatively low mean score,
I.89, of the treatment subjects' COOperating teachers on the
Communication Index.) The same procedure of questioning and ex-
plaining used by the researcher in clarifying incorrect responses
to enablers one and two was used with enablers four and five.

Some of the treatment subjects began work on the module
immediately after receiving it; however, a majority of them de-
layed beginning until the first of winter term because of the
heavy demand of other CBTE work. These subjects were seen
periodically by the researcher during winter term and were encour-

aged to complete their study of the module as quickly as possible.

6h
They regularly reported that they either did not have time to
get into the module or to do the work as thoroughly as they would
have liked. Many of them apologized repeatedly for their delay,
and emphasized that they wanted to cooperate but simply could
not do any more work than they were currently doing. The stress
which they were experiencing was evident in their speech, expres-
sions and behaviors. The treatment subjects who completed their
study of the module were unable to meet the original completion
date in January and did not finish until March, toward the end
of their student teaching period. As they finished, they were
asked to complete the Module Evaluation Form (Appendix B) and to
express candidly their opinions about the content, format,

effectiveness and general worthiness of the module.
Collection of the Data

Two weeks before the end of winter term each subject
was given six one-hour blank tape cassettes and was asked to re-
cord six hours of his/her class time irrespective of the activi-
ties which might take place during that period. A log was also
provided on which the subjects could indicate briefly what occur-
red during each quarter hour on each tape. Accompanying the tapes
and log was a sheet soliciting information from subjects about
previous human relations educational experiences and their atti-
tudes toward the importance of understanding in teacher behavior

(Appendix A).

65

During the time these tapes were being made, all subjects
were rated by their cooperating teachers and, those in secondary
schools, by their pupils as well. Both teachers and pupils rated
the degree of understanding of pupils which they perceived in the
behavior of the subjects.

The cooperating teachers were given one rating scale,
the Student Teacher Rating Scale, for each subject with whom they
worked (Appendix A). Two of the teachers worked with two subjects
each; the remaining 32 teachers had one student teacher each.

All subjects teaching secondary grades were given multiple
copies of the modified Assessment Inventory (Appendix A) during
the last week of winter term. Since this instrument is not suit-
able for use with elementary children, only secondary pupils were
asked to rate their student teachers. Subjects were instructed
to have the inventory completed by pupils in one class with which
they had worked the longest. Interest in administering the inven-
tory was high among most subjects; many requested additional
copies for their own use with other classes, others made their own
ditto masters in order to obtain additional copies.

At the outset of winter term, the cooperating teachers
to whom subjects were assigned were asked to write their responses
to the stimulus statements on the Communication Index-Student Form
(Appendix A). Five of these teachers refused to respond to this
Index because they believed the stimulus statements “were very

superficial, stilted and unrealistic.” One wrote, ”I'm sorry,

66

but I see this as an impossible task. What I would respond to a

student would depend on too many variables not given.” Another

teacher noted,

While I responded to the questions in the most
reasonable manner possible, I do not feel that
the student comments are either realistic or
frequent in occurrence. In eight years of teach-
ing I have not received comments similar to these
in any l-l situation where I could respond.

Numerous teachers complained of boredom in responding to the
Index because the statements were repetitious, and a substantial

number indicated that after about the sixth statement they respond-

ed hurriedly and without much reflection. For these reasons, only

the first six of the nine stimulus statements on the Index were
later rated and scored. An overview of the instructional or

assessment instruments and their use appears in Table 2.

7
6

 

o_mom

 

 

 

>zumaEm mcowuom
mmssxcmu Ecou muuomnam nevus. eoocmmm_o mo
co mc_umx Lowe“; 6cm __< mmc_vcoooc Laozuoco x_m
o_mum
>£umaEm commo—
mmacxcmo muoownsm o_mc_m mo mc_vcoo
co mc_um¢ atop __mu __< -0. A.c_e 0m-m_v Steam
meted popcooomuo_u:<
muoomnam on On Lozomou acouaum
woomnam Ema Ecou >Emucooom o>_oocoa >osu mc_ocmumcooc:
ocoom coo: couc_3 6cm mo m__a:m 30; mo mmc_umc _m__a:a mc_muno >Lobco>c_ ucoEmmmmm<
.m__a:a
muuoansm __m mc_ocmumcouc: mo co_mcoE_o
Hoomnam Eon Eco» mo mcocomou ecu co Locumou “copaum mum; o_mom m:_umm
oLoom cmoz Eouc_3 6cm mc_umcoaoou 0» Locomou mc_meoaooo moc_:cox Logomoh acovaum
o_mom
>sumaEu Eco» muoomnsm __m .m__a:a mo mucosoumum m3—
mmssxcmu Eouc_3 wo mcmcomou use_um _mo_uo:uoa>z o“ momcoqmoc Econ acousum
co mcmumx mcmccmmom mc_umcma00u m.cocomou mc_umcoaoou mc_muno nxouc_ co_pmo_caeeou
:o_umN_cmmco new
uuomnam Lon Ecmu muooannm “coucoo 0.3605 mo mmoco>_uoomwo
ocoom cmoz Louc_3 new ucoEumoch uzonm co_c_no mu_o__om Econ co_um3_m>m 6—360:
mack—mom ucm muzmsosu .mcoguo
Ecou muoomnnm mo compmuwcseeoo vcm co_uaoocoa p.360: m___xm
in: Louc_3 6cm acoEumoLh oumcnoom c_ __wxm mao_o>oo mcowum_om _mc0mcoacouc_
meted couu_L3
pogo—neon he
cocoom 30: cos: ovum—QEOQ peasacumc_ mo omoacam u:05:cum:..

 

 

mhzmxathz_ hzmzmmmmm<\4<zo_hu=¢hmz. mo wz_moum oz< mm:

N m4m<k

68

Instrumentation and Treatment of the Data

Tape Recordings

The recordings made by all subjects toward the end of
winter term varied enormously both quantitatively and qualitat-
ively. Six new one-hour blank tape cassettes had been given to
each subject by the researcher. If subjects had ready access to
cassette tape recorders in the schools where they were working,
they used those for recording their classroom activities. If
subjects did not have cassette tape recorders to use, recorders
were provided for them by the Student Teaching Office. The
recorders loaned to the subjects were checked to be sure that
they were in good working order before they were sent to the
schools. Tape recorders which were already in the schools could
not be checked by the researcher for proper functioning prior to
the time that the subjects used them.

Some subjects recorded a full six hours; others,
principally because of temporary inaccessibility or malfunction-
ing of tape recorders, taped as little as one hour of classroom
activity. The audibility and clarity of the recordings also
varied considerably. The nature of the subject, tolerance of the
student teacher for room noise, teaching style, type of pupil-
student teacher relationship which existed, quality and room
placement of the recording mechanism and familiarity of pupils
with classroom recording were primary factors in the variance

of audibility and clarity.

69

First, the recordings provided by each subject were
checked for dialogue content. They were monitored every 25 feet
of tape (approximately once every minute and a half of classroom
activity) for the presence of teacher speech, pupil speech or
dialogue. With the use of a recorder with a tape footage counter,
notation was made of those parts of the tape containing speech or
dialogue. Excluded from notation were such activities as written
tests, fire drills, films, recordings, group singing, pupils or
teachers reading aloud at length, laboratory or group work in
which no individual voice was recognizable and similar activities.
If there was question as to what constituted speech or dialogue,
that portion was counted in the notation so as not to eliminate
any potentially rateable portions. Table 3 specifies the quant-
ity and distribution of dialogue segments identified for each
subject. The recordings provided by three subjects were elimin-
ated from further consideration either because they contained
no recognizable individual voices or because the sound was dis-
torted badly by faulty recording mechanisms.

Second, the dialogue portions available for each subject
were divided, on paper, into 50 foot segments, i.e., segments of
approximately three minutes in length. Those dialogue portions
which were less than three minutes long and which were widely
separated from other dialogue portions were not included in the
50 foot segments. As one would expect, the number of three-

minute segments varied greatly from subject to subject, from a

70

TABLE 3

TOTAL AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF DIALOGUE SEGMENTS IN
RECORDINGS OF SUBJECTS' CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES AS
IDENTIFIED BY GROSS REVIEW OF TAPES

 

 

 

 

Subject Amount of Dialogue Distribution of Dialogue
Footage Minutes No. Recorded Hrs. No. Segments

*1 --- --- -—- ---
2 3020 I78 5 25
*3 --- --- --- ---
A 2A0 IA 3 6

S I7A7 103 6 Io

6 I323 78 3 I2
*7 --- --- --- ---
8 916 5A 2 6

9 2829 I66 5 21
IO 232i I37 5 II
II 2757 I62 5 IS
l2 889 52 2 6
A13 --- --- --- ---
IA I768 lOA 5 3l
l5 300A I77 A l0
l6 2AAA IAA 6 I9
l7 l527 90 5 l3
l8 2l2 l2 l 2
*19 --- --- --- ---
20 IAOA 83 3 12
21 A838 285 A I0
22 57A 3A l l
23 I338 79 A I2
2A 578 3A l 6
w25 --- --- --- ---
e26 -—- --- --- ---
*27 --- --- --- ---
28 2099 I23 6 I7
*29 -—- -—- -—- ---
30 1673 98 1+ 6
3l IOOZ 59 A IO
32 2793 I6A 5 II
A33 --- --- --- ---
*3h --- --- --- ---
35 863 SI A I2
36 106A 62 LI 9

 

 

 

 

 

*Tapes either not provided by subject or of a quality not
suitable for study.

7l

low of five to a high of 95. Each of the segments for each
subject was assigned a number. Eight segments were selected
for each subject for further examination by use of a table of
random numbers.

Third, each of the eight segments was audited in its
entirety to ascertain if it contained at least one triad, i.e.,
a pupil speaks, the teacher responds, the pupil speaks again.
The first five segments containing triads were identified as
the samples of the subject's teaching which would be selected
for rating. The tapes of two additional subjects were elimin-
ated from further consideration because the dialogue segments
contained no triads.

Fourth, a master tape was prepared. This tape con-
tained five, separate three-minute segments for each subject,
prefaced by a subject code number, the grade level and subject
matter being taught and any special notations pertinent to the
segments. Four of the five segments were rated; the additional
segment was included as a precautionary measure in case one of
the first four segments should prove to be unrateable for some

reason.

72

Rating the Tape Recordipgp

The master tape was sent to the Consortium for Humanizing
Education at Texas Women's University (T.W.U.) in Denton, Texas,
for rating by trained raters using the Carkhuff Empathy Scale.

The Consortium is an organization which exists for the purposes of
'nitiating and encouraging research efforts in the area of human-
istic education, and of disseminating research findings, educational
programs and similar information of interest to persons concerned
with making teaching and learning a more fully human process. To
facilitate further research related to humanistic education, the
Consortium operates and maintains a rating service whereby research-
ers may have tape recordings of instructional interaction rated
along various dimensions (e.g., empathy, respect) and on various
scales (e.g., all the Carkhuff scales, the Aspy scales).

As reported by Ms. Flora Roebuck, Executive Director of
the Consortium, the usual procedure for making such a rating is as
follows: (I) the researcher provides a recording of one hour of
instructional interaction; (2) two trained raters, working to-
gether but rating independently, arbitrarily select four three-
minute segments to rate--one from the beginning part of the hour,
one near the end, and two from the middle parts of the hour;

(3) the segments must include at least one triad, as described
above, but if such a triad does not occur during the segment
selected, raters are instructed to let the tape play beyond the

three-minute limit until the first subsequent triad occurs.

73

It was on the basis of this procedure that the master tape
prepared for this study contained four three-minute segments
to be rated for each subject.

The raters who scored the tapes used in the present
study were doctoral candidates, working for the Consortium at
T.W.U., who were experienced in using the Carkhuff Empathy Scale
in rating interpersonal processes in classroom settings. As
noted in the procedure above, these two raters independently
rated each segment and assigned to it independent scores which
were later averaged to yield a single mean score per segment per
subject. The Consortium Director reported that a minimum inter-
rater reliability of .85 is maintained for all raters at all
times; she noted that the actual reliability index is usually
higher than that. All raters participate in weekly training ses-
sions to maintain a satisfactory level of agreement. Raters
whose scoring is not consistently accurate enough to maintain the
.85 correlation with other raters are not permitted to work on
recordings sent to the Consortium. They are kept in training
until their scoring is adequately consistent and accurate.

The l5-3O minute tapes made by the subjects during the
fall term were also sent to T.W.U. for rating on the Carkhuff
scale. Four three-minute segments containing triads were select-
ed by the raters from these recordings and scored in the same

manner as described above.

7A

The decision to use the services of the Consortium for
rating data for this study was based upon pragmatic reasons. No
raters, trained in the use of the Carkhuff Empathy Scale, were
available locally, and, in fact, the researcher was able to find
only one individual in the locale who even knew the instrument
or had used it. Learning to use the Carkhuff scale and training
others to use it accurately enough to produce a satisfactory co-
efficient of reliability would have been difficult and costly,
both in time and money. Having the data rated by Consortium
raters had the additional advantage of assuring absolute anon-
ymity of the subjects and, therefore, greater objectivity by the

raters.

Communication Index-Student Form

The student form of the Communication Index was originally
prepared for and used by parents and teachers in the Kratochvil,
Carkhuff and Berenson (I969) study of the effects upon student
functioning of facilitative conditions offered by both teachers
and parents. Although these researchers did not report any nega-
tive attitudes on the part of the respondents to the instrument,
a majority of the cooperating teachers in the present study did
complain, as mentioned earlier, about the lack of realism and the
repetitiousness of the statements. The reliability of this instru-
ment, therefore, when used with this particular group of individ-
uals may be somewhat diminished. Generally the attitude among the

teachers was that the Index itself was unrealistic, but they wanted

75

to cooperate with the research project the best they could, and
so they wrote responses to the statements. The nine stimulus
expressions represent combinations of physical, emotional-
interpersonal and intellectual problems crossed with depression,
elation and anger affect. The combinations of the three kinds

of problems with the three types of affect may have resulted in
expressions which appeared repetitive to the respondents, and
hence their complaints of boredom and monotony in reacting to the
latter third of the Index.

Responses of cooperating teachers to each of the first
six (out of nine) stimulus statements were collated, appropriately
coded, and typed verbatim. The responses of all teachers to each
given statement were grouped together to diminish the likelihood
of the "halo effect” during rating. Copies of the responses were
sent to T.W.U. where they were also judged on the Carkhuff Empathy
Scale by three raters who maintained the same level of reliability
as they had when scoring audio-recorded materials. A mean score
per response per teacher was obtained. The reason for using
three raters, instead of the usual two, for rating these responses
is not clear. Since Consortium raters normally rate only verbal
responses, three raters may have been assigned to score these

written responses so as to insure accuracy.

Student Teacher Rating_Scale
Both the subjects and the cooperating teachers who
participated in the CBTE program during winter term expressed

concern over the heavy work load involved and the lack of time

76

they had to do their work properly and thoroughly. The teachers
especially expressed irritation over what they believed were
excessive numbers of check lists, rating scales and similar evalu-
ation devices which they were expected to complete. Consequently,
the simplest and briefest kind of assessment instrument was decided
upon to solicit the opinions of cooperating teachers about the de-
gree of understanding of pupils shown by their student teachers.

During the winter term, completed rating scales were
returned by 28 cooperating teachers. Numerical values were assigned
to the response categories (e.g., very well, quite well, etc.)
with number one being highest. Cooperating teachers' ratings of
their student teachers on each of the five questions were summed to
yield a score for each student teacher. A low score, therefore,
indicates a high rating.

Coefficient Alpha (Mehrens 8 Lehman, l973),a measure of
internal consistency deveIOped by Cronbach, was computed for this
scale. It is an adaptation of the Kuder-Richardson 20 formula
for use when the items are not scored dichotomously. A reliabil-

ity coefficient of .89 was calculated.

Assessment Inventory

This Inventory was initially developed, tested and used
by Dixon and Morse in their I960 study to determine if empathic
potential could be used as a predictor of teaching performance.
As used by these researchers, it had a reliability coefficient

of .92. Their original Inventory contained 2A questions which

77

secondary pupils answered by checking a five-point scale. The
first l2 of these questions referred to pupils' feelings about
agemates, teachers and adults in general. Since that kind of
information was not pertinent to this study, only the remaining
l2 questions, those which referred to a particular teacher,
were used.

This modified Assessment Inventory was given a pre-study
trial by 38 junior high school pupils being taught by two student
teachers who were not involved with the present study. These
pupils were asked to rate their student teachers and, upon comple-
tion of the task, they were informally questioned by the researcher
about the Inventory. For example, they were asked if they under-
stood the directions and what they were being asked to do, if
there were other important things about their student teacher that
they felt should be on the Inventory but were not, if it was easy
or hard to rate their student teacher on the Inventory.

The pupils indicated that the instructions were very
clear, and the manner in which they marked their copies of the
Inventory verified this answer. The pupils were quite emphatic
in stating that the characteristics on which they were asked to
rate their student teachers were indeed some of the most important
things about a teacher; they could not think of any other items
which should be added. The pupils unanimously agreed that it was
an easy scale to use. Their comments and attitudes indicated that

no revisions in the modified instrument were necessary.

78

The Inventory was distributed to the pupils taught by
study subjects at the end of winter term. Because this Inventory
was inappropriate to use with younger children, it was given only
to pupils of subjects teaching in grades seven through twelve;
therefore, the number of scores obtained from it are fewer than
for the other instruments.

The numbers checked by each pupil in response to questions
one through ten were summed to give an empathy score. The values
of answers to questions six, eight, nine and ten were reversed so
that the most favorable responses to all questions were assigned
a score of one. A single mean score was obtained for each second-
ary subject by averaging the pupils' scores. Again, a low score
indicates a high rating. The values of responses to question-ll
were averaged to provide an indication of how ”good” the pupils
felt their student teacher was as a teacher.

Module Evaluation Form

This form was constructed to secure subjects' attitudes
about specific aspects of the module format, content, organization
and value. The information obtained was used not only in this
study, but will also be used in the future to refine the module
for expanded use.

As with several of the other instruments, the subject's
score on this Form was calculated by assigning numerical values
to the answers to questions one through 2A, then adding and

averaging those numbers. ‘The remaining questions on the Form

79

were included solely to provide information necessary for revision
and were not suitable for scoring. A low score indicates satis-
faction with the module as constructed.
Carkhuff Empathy Scale

Entitled “Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal
Processes“, this five-point scale was derived from an empathy
scale by Truax, ”A Scale for the Measurement of Accurate Empathy",
which has been validated in extensive counseling and psychotherapy
research. The Carkhuff scale (Appendix A), which has regularly
been used in research studies, was designed to be applicable to
all interpersonal processes and represents an attempt to reduce
the ambiguity and increase the reliability of the Truax scale.
One important change is toward the systematic focus upon the addi-
tive, subtractive and interchangeable aspects of the levels of
communication of understanding. This focus makes the Carkhuff
scale well-suited for use in this study since a primary emphasis
of the module is upon these three concepts. As noted in Table 2,
this scale was used for rating both the fall and winter term tape
recordings of all subjects, and the responses of the cooperating

teachers to the Communication Index as well.

The Module
As with most other affective characteristics, empathy
or understanding has been difficult to define, more difficult to
purposely teach, and next to impossible to measure. Traditionally,
efforts to define, teach and measure such traits have been dismis-

sed as futile because the traits themselves are so subjective, so

80

abstract, so elusive.

The literature is replete with definitions of empathy:
emotional empathy, predictive empathy, accurate empathy. Defini-
tions have been formulated to serve philosophic argument, psycho-
therapy, counseling research, sociological purposes and undoubtedly
other disciplines and uses. For instructional purposes, however,
a universal definition of empathy seems less functional than an
operational definition, stated in behavioral terms. If one begins
with a behavioral definition, then empathy, in the terms of that
definition, may be both taught and measured. Critics may claim
that a quality as intangible as empathy is impossible to define
behaviorally and that attempts to do so result in merely a des-
cription of some sort of ersatz empathy. In the absence of a
generally recognized definition of the construct, such an argument
is not valid. Based upon current usage in the literature, empathy
appears to be, within rather restricted limits, what the researcher
or writer defines it to be.

Development of the instructional module, Interpersonal
Relations Skills, was predicated on the assumption that a valid
definition of empathic understanding may be behaviorally defined.
Writing from a therapeutic orientation, Carkhuff and Truax (I966)
defined empathy as the ”ability to sensitively and accurately
understand the patient in such a manner as to communicate this
deep understanding” (p. 725). The essential notions within this
definition are accurate understanding of another and communicating

that understanding.

8I

Within the context of this definition, the term accurate
understanding implies that the understander will be accurate when
he ”sees“ through a perceptual orientation very similar to that
of the individual being understood. Naive as this implication may
at first seem, it is pg; the way persons generally view others
when they claim to be understanding accurately. It is an excep-
tional individual who does not use his own self as a reference
point for determining how accurately he “really knows” what an-
other person thinks or feels. Basing instruction on the Carkhuff
and Truax definition, the instructional designer must attend to
the fundamental problem of how to help the learner recognize that
what is “right” and ”true“ is relative to the perceptual orienta-
tion of each person. If the learner would accurately understand
another, he must learn to abandon, temporarily, the conviction
that his own viewpoint is I'most true,“ “most right," “most real.“

Communicating what one understands is frequently
accomplished by speech, although non-verbal communication may be
as effective, or even more so in some circumstances. A second
fundamental problem for the instructional designer is to recog-
nize what kinds of speech patterns generally connote to the
listener that the speaker genuinely understands him. For the
understander to say ”I understand” or “I know just how you feel“
is usually received by the listener as unconvincing and maybe even
trite. But when the understander speaks in terms of hg!_another

feels and how another views his own world, the effect is likely

82

to be quite the opposite. When an individual's speech bears
testimony to the fact that he is truly considering a problem or
experience from a vantage point similar to that of another, he
is said to be a very understanding person.

Carkhuff (l969b, l969c) and Gazda et al. (I973)
suggested a rather straightforward way to determine if one is
understanding another accurately (i.e., from the other's view-
point). The understander communicates verbally what he believes
the other's feelings and sentiments to be, and then listens to
the way in which the other responds. When persons believe they
are genuinely understood they very frequently respond with phrases
such as “That's right!“ or “I knew you would understand“ or
”That's exactly how I feel,“ thereby confirming the accuracy of
the understander's perception. In a real sense, a person is
understood when he feels that he is.

The module, Interpersonal Relations Skills, was designed

 

to help preservice teachers become more skilled at understanding
others accurately and at verbally communicating that understanding.
These are the basic components of empathic behavior, but they are
not the only ones. The ability to use meaningful facial expres-
sions, gestures and other non-verbal behaviors to communicate
understanding, and the ability to distinguish between what a per-
son says he means and feels and what he actually means and feels
are examples of other important skills which enhance the accuracy

of one's understanding and the communication of it. Because a

83

module is most effective when it addresses only one or two basic
skills, the decision was made to focus instruction upon the two
fundamental empathic behaviors: (l) perceiving pupils' thoughts
and feelings more accurately, and (2) responding to pupils in
ways which meaningfully communicate such perceptions.

The format and sequence of the module were determined
by the following criteria.

I. Since learning is more efficient when the learner
knows the goal, a competency statement had to specify the be-
haviors which the instruction was intended to generate. The
competency reads: To respond consistently to students with verb-
al expressions which clearly show that the student teacher both
understands and accepts the students' thoughts and feelings.

2. The skills required of the learner had to progress
logically from less complex toward more complex, from awareness
to discrimination to generation of empathic teacher responses.
Accordingly, five enabling or sub-objectives were written and

sequenced.

8A

 

 

 

Enabler Enabler Skills
I Recognizes given statements as reflective,
additive or subtractive and classifies
accordingly.
2 Discriminates between given helpful and

 

not helpful statements.

3 Identifies non-verbal behaviors in the
classroom and labels them for the
surface feelings they reveal.

 

A Discriminates classifiable teacher
responses occurring in classroom dia-
logue and classfies them as reflective,
additive or subtractive.

5 Responds to students in the classroom
with reflective and/or additive
statements.

3. The tasks with which the learner was confronted had
to move gradually from ”safe”, non-threatening simulated situations
to actual classroom situations over which neither the instructional
designer nor the learner had control. To begin with, these tasks
require the learner to interact with printed teacher-pupil dialogue,
with particular attention focused upon the teacher responses. Then
the learner is required to do some directed observation of pupils
in the classroom and of teachers responding to pupils in classroom
dialogue. Finally, the learner is directed to practice empathic
responses in informal conversations with pupils in corridors and
lunchrooms and on the playground, and then to practice empathic
responses in the context of his/her own teaching.

A. As many transfer-facilitating activities as feasible
had to be incorporated. Beginning with enabler three, learners

are repeatedly directed to observe and use in the classroom the

85

skills and information taught within the module. Enabler
assessments three, four and five require classroom use of these
skills, thus insuring that learners will practice and use, at
least minimally, what they have learned before proceeding to the
subsequent enabler.

5. Multiple activities of various types such as reading,
self-quizzing, practicing, observing and talking had to be provided
in order to be certain that all learners would have adequate oppor-
tunity to learn the skills required by the module.

6. Learners had to be provided with a means of evaluating
the adequacy of their own responses. Such an assessment device
would permit on-going growth in empathic skills because the learner
would not be dependent upon the evaluation of others in order to
determine the caliber of his own classroom responses. Consequently,
the concept of subtractive, reflective and additive responses was
given initial and primary importance, and the learner was required
to use that concept to accomplish every enabler in the module.

To facilitate self-evaluation even more, the Global Scale which
Gazda et al. use in Human Relations Development was printed in

the module after being adapted to emphasize more fully the subtract-
ive-reflective-additive concept.

7. Ample opportunities for practice had to be provided,
and as often as practical, immediate feedback to the learner on the
adequacy of his/her responses had to be available. Self-quizzing

and self-checking activities were incorporated into the module,

86

and answer keys provided reasons for choices, classifications,
etc. when appropriate. Classroom activities were referred to
either the cooperating teacher or laboratory staff for confirma-
tion and feedback information.

8. Directions had to be clear, a listing of the activ-
ities for each enabler had to be easy to find and the required
readings had to be incorporated in the module or very readily
accessible to the learner. Readings in many different books or
in the library were, therefore, not included. The intent was to
keep the learner's attention focused upon the two basic skills
discussed above, and to make reading materials easily available.

The development of this module coincided well with the
expanding CBTE program at Michigan State University. Program
leaders had expressed a need for instructional materials in the
area of interpersonal relations since none of the required compe-
tencies developed teacher skills in that area. The module
designed for the present study, Interpersonal Relations Skills,
seemed well-suited to the requirements of the CBTE program. Its
use with CBTE participants, therefore, was appropriate both to
the goals of that program and to the research requirements of
this study.

Prior to its use with the treatment group, the module
was tested with six student teachers who were participating in
the CBTE program fall term but who were not associated with the

present study in any way. These students worked through the

87

first two enablers and were assessed on them. They read through
the remaining three enablers, did some of the activities and read
some of the suggested readings. The six student teachers then
evaluated the module on a two page questionnaire and, finally,
were interviewed to clarify their responses and to obtain
additional information. Accordingly, the module was appropriately

revised.

Symon

Thirty-six elementary and secondary preservice teachers
selected from participants in a two-term competency-based program,
were assigned to two laboratory groups, one of which was randomly
designated as a treatment group and the other as a control group.
All subjects made short tape recordings of a single lesson they
taught in elementary or Secondary classrooms during fall term.

The treatment, the study of a module entitled Interpersonal

Relations Skills, was begun with the appropriate group near the

 

end of fall term to work through and complete.

During winter term, the subjects' cooperating teachers
responded to the Communication Index, thus providing a measure of
their own ability to communicate with understanding. As treatment
subjects finished the module, they were asked to complete the
Module Evaluation Form. All subjects were given blank tape cas-
settes and asked to record their classes irrespective of the
activities involved. These tapes were reviewed for the presence

of dialogue segments which, later, were randomly chosen for rating

88

on the Carkhuff Empathy Scale. The fall term tapes and the
responses of cooperating teachers to the Communication Index
were similarly rated.

All cooperating teachers and the pupils of secondary
subjects rated the subjects on the degree of understanding they
exemplified (Student Teacher Rating Scale and Assessment
Inventory). Single mean scores were obtained for subjects on

both of these instruments.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS
Statistical Tests

Hypotheses one, two and three were tested with the F
test for analysis of variance. The F statistic expresses the
ratio between the variance of the means between two or more
groups, and the pooled variances of individual subjects within
all groups. It appears that the assumptions requisite for the
analysis of variance--homogeneity of variance, normality of
distribution and independence--have been met, and that the F
test is appropriate for the data reported and for the informa-
tion sought from the data in this study.

Hypotheses four and five were tested by calculating
the Pearson product moment correlation. The Pearson r was
selected because the data for the factors to be correlated were
reported as continuous variables, test scores and ratings, which
could theoretically assume an infinite number of values. The
correlations for these two hypotheses were tested for statistical
significance by use of the Student t.

An alpha level of .05 was set as the criterion for

acceptance or rejection of all five hypotheses.

89

90
Analysis of Hypotheses

Hypothesis I

The first hypothesis (in null form) states that
treatment and control subjects will not differ in the under-
standing they demonstrate in responses to pupils in classroom
dialogue after ten weeks of student teaching. The criterion
for rejecting hypothesis one was that, when the teaching of
all subjects was rated on the Carkhuff Empathy Scale (to yield
an Empathy or E-score), the mean score of the treatment sub-
jects would be significantly different from the mean score of
the control subjects.

The difference between the mean scores of the groups
was not statistically significant and the null hypothesis was,
therefore, not rejected. The means for treatment and control
subjects were l.96 and 2.22 respectively. The range of scores
within each group was similar, with the standard deviation for
treatment and control subjects .A8 and .50 respectively.

The two mean scores indicate average levels of empathic
functioning on the Carkhuff scale. Since both means are close
to 2.00 (level two), subjects in both groups were generally
responding to pupils in ways which subtracted from the feeling
expressed by the pupils. As described in the scale, at level
two “the first person tends to respond to other than what the
second person is experiencing and expressing” (Appendix A).

The spread of scores above and below level two was not extensive

9l

for either group. As Table A shows, the variability between
group means was greater than between individual scores within
groups, but the difference was not great enough to yield an

F-ratio which was significant at the .05 level.

TABLE A

ANOVA FOR EMPATHY SCORES FROM TREATMENT AND CONTROL
SUBJECTS' TEACHING AFTER TEN WEEKS

 

 

 

 

Sources d.f. MS F p
Between groups I .3799 l.5766 .223l
Within groups 2l .2AO9
Hypothesis II

 

The second hypothesis (in null form) states that there
will be no difference in the understanding of pupils demonstrated
by treatment and control subjects as seen by their cooperating
teachers. The criterion for rejecting hypothesis two was that,
when all subjects were rated by their cooperating teachers on the
Student Teacher Rating Scale, the mean rating received by treat-
ment subjects would be significantly different from the mean
rating of the control subjects. On the Student Teacher Rating
Scale a lower score represents a more desirable rating.

Although the mean rating of the treatment group was
slightly higher than that of the control group, l0.57 versus
9.A6, the difference was not statistically significant, and there-
fore the null hypothesis was not rejected. The standard deviations

for each group respectively, A.Ol and 3.50, indicate that the

92

range of ratings was slightly greater for the treatment subjects.
It appears that the cooperating teachers of control subjects
viewed their student teachers as being slightly more understanding
of pupils than did the cooperating teachers of treatment subjects,
however this difference is not statistically significant. Like-
wise, since the ratings given by cooperating teachers to all sub-
jects ranged from a low of five to a high of l8, the difference

of l.I between the means is not of practical significance.

Table 5 illustrates the greater variability between individual
scores than between group means which is expressed in an F-ratio

that does not approach the .05 significance level.

TABLE 5

ANOVA FOR TREATMENT AND CONTROL SUBJECTS'
RATINGS BY COOPERATING TEACHERS

 

 

 

 

Sources d.f. MS F 4p
Between groups I 8.3036 .5820 .A527
Within groups 25 IA.2763
Hypothesis III

 

The third hypothesis (in null form) states that there
will be no difference in the understanding demonstrated by
secondary treatment and control subjects as seen by their pupils.
The criterion for rejecting hypothesis three was that, when
secondary pupils rated their student teachers on the Assessment
Inventory, mean pupil responses would be significantly different

for treatment than for control subjects. The lower the rating

93

pupils give their student teacher on the Assessment Inventory,

the more understanding they perceive their student teacher to be.
The mean rating for treatment subjects, 22.80, was

lower than that for control subjects, 25.69, but the difference

did not meet the .05 level of significance, and the null hypothe-

sis was accordingly not rejected. The standard deviations for

treatment and control groups were highly similar, 3.78 and 3.92

respectively. The range of pupils' ratings extended from l9.9O

to 35.l9. The F-ratio, as shown on Table 6, was not statistically

significant.

TABLE 6

ANOVA FOR SECONDARY TREATMENT AND CONTROL
SUBJECTS' RATINGS BY PUPILS

 

 

 

Sources d.f. MS F P
Between groups I 35.3A6A 2.3852 .IA3A
Within groups l5 lA.8l89

 

Hypothesis IV

The fourth hypothesis (in null form) states that the
extent to which treatment subjects respond with understanding to
pupils in the classroom is not related to the rated empathy lev-
els of their cooperating teachers. The criterion for rejecting
hypothesis four was that a significant correlation would exist
between the rating of treatment subjects' teaching (E-score) and
the Communication Index score of their c00perating teachers with

both being rated on the Carkhuff Empathy Scale.

9A

As shown on Table 7, a correlation of .67A8 does exist
between the rating given to the winter tapes made by treatment
subjects and the Communication Index score given to their cooperat-
ing teachers by the same raters. Since this correlation is

statistically significant, the null hypothesis was rejected.

Hypothesis V

The fifth hypothesis (in null form) states that the
extent to which treatment subjects respond with understanding to
pupils in the classroom is not related to their perception of the
value and usefulness of the treatment module. The criterion for
rejecting hypothesis five was that a significant positive correla-
tion would exist between the treatment subjects' mean score on the
Module Evaluation Form and their teaching score (E-score) as rated
on the Carkhuff Empathy Scale.

An r of -.lAl7, as shown on Table 7, exists between the
E-score of treatment subjects and their evaluation of the module.
Since this correlation is not statistically significant, the
null hypothesis was not rejected.

Discussion of the Findings

Treatment Subjects' Post-
Treatment Scores

All subjects were asked to make a short (IS-3O minute)
tape recording of their teaching during the fall term of l97A
prior to the time that treatment subjects were given the module.

These recordings were rated on the Carkhuff Empathy Scale and

ST Emp(CT)
ST Emp(Pu)

ST Good(Pu)

95

TABLE 7

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN VARIABLES FOR ALL SUBJECTS,
TREATMENT AND CONTROL SUBJECTS

understanding of pupils

rating (by pupils) of

understanding of them

rating (by pupils) of
student teachers were

 

rating (by c00perating teacher) of student teachers'
secondary student teachers'

how good their secondary
as teachers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CT E(Ra) = rating (by raters) of cooperating teachers' under-
standing of pupils on written responses to
Communication Index
Mod(TS) = rating (by treatment subjects) of the module
ST E(Ra) = rating (by raters) of student teachers' understand-
ing of pupils on recordings of classroom interaction
ST Emp ST Emp ST Good CT E Mod
(CT) (Pu) (Pu) (Ra) (TS)
All Sgpjects
ST E -.5A2l** .0937 .0828 .Ol57 ----
(Ra)
ST Emp ---- .697l* .7027* -.2l63 --—-
(CT)
ST Emp ---- ---- .9A2l+ -.O662 ----
(PU)
Treatment Subjects
ST E -.A50l .OA77 -.OllO .67A8* -.lAl7
(Ra)
ST Emp ""'" .8’4’427'? .82l 5* -.2552 .71077'n'n‘:
(CT)
ST Emp ---- ---- .9398+ .llll .51u7
(PU)
Control Subjects
ST E -.63l9 .2706 .Al96 -.55l9 ----
(Ra)
5T Emp "" .8355 .5566 -.l667 ----
(CT)
ST Emp ---- ---- .9l+23+ -.6899 ----
(PU)
* Significant at .05
** Significant at .025
*** Significant at .Ol
+ Significant at .005

96

the scores were to be used as covariants during later statistical
tests. However, the limited number of these fall term tapes which
were returned to the researcher and which were of a quality suit-
able for rating precluded their use as covariants. A total of l7
fall term tapes were rated: nine for treatment subjects and seven
for control subjects. Because of this small number of scores,
definitive statements cannot be made concerning the initial equali-
ty of the treatment and control groups of their ability to communi-
cate empathically with pupils in the classroom. Examination of
ratings of the l7 available tapes does indicate, however, that any
initial differences between the groups on this variable were prob-
ably small if they existed at all. The means of fall term ratings
for treatment and control subjects,as shown on Table 8, were l.96
and 2.07 respectively, means which were almost identical with

those of the post-treatment winter term ratings.

TABLE 8

MEANS OF FALL AND WINTER EMPATHY RATINGS OF
RECORDINGS MADE BY TREATMENT AND
CONTROL SUBJECTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment 55 Control 55

Means I N Means N
Fall Rating (E-score) l.9677 9 2.07A2 7
Winter Rating (E-score) l.96OO . l2 2.2l72 ll

 

 

Several factors may have contributed to the apparent
stability of the level of empathic understanding demonstrated by

treatment subjects throughout the time of this study.

97

Beginning in the fall term of l97A, the number of
competencies required of students participating in the two-term
CBTE program was increased from the previous requirement of five
to a new total of l8 required competencies. Such a large number of
competencies had never been mandated for CBTE students before, and
hence the faculty and staff were unprepared for the consequences
of such a drastic increase in student work load. As in many courses
and programs, the pressure upon students to complete all require-
ments was not fully felt by students nor realized by staff until
the latter part of the program, in this case the second term
(winter term, I975), the term during which treatment subjects were
asked to work through the module, Inteppersonal Relations Skills,
in addition to the required competencies for which they were being
held responsible.

The consequences of this series of unforeseen circumstances
were predictable. Although the treatment subjects were willing and
-cooperative, they spent their time trying to complete the competencies
for which they would be held accountable. In spite of repeated
encouragements and urgings by the researcher to do the activities
in the module and to be evaluated on each one of the five enabling
objectives it contains, most of the treatment subjects continued
to work on program requirements and not on the module. They fre-
quently and sincerely apologized for ''not getting more done in the
module," citing work overload and lack of time as the reason for

their lack of progress. By the ninth week of winter term, nine of

98

the l7 treatment subjects had completed all five enablers contained

in the module, with the remainder having completed between one to
four enablers. Two treatment subjects completed none of the enablers,
i.e., they were not formally evaluated on them; however, they had
read the module, discussed its contents with the researcher and done
some of the activities. It was during the ninth and tenth weeks

of winter term that subjects made the tape recordings which were
subsequently rated on the Carkhuff scale.

Considering these circumstances, it might be assumed that
one reason treatment subjects did not differ significantly from
control subjects on the post-treatment measure is that the module
was not fully nor adequately used by the treatment subjects. Viewed
another way, approximately 50% of the treatment subjects received
less than the “full” treatment.

Another factor influencing the final mean score of the
treatment subjects may be the lack of an hiatus between the admin-
istration of the treatment and the post-treatment measure.
Behavioral patterns, such as the empathic response mode presented
to subjects in the module, are not typically incorporated immediately
into an individual's repertoire or teaching style, particularly if
such inclusion necessitates eliminating a behavioral pattern already
well learned. It is more likely that a teacher (or student teacher)
will ”try out” a new mode or pattern on occasion and note the
results. If the results are in some way favorable, and thereby

reinforcing to the teacher, the mode may be tried again repeatedly

99

with increasing frequency. Finally it becomes used so often and
with such ease, that the teacher is not fully conscious of using
the pattern, and it becomes, to some extent, automatic. At that
point, the behavioral pattern under consideration may be said to
be part of the teacher's own teaching style. If student teachers
were provided with a substantial period of time prior to the post-
treatment measurement during which they could naturally and gradu-
ally incorporate into their teaching style the empathic response
mode initially modeled for them in the module, the resulting mean
score may be higher.

It is also possible that advantages accrued by the
treatment subjects as a result of the treatment were not apparent
because of the limited number of subjects in the study. A lack
of power in statistical tests may result from a small sample size,
thereby yielding scores which are not statistically significant.

A larger N may produce different results.

The cumulative effect of these three factors--minimal
exposure to the module, immediate post-treatment measurement, small
sample size--may account for the findings more fully than any single
factor alone.

Ratings by Cooperating
Teachers and Raters

A statistically significant correlation of -.5A2l was
found between the empathy scores given to all subjects by cooperat-
ing teachers and trained raters. As shown on Table 7, negative
correlations, although not statistically significant, were also

found between the same variables for treatment subjects and for

 

IOO

control subjects. As noted previously, the cooperating teachers
used the Student Teacher Rating Scale on which the mpg; desirable
responses were given a value of one. The raters used the Carkhuff
Empathy Scale on which the lgpg£ desirable responses were scored
as one. The fact that these correlations are negative is there-
fore a function of the reversed values of desirable responses on
the two scales.

The moderately strong relationship between the ratings
for all subjects made by cooperating teachers and raters indicates
that they frequently agreed on the extent to which student teacher
behaviors exemplified understanding of pupils. It will be recalled
that the raters and teachers did not score the identical student
teacher behaviors. The raters scored specific dialogue segments,
but the cooperating teachers scored more global impressions of
classroom interactions. A statistically significant relationship
between these two sets of scores, therefore, suggests that both
raters and teachers frequently agreed upon how to interpret
student teacher behaviors.

It is of practical significance as well that the
cooperating teachers tended to agree with the raters that the
more non-directive student teacher responses showed understanding.
Such a tendency suggests that these teachers frequently viewed
non-directive,facilitative, information-withholding responses as

being desirable in classroom interactions.

IOI
The -.5A2l correlation also indicates that the brief
rating scale used by the cooperating teachers was reasonably
valid in soliciting from the teachers ratings of behaviors simi-
lar to those scored by raters using the previously validated

Carkhuff scale.

Ratings by Cooperating
Teachers and Pupils

 

The cooperating teachers and the pupils showed a fairly
strong agreement about how understanding they perceived their
student teachers to be, as indicated by the statistically signifi-
cant r of .697l for all subjects shown on Table 7. Since only
secondary pupils were asked to assess their student teachers on
this dimension, the number of paired scores from which the correla-
tion was computed was relatively small; hence, the fact that a
statistically significant r was found, for all subjects and for
treatment subjects alone, between these two variables indicates
a decided similarity in viewpoint between teachers and pupils.

Pupils were asked to rate their student teachers on the
modified Assessment Inventory. On this instrument, questions one
through ten deal with student teacher understanding of pupils;
question ll asks pupils to provide an overall rating on how ”good“
the student teacher was as a teacher. The inventory thus yielded
two scores: one of student teacher understanding, one of student
teacher “goodness.“ These two scores were so strongly related
for treatment and control subjects, alone and together, that all
correlations were highly significant at the .005 level. The pos-

sible, indeed probable, influence of the “halo effect'l upon this

 

l02

relationship cannot be overlooked, particularly when both scores
were provided by pupils on the same instrument. Nonetheless,
the fact that the student teacher “goodness” score given by pupils
shows statistically significant relationships with the student
teacher understanding scores given by both pupils and cooperating
teachers suggests that pupils and teachers alike perceived under-
standing as being an important factor in good teaching. This
finding is consistent with the strong correlations between the
same factors found by Berenson (l97l) and Dixon 8 Morse (l96l).
These findings have implications for teacher education
programs because they indicate that teacher understanding and
good teaching are strongly and positively associated in the minds
of both pupils and teachers. “Good” teaching is a term which is
difficult if not impossible to define satisfactorily, but appar-
ently pupils and teachers can recognize it when they experience
it. It seems reasonable, therefore, to include in teacher educa-
tion programs those kinds of instruction and experiences which
assist preservice teachers to be more understanding of pupils.

Treatment and Control Subjects'
Post-Treatment Scores

The correlations, given on Table 7, between the E-scores
of student teachers (as rated on recordings of their teaching)
and cooperating teachers (as rated on their written responses to
the Communication Index) show a marked disparity when the r for
treatment subjects (.67A8) is compared with that for control sub-

jects (-.55l9). These figures seem to suggest that the treatment

 

l03

subjects, influenced by the module, changed their empathic responses
to be more like those used by their cooperating teachers, whereas
the control subjects' response modes became less similar to those
of their cooperating teachers. Such an interpretation is unwar-
ranted for several reasons. First, the correlation statistic shows
neither cause-and-effect interaction, nor change patterns of scores,
but only a static relationship between variables at a given point

in time. Second, neither the treatment nor the control group means,
shown on Table 8, changed significantly between the fall and winter
ratings of tape recordings. If treatment subjects had been sensi-
tized by the module to behave more like their cooperating teachers,
it seems most unlikely that their post-treatment mean score would
have remained so close to their pre-treatment mean score. Third,
there is some evidence that the disparity between the .67A8 r of
the treatment subjects and the -.55l9 r of the control subjects

is merely a reflection of a similar disparity which existed when
student teachers were assigned to c00perating teachers, before

the treatment was given. Although the limited number of fall

tape recordings available makes conclusive statements impossible,
the E-scores from those recordings do provide some indicators

‘which suggest that treatment subjects started their student teach-
ing being very similar to their c00perating teachers while control
subjects were, quite by chance, very dissimilar. Table 9 shows
that when fall recording scores were correlated with E-scores for
cooperating teachers, an r of .8309 was found for treatment

subjects and of -.3l93 for control subjects.

 

IOA

TABLE 9

PRE-TREATMENT EMPATHY SCORE CORRELATIONS
WITH SELECTED VARIABLES FOR TREATMENT
AND CONTROL SUBJECTS

Pre E-score = empathy score given by raters to student
teachers on pre-treatment tape recordings

Post E-score empathy score given by raters to student

teachers on post-treatment tape recordings

 

 

 

CT E-score = empathy score given by raters to cooperating
teachers on written responses to Communication
Index
Row Treatment 55 Control 55
l Pre 8 Post E-score r .7057 .A976
2 Pre E-score 5 CT E-score r .8309 -.3l93
3 Post E-score 8 CT E-score r .67A8* -.55l9

 

*Significant at .05

When the correlations shown in rows two and three
of Table 9 are compared for treatment and control subjects,
another relationship may be noted. There is some indication
that during the student teaching experience both groups of sub-
jects may have grown less like their cooperating teachers in the
way they responded to pupils. Whereas this apparent change may
be partially a function of greater numbers of correlated pairs
on the row three variables, it tentatively suggests that the
empathic response modes of c00perating teachers and student
teachers may have been changing in an unexpected direction.

Hefele (l97l) reported analogous findings, noting

IOS

that by the end of the field experience student teachers had
become more empathic than they were initially, but their cooperat-
ing teachers had grown less empathic. These limited findings
suggest that the changes in empathic response modes of c00perat-
ing and student teachers,relative to one another, are worthy of
further study.

Although the means of pre- and post-treatment E-scores
for both groups of subjects were stable (insofar as the limited
number of pre-treatment scores may be considered reasonable indi-
cators of the groups as a whole) the correlation between individ-
uals' own two scores were not as stable.‘ The r's shown on Table 9,
row one, indicate that there was some change in the pre- and post-
treatment E-scores within each of the two groups, particularly
within the control group. This phenomenon, considered with the
apparent individuation discussed in the previous paragraph, sug-
gests that during student teaching some subjects grew more empathic
than their cooperating teachers in the responses they gave to
pupils, while others grew less. The mean empathy scores for the
cooperating teachers of treatment and control subjects were I.89
and I.80 respectively. These are higher than the l.50 mean that
Kratochvil, Carkhuff 5 Berenson (I969) report that the teachers
in their study scored on the same Communication Index.

Correlations Between Other
Selected Variables

Table 7 shows that a highly significant statistical

relationship of .7lO7 exists between the rating of the module by

IO6

treatment subjects and the ratings given to those same students

by their cooperating teachers. Why these two variables are so
strongly correlated is not clear. There does not seem to be any
logical reason why they should be directly related, nor is there
any apparent third variable in operation to which each is related.
This relationship appears to be of little or no practical signifi-
cance, in spite of the strength of the correlation, since it does
not yield any meaningful information for either research or
instructional purposes.

Several other correlations also are shown on Table 7,
none of which are statistically significant. They are artifacts
of the correlation matrix and are included as points of comparison
for other data in the table.

Evaluation of Module

Taken as a whole, the ratings of the module, Interpersonal
Relations Skills, made by treatment subjects on the Module Evaluation
Form showed a strong endorsement of the nature and usefulness of
the subject content, and of the organization of the module. (See
Appendix B for a breakdown of responses to each statement on the
Module Evaluation Form.)

Fourteen treatment subjects (respondents) completed the
Module Evaluation Form. All of these subjects agreed with the
following statements:

The competency for this CLP is important for teachers
to have.

The readings and instructional materials seem to
cover the major concepts which are important to learn
for this competency.

IO7

The fact that each respondent agreed with both statements
indicates that student teachers who studied the module believed
that its subject content is important, and that adequate instruc-
tion is provided in the module to learn that content.

The respondents not only believed the competency is
important, they indicated that they used the techniques they had
learned. Not one respondent disagreed or strongly disagreed with
these statements:

I use the techniques which I learned from this
CLP in informal conversations with students

outside the classroom.

I can see how this competency will help me
perform other competencies more effectively.

Twelve out of IA respondents agreed or strongly agreed that
techniques learned from the module were used in conversations
with family and friends, and in other aspects of ones personal
life. Only two respondents disagreed that techniques learned
from the module were used in classroom teaching.

These ratings indicate that subjects who studied the
module used what they had learned in a variety of interpersonal
situations, and that they saw how empathic interaction skills
could enhance the effective performance of other teaching skills.
It appears that subjects were able to generalize the use of these
techniques and to integrate them with various other concepts.

The widest range of responses (from strongly agree to
strongly disagree) was in regard to statements concerning particu-
lar aspects of the module. Respondents showed no consensus, for

example, on how realistic they thought the examples are, on

108

whether the module is about the right length, or on the adequacy
of the number of activities and self-check exercises provided.
Based upon comments written under some of the statements, a number
of respondents seemed to feel the module was too lengthy and
contained too many exercises. 0n no statement did the majority
of answers fall in the disagree/strongly disagree columns.

Not one of the respondents disagreed with this statement:

This CLP should be included in the CBTE program
for all PST's (preservice teachers) to use.

The fact that they all felt the content of the module was
important, that they used what they had learned, and that they
recommended that all other student teachers should study the same
module indicates very strong support of this module by the persons
who know it most thoroughly.

Interpersonal Relations Skills appears to hold a great
deal of promise for helping teachers learn about and use empathic
communication skills with pupils. Considerable interest in this
module has also been shown by teacher educators--both preservice
and inservice-~by elementary and secondary classroom teachers and

by student teachers.

Summary

The findings did not support the acceptance of four of
the five research hypotheses. The treatment subjects did not
respond to pupils in classroom interaction more empathically than
did control subjects, nor were they perceived by either their

cooperating teachers or their pupils (secondary) as being more

l09
understanding than were control subjects. No statistically
significant relationship was found between the understanding
that treatment subjects demonstrated in classroom interaction
and their perception of the value and usefulness of the treat-
ment module. A statistically significant relationship did
exist between the empathy scores of treatment subjects (as rated
on recordings of their teaching) and their cooperating teachers
(as rated on their written responses to the Communication Index)
at the end of the student teaching experience; however, since
this strong correlation also existed for these individuals be-
tween scores which were obtained the term prior to the study, it
does not appear to be a function of either the influence of the
module nor of the cooperating teacher-student teacher interaction.
Both before and after the student teaching experience, control
subjects and their cooperating teachers were negatively related
on these two variables.

A statistically significant negative correlation was
found between the empathy scores which trained raters and cooperat-
ing teachers gave to treatment subjects. This inverse relationship
was a function of the reversed values of desirable responses on
the two scales used by raters and cooperating teachers. It shows
significant agreement between the teachers and raters as to what
student teacher behaviors exemplify understanding.

Cooperating teachers and secondary pupils showed a fairly
strong agreement about how understanding they perceived their

student teachers to be. The student teachers whom they rated as

llO

most understanding were also the ones they both saw as being the

best teachers.

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

Based upon the review of selected literature and the
findings of this study, the following conclusions have been drawn.

I. The potential of the instructional module, £33357
personal Relations Skills, for increasing the empathic understand-
ing demonstrated by preservice teachers in classroom dialogue was
not fully nor adequately explored by this study. A series of
circumstances, unforeseen by individuals associated with the study,
precluded the adequate involvement of treatment subjects with the
activities, readings and assessments provided by the module. The
favorable evaluation which preservice and inservice teacher educa-
tors, classroom teachers and preservice teachers have given to this
module suggests that its further use in both instruction and
research are warranted.

2. Although much has been written to instruct teachers
about interpersonal relations in the classroom and the skills
associated with desirable human relations, there is virtually
nothing in print available which instructs teachers how to learn
and use specific positive interpersonal relations skills in their

day-to-day activities with learners. Considering the impact of

Ill

ll2
humanistic psychology upon the thinking of educators, the generally
recognized need for improved teacher-learner communication in the
classroom and the p0pularity of books and group sessions dealing
with interpersonal relations, it seems apparent that accurate,
well-tested and well-written instructional materials which teach
educators how to learn and use selected interpersonal skills would
be of genuine value.

3. Cooperating teachers, secondary pupils and preservice
teachers all view teacher understanding as being strongly related
to good teaching. All treatment subjects agreed or strongly agreed
to the statement that it is important for teachers to respond
consistently to pupils with verbal expressions which clearly show
that the teacher both understands and accepts the pupils' thoughts
and feelings. There was consensus among all participants in this
study that good teachers demonstrate understanding of their pupils.

h. Treatment subjects strongly endorsed the module,
Interpersonal Relations Skills. All respondents indicated that
they felt the content of the module was important for teachers,
they used what they had learned, and they recommended that the
module be included in the CBTE program for all preservice teachers
to use.

5. There was significant agreement between cooperating
teachers and trained raters regarding the extent to which student

teacher behaviors exemplified understanding of pupils.

ll3

Recommendations

Based upon the findings and conclusions of this study
and the experiences of the researcher during the period of the
research, the following recommendations are offered.

I. That an operational replication of this study be
made with the following modifications:

a) The number of subjects in both the total sample
and the subgroups be larger than in the present study.

b) The research design specifies three groups for
study:

i) TI = treatment group which is given the
module to study and which discusses
and practices empathic communication
techniques during regular laboratory
group sessions with a highly empathic

leader as a model

ii) T2 = treatment group which is only given
the module to study

iii) C

control group

c) The hiatus between the treatment and the final
post-treatment measure be considerably longer than in the present
study. If possible, post-treatment measurement after an interim
of a full year, a year which provides regular teaching experience
for the subjects, would be most desirable.

d) The researcher be able to exercise greater control
over the treatment subjects so that full and adequate exposure to
the treatment is assured. In a CBTE program, for example,

completion of the instructional module could be specified as a

llh

program requirement in which the treatment subjects would be held
accountable for demonstrating competency.

e) Raters in residence on the campus where the study
is conducted be trained to rate classroom dialogue with satisfactory
reliability on the Carkhuff Empathy Scale.

f) The instruments and/or techniques used for
determining E-scores for all subjects and for their cooperating
teachers be more nearly parallel. If recordings of c00perating
teachers‘ teaching could be obtained, without'thglg knowing.£h§
dimension of their teaching being assessed, then all ratings could
be made from recordings. If this were not possible, then subjects
could be asked to respond to the same written instrument to which
their cooperating teachers respond, in addition to the classroom
recordings which they make.

9) The stimulus statements of the Communication
Index be modified by:

i) Making the pupils' remarks more realistic
and probable.

ii) Providing, briefly, a context within which
each comment hypothetically occurs. The context might imply, for
instance, the nature of the teacher's relationship with the pupil
and past conversations they may have had together, as well as a
few details pertaining to the current situation.

h) The post-treatment recordings for all subjects
be obtained at some other time than the last week of the student

teaching period. Teaching schedules are frequently disrupted at

ll5

this time and could hamper the collection of data, or prevent
the obtaining of ”typical” classroom interaction patterns on
tape recordings. The technique of having subjects indiscrimi-
nately record six hours of classroom activity which is later
randomly sampled for segments to be rated is strongly recommended
as a method for securing unbiased data.
i) All tape recording mechanisms be checked by the
researcher for proper functioning before being used by the subjects.
j) The module, Interpersonal Relations Skills, be
revised in these ways:

i) Enabler 2 be deleted as such. The concept of
the helping relationship be developed in three or four pages at the
end of the module and expanded to include:

-emphasis on the value of the teacher as
listener; awareness that the teacher need not and should not respond
verbally to every pupil statement.

-a clear criterion which teachers can use to
decide when only listening and reflecting in order fully to under-
stand the pupil is appropriate, and when understanding is adequate
enough to make the giving of advice and suggestions appropriate.

-a distinction between pupil comments and
questions which are primarily cognitive in content and intent, and
those which are prompted by or express greater affect.

-a concise and clear discussion of the
relationship between a “helping“ environment, a pupil's feeling

of being understood and learning.

ll6

-exploration of how the provision of a helping
relationship in general, and empathic responses in particular, may
be used by the teacher in one-to-one meetings with pupils as well
as with groups in the classroom.

ii) Enabler I be enlarged by the inclusion of at
least six expanded practice situations each of which is followed
by an answer key that includes reasons for classification. Prac-
tice situations similar to the present Enabler 2 Assessment would
be suitable.

iii) Video teacher models actually responding to
classes at level three or higher be provided for use with the mod-
ule. A number of short (three minute) videotape segments of
different teachers interacting with children of different ages
about various tOpics would be more useful protocols than longer
less diverse tapes. Tapes could effectively be used as:

-practice activities in Enabler I,

-practice activities for using the Non-Verbal
Communication Checklist in Enabler 3,

-the basis for Enabler 3 Assessment, so that
all students being assessed on this enabler respond to the same
classroom situation with which the assessor is thoroughly familiar,

-practice activities in Enabler 5.

iv) Some of the Student and Teacher Interactions
(module, pp. 33-45) be revised for greater realism and more

effective modeling.

ll7

v) More practice be provided, either verbally
or in writing, in Enabler 5 through which students can devel0p
greater ease and facility in responding to pupils' feelings with
sponteneity. Greater reassurance should be provided, in the
text, that it is expected and quite acceptable for students to
make mechanical-sounding responses initially. Practice exercises
in which students respond to audio- or videotaped statements and
then are provided with immediate feedback concerning the desirabil-
ity of their responses would be helpful.

vi) Some of the activities be deleted, as indicated
by treatment subjects on the Module Evaluation Form.

vii) Some additional activities be specified for
each enabler for use by individuals who do not pass the enabler
assessment on the first attempt.

viii) Alternate forms of the Enabler Assessments be
provided for each enabler for use by individuals who do not pass
the enabler assessment on the first attempt.

ix) A competency evaluation be specified. An
adaptation of the Carkhuff Empathy Scale suitable for use by
cooperating teachers, as developed by Morgan (l97A) for instance,
appears to be useful for this purpose. Adaptations of the scales
used by Hefele (l97l), shown on Tables I and 2 of the report of
his study, also appear promising as competency evaluation

instruments.

ll8

2. That the Michigan State University Competency-Based
Teacher Education program provide instruction to improve the
quality of interpersonal communications in preservice teachers
through several different instructional modes, e.g., modules,
small training groups with leaders, problem-solving using a
directed reading program and structured field experiences, thereby
accommodating the learning styles of a large number of CBTE
participants and determining the relative effectiveness of several
instructional patterns.

3. That the instructional module, Interpersonal Relations
Skills, modified as recommended above, be considered for research

with and use in inservice teacher education programs.

 

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

Directions for Administering
Assessment Inventory
HI!

Now that your very last week of student teaching has finally
arrived, we thought you might be interested in getting some feed-
back from your students regarding their feelings about you. Some
simple questionnaires for just that purpose are enclosed. (Twenty
of them...if you need more check with your cluster consultant.)
Obviously some feedback about how students perceive you as a
teacher will be useful to us in modifying and improving program
materials, but no doubt the feedback will be equally as useful to
you in terms of continued professional growth.

Will you please ask students in one class that you have
worked with the longest to complete the questionnaire? It should
take them about 5 minutes. After you have finished looking the
questionnaires over, put them in the envelope with your tape
recordings. We will pick up the envelopes from your cluster
consultant at the end of this week. Again, the information on
these questionnaires will be used solely for materials develop-

ment purposes and not for evaluating you as a teacher.

ll9

120

It is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to the continuation of work on
materials development to have the recordings and these student
questionnaires returned fully completed since the information
they contain comprises the “next step“ in our work.

Your continued help and cooperation are GENUINELY APPRECIATED.

THANKS!!!!

0" ' a ' (v ( -...——~_
\ ]\ - \
\

,1

12]

Directions for Administering
Assessment Inventory

.General Directions for Using the Questionnaire Effectively

Explain that the point of view of students is valuable to
you in becoming a better teacher.

Emphasize that you value their honest and thoughtful opinions.

Instruct students to write YOUR name at the top of the
questionnaire. Also their grade level or class. Be sure
they Understand the questions apply to YOU (not to their
regular teacher). '

Review the instructions carefully with the class. (Read
aloud if you think it is necessary.) Explain where and
how to check.

Stand or sit in a place which makes it impossible for you
to see what any student is writing.

 

l22

>000
>L0>

ooooMoooo

__0
um qu

oooomoooo

__0
pm 302

0000m0000

__0
00 “oz

0000m0000

L0>0z

oooomoooo

c0>0z

oooomoooo

>000
0u_3d

0000:0000

__03
00¢ 002

0000:0000

__03
00u 002

0000:0000

0_pu__
0 >_co

0000:0000

ECU —0m

0000:0000

eon_om

0000:0000

 

 

0m000><

ooooMoeo.

00:3
u0EOm

0000M0000

00:3
u0eom

o000M0000

0E0m

ooooMoooo

m0E_u
u0eom

.OOOMOOOO

m0E_u
n080m

cocoMQOOo

 

u;m_c o: 000 00050 400nE0E0x

m_ 0050 00053: 0:0 :0 A\/V 0 03¢
mmc__00m L3o> mc_30cx
>050 "mace: co u;m_c 00: 000 0m0zh

0m00 0x0: :0 003c_uc0u

000:
0u_3d

0000N00000

__03
0u_3d

0000N00000

__03
0u_3d

0000N00000

u_n m
0u_3d

0000N00000

c0000
>L0>

0000N00000

c0000
>E0>

0000N00000

eta;
>L0>
coo—oooooooooooooooNL0£UmmH mmfiu ”WNW—Q OH Um mm ULQL BOI
——03
>L0> wmm0_0

coo—cocooooomwfifl mmxm— LQLUQQU mm£H XCWLH 30% CV ——03 301

__03
>L0> «30>
..._.......mvcmumc00c3 00:0000 m_£u xc_;u 30> on __03 30:

£035
>L0>
one—oooooooooooooooooWLQLUmmu WWI“ HWDLH 30> ch LUBE 30:

m>03_< wc0zom0u m_;u :u_3 L0>o u_ x_0u 00 0:03
..._.....3o> 00 c0umo 30: .E0_0000 _0cOmE00 0 0>0z 30> m.

m>03_< wc0su00u m_;u 00 x003 .00500 :05»
..._.....E0;uo mmcmza u3000 x_0u 00 0x__ 30> 00 c0000 30:

.—

 

.unm_L __0 m_ .000 30> >03 >c< .00030c0 mcocz to
.0003m 0000 L3o> 0x05 .0030 no: 000 30> 0. ._000 30> >03 0;» 00 000

 

.x00co o» 30: .0050000 000000 c0>0 :0 050000 L0; to E_z 0.0;
wc0cu00u 0000300 L3o> 03000 .000 30> 00 :0: ._00m 03 >03 0:0 00 OH 00000;
.mc05000u 0:00300 .00050000 ._oo;om 03000 mmc__00m 0>0£ 03 00

 

mmm_u to 0000m

 

mmzu<me ezwoakm 030> 00

>000c0>c_ uc0Emm0mm<

mo_0
___3
003a
0002

L3o>
0E0:

l23

02

0000m0000

__0 00
000m 002

oooomoooo

00>0z

0000m0000

E0>0z

oooomoooo

L0>0z

0000m0000

c0>0z

0000m0000

0:
0.000000

00000J00000

0m000>0
30_00
00030500

0000:0000

500.00

....:....

ECU—0m

0000:0000

sen_00

0000:0000

500.00

0000:0000

 

c_00
IE00::

0000m000

0m0c0><

0000m000

00E_0
10500

0000m000

00800
:0E00

ooooMooo

00E_0
u0EOm

0000m000

00E_0
u0EOm

.OOOMOOO

00>

>_nmnotm

00N0000

000m
00_3d

00N0000

c0000
>L0>

00N0000

c0000
>00>

00N0000

c0000
>L0>

00N0000

c0000
>c0>

00N0000

00>

00000000
0 00 00 ___3 000000 0_00 300 30cx 00 >__000

..._.........00c000 0m3oc0 000 0>00 30> 0000 xc_00 30> oo

000m
>__0co_0000Xm

00000000 0 00 000000 0_00

coo—oooeooeoeooomumub 30> U—Doz 30F— avcc—mvmmcou mCm£H>L0>w

0>03_<

000—0000

0>03_<

000—0000

0>03_<

000—0000

0>03_<

000—0000

0

000 03000 30> 000000050 0000000
...0_00 0_303 c0000 300 .0x000_E 0 0x0E 30> 0.

0000—0 L30>
.c. 000_Lo>0w >0_0 0000000 0_00 0000 c0000 30:

00000000
.0_00 00_z 0_000000500c3 _00m 30> 00 00000 30:

0x003 L30> 000
.co_00_000000 3000 0000000 0_00 0000 c0000 30:

.0—

12A
Carkhuff Scale: Empathic Understanding
in Interpersonal Processes

.L_e_vs.l__l
The verbal and behavioral expressions of the first person either
do not attend to or detract significantly from the verbal and be-
havioral expressions of the second person(s) in that they commun-
icate significantly less of the second person's feelings than the
second person has communicated himself.
Example: The first person communicates no awareness of even

the most obvious, expressed surface feelings of the

second person. The first person may be bored or

disinterested or simply operating from a preconceived

frame of reference which totally excludes that of the

other person(s).
In summary, the first person does everything but express that he
is listening, understanding, or being sensitive to even the
feelings of the other person in such a way as to detract signifi-

cantly from the communications of the second person.

Level 2

While the first person responds to the expressed feelings of the

second person(s), he does so in such a way that he subtracts notice-

able affect from the communications of the second person.

Example: The first person may communicate some awareness of 0b-
vious surface feelings of the second person but his com-
munications drain off a level of the affect and distort

the level of meaning. The first person may communicate

l25

his own ideas of what may be going on but these are not
congruent with the expressions of the second person.
In summary, the first person tends to respond to other than what

the second person is experiencing and expressing.

Level 3

The expressions of the first person in response to the expressed
feelings of the second person(s) are essentially interchangeable
with those of the second person in that they express essentially
the same affect and meaning.

Example: The first person responds with accurate understanding of
the surface feelings of the second person but may not
respond to or may misinterpret the deeper feelings.

In summary, the first person is responding so as to neither sub-

tract nor add to the expressions of the second person; but he does

not respond accurately to how that person really feels beneath

the surface feelings. Level 3 constitutes the minimal level of

facilitative interpersonal functioning.

Level A

The responses of the first person add noticeably to the expressions

of the second person(s) in such a way as to express feelings a

level deeper than the second person was able to express himself.

Example: The facilitator communicates his understanding of the
expressions of the second person at a level deeper than
they were expressed, and thus enables the second person
to experience and/or express feelings which he was

unable to express previously.

126
In summary, the facilitator's responses add deeper feeling and

meaning to the expressions of the second person.

Level §

The first person's responses add significantly to the feeling and
meaning of the expressions of the second person(s) in such a way
as to (l) accurately express feelings levels below what the person
himself was able to express or (2) in the event of ongoing deep
self-exploration on the second person's part, to be fully with him
in his deepest moments.

Example: The facilitator responds with accuracy to all of the

 

person's deeper as well as surface feelings. He is
"together'' with the second person or ”tuned in“ on his
wave length. The facilitator and the other person might
proceed together to explore previously unexplored areas
of human existence.
In summary, the facilitator is responding with a full awareness of
who the other person is and a comprehensive and accurate empathic

understanding of his deepest feelings.

l27

Communication Index-Student Form

The day to day activities of the classroom teacher are a
rich source of ideas, direction and help for those who design
pre-service teacher education programs. To be effective and
functional these programs should be based upon the realities of
classroom life. It is toward this end that you are being asked
to give the most realistic responses you can to the situations

which follow. You will need about 30 minutes to complete this

 

task.

 

0n the next pages are nine statements which nine different
students at your school might say to you in moments of private
conversation. Assume that each one of these students has sought
you out at some point in the school day to share his or her
thoughts and feelings. Below each statement write, as accurately
as you can, the response that_y0u would be most likely to make to
each student. Try to write the words that you would actually s_y.

Obviously the way you would respond to some of the statements
depends upon the circumstances and context of the conversation, and
these are not possible to describe in short statements such as
these. Assume, therefore, that you have 5 or perhaps lO minutes
to talk privately with each student, and that you want to respond
in ways that are meaningful and helpful to each person. Make your
responses long enough to show clearly what your thoughts and feel-
ings, your words and, possiblygpeven your actions would be in each
.gggg. Use the reverse side of the page should you need more room

to write.

l28
Be sure to write a response to each statement.
When you have finished writing, complete the last page as
directed. This page will later be removed and the code number
at the top of each page will be the only identification used when
responses are read. Your answers will be completely anonymous.

Thank you for your time and your cooperation!

[One-half page was provided for the written response to
each stimulus statement.

I.

l29

I feel so bad---I have no friends. Nobody likes me. All the
other kids lunch together and play together. They always leave
me out---as if they don't even care about me. Sometimes when
I'm alone and all the other kids are together I feel like cry-
ing. Why doesn't anyone like me? I try to be nice, but nothing
seems to work. I guess there is nothing I can do.

It makes me so mad! Everybody is always telling me what to do
and what not to do. When I'm at home, my parents tell me what
is best for me. At school it's my teacher. Even my friends
bother me. Everybody pushes me around. Sometimes I feel like
punching them all in the nose! They had just better leave me
alone and let me do things the way I want to.

I'm so excited and everything is going so great! I ran for
president of my class and I won; I guess the other kids really
like me. And today my teacher said I was one of the best stu-
dents she had ever had; she makes me feel all warm inside.

And next week, during spring vacation, I'm going to have a great
time with my family. I'm so happy. It's unbelievable. Some
people make me feel so good.

I just don't know what to do. I try very hard in school, but
nothing seems to sink in. I guess I'm not very smart. Nobody
seems to care that I try. What really hurts is when I see my
parents bragging to others about how smart my brother is; they
never even mention me---they even change the subject when I'm
mentioned. Oh, I wish I could do better, but I can't. The
smart kids are really lucky---everybody likes them because
they are smart. Sometimes I even get mad at myself because I
can't do any better.

I get so angry in school! Everyone tells you what you have to
learn, and they don't even care about what you are interested
in. You are supposed to like whatever they want to teach you.
And some of the stupid things they make you do just to get a
good grade! I learn more than some kids who get all A's. For
me school is a waste of time. The people there make me so mad
that sometimes I want to tell them that I just don't care about
all their stupid subjects. But I can't, because I'd get into
trouble and that would make me even more angry. I could

scream and blow the school up every time I see it.

Each day I get up at the crack of dawn and people wonder why.
I do because I have a longing to learn about myself and the
things around me. It's so exciting! Each moment I see or
learn something new---caterpillars become butterflies, the sun
is actually bigger than the earth, or my body is made of many
tiny cells. I feel like I'm bubbling over with excitement. I
want to learn and discover things all day long!

I30

Whenever we divide up to choose sides to play I'm always the
last one picked. I'm so awkward and I don't seem to play the
way the others want me to. No one ever wants me on their

side. It really makes me feel bad to be the last one left.

When everybody is playing I just lean against the nearest wall--
sometimes I could cry; when I do I simply feel worse than ever
---all the other kids laugh at me then. I hate my body; why
couldn't I have gotten a different one?

People get me so mad! Sometimes I feel like really letting
them have it. That would at least make them stop making fun

of the way I look. Just because I'm bigger than most kids my
age, they call me names. The other kids call me ”lardy'I or
“fatso.” Sometimes my teacher says I'm a big bully. Even my
dad and mom don't like the way I look; they kid me by saying,
”You'll grow out of it, we hope.” Well, they just better watch
out because I'll show them I can really be a bully if I want
to. I'm not going to let them make fun of me and get away

with it.

I could just run and run and run. I feel so strong! In gym
today I beat everybody on the physical fitness test. At home
I get my work done faster than anyone else. I'm so full of
energy and I have so many ways to use it. I'm so happy and
strong I could work and play and never stop.

Your name

Name of your school

l3l

 

 

Check below the principal subject(s) you teach.

Several preschool, kindergarten and/or elementary subjects

Driver education

Fine arts: drawing, painting, ceramics, music, dance

Health, human development, physical education, family
life education, home management

Languages, drama, speech, communications, journalism

Natural and physical sciences: mathematics, chemistry,
biology, geology, geography, astronomy

Social sciences: history, government, psychology,
economics

Special education, remedial subjects, emotionally
disturbed

Vocational subjects: agriculture, business, distributive
education, industrial arts

Other (please specify)

 

Check below the principal grade range you teach.

Preschool - grade 6
Grades 7 - 9
Grades lO - l2

Check below the number of years you have actually done classroom

teaching.

O\\.I"I-I'-"\J~II\J-i
o

 

O - 2 years

3 - 5 years

6 ~ 9 years

l0 - IA years

IS - l9 years

20 or more years

Directions:

 

I32

Log for Tape Recordings

Name:
School:

 

COMPLETE BY MARCH l2

l. Record one hour each day for six days.

2. Place microphone where speaking voices will be best heard
and where distracting noises will be least heard.

3. Be sure the recorder is actually recording each time you
turn it on.

A. Use the log below to note in sequence the activities which
occurred during each recorded hour.

5. Return this envelope with tapes and data sheet to your
cluster consultant by March l2.

 

During these recordings I was principally teaching:

grade level(s)

Day Number

subject(s)

 

Section of tapes

 

first l5 min.

 

Activities

 

 

second l5 min.
third l5 min.
fourth l5 min.

first l5 min.
second IS min.
third l5 min.

 

fourth l5 min.

 

first l5 min.
second I5 min.
third l5 min.
fourth l5 min.

 

first l5 min.
second l5 min.

 

third l5 min.

 

fourth l5 min.

 

first l5 min.
second l5 min.
third l5 min.
fourth l5 min.

first l5 min.
second l5 min.
third l5 min.
fourth I5 min.

I33

Information Sheet Accompanying Tapes
Name:
School:

Indicate any factors you would like us to keep in mind when
listening to your tapes

 

 

 

 

Your answers to the following questions will help in the prepara-
tion of human relations materials for the CBTE program. If you
are in agreement with the following statements, circle “Yes.“

If you disagree, circle I'No.'I If you are undecided how you feel,
circle “Un.”

l. Being able to relate to students in an Yes No Un
understanding way is one important
quality a teacher should have.

2. An “ideal'' teacher shows a fairly equal Yes No Un
balance between teaching subject matter
on the one hand and relating with
warmth and sensitivity to students'
needs on the other.

3. I feel that I am able to relate adequate- Yes No Un
ly to students with sensitivity and
understanding without any further instruc-
tion in human relations.

A. Teacher education programs (such as Yes No Un
CBTE) should include some systematic
instruction in interpersonal relations
skills.

List experiences which have helped you develop understanding,
sensitivity to others, human relations skills (e.g. courses taken,
sensitivity training, books read, etc.)

 

 

 

 

 

I3h

Student Teacher Rating Scale

Dear Cooperating Teacher:

Will you be kind enough to take a few moments and complete the
brief questionnaire below regarding your student teacher and his/her
relationships with students? Your response will in no way affect
your student teacher's grade or final evaluation, but will be kept
confidential and used solely for the purpose of improving instruc-
tion for preservice teachers.

Please return this sheet to your cluster consultant by FRIDAY,
MARCH IA.

Thank you very much!

. / I
\‘ 43% ‘4” /c-3 Z/"L‘ (:6 -- \
( mie B. Yule (

E’CBTE Materials Development M.S.U.

'a 0'. 0'. 0" 0'. .'a A'a 0'0 s'a 0" s" 5" g... 0" .'o "a s'a s... 0" 0.4 0" n'a s'a s'o 0.. 0" -'- .‘o .1- .'n s'o A'-
\ 0‘ 1‘ I‘ l\ 0‘ 1‘ l\ 0‘ 4‘ 4‘ l‘ l‘ I\ 4‘ I‘ 4‘ ’\ 1‘ l‘ 0‘ l‘ I‘ 4‘ I l

Directions: Place a check in the column which most accurately
reflects your opinion. If you are not sure, make your best guess.

How well do you believe Very Quite Some- Not too Not at
your student teacher well well what well all

 

l. genuinely likes the
students in his/her
classes?

 

2. shows kids that s/he
understands their
feelings and points
of view?

 

3. creates a feeling of
being trustworthy and
able to keep confidences?

 

A. capitalizes upon an
understanding of kids'
feelings and attitudes
to teach effectively?

5. “stimulates students to
try harder?

Continued on next page

I35

Everything considered, how would you rate your student teacher as

a teacher? (Circle one.)

010005)—

Exceptionally good
Quite good

Average

Somewhat below average
Not good at all

Is there anything else you would like to comment upon regarding
your student teacher's relationships with students?

Other comments:

Your name

 

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

Module Evaluation Form

Please complete this questionnaire CAREFULLY, following the
instructions below.

I.

Complete this questionnaire BY YOURSELF please. It will be
most helpful to us to have your own independent views and
attitudes expressed, rather than a group consensus.

Complete the questionnaire when you do not have to rush.
Allow enough time so that you can respond fully and
completely.

Have your CLP, Interpersonal Relations Skills, with you when
you fill out the questionnaire.

If you disagree with some of the statements be sure to tell
why clearly. Give specific examples and page numbers.

Remember that we need clear information to know how to revise
this CLP. Feel free to comment on or tell us anything you
want that you feel will help improve this packet. Don't be
concerned about hurting feelings, being seen as a flatterer,
etc.

If you want to keep your copy of the CLP, that's fine. If
you want to send it back for me to examine your comments and
marginal notes, that's fine too. If you want to receive a
00py of the revised CLP, check on the last page of this
questionnaire.

[The numbers which appear in the spaces following questions
one through 2h indicate the number of treatment subjects
who checked each answer._—_]

I36

I37

Evaluation of Interpersonal Relations Skills CLP

Directions: Read each statement below carefully and then indicate
how you feel about it by checking the appropriate column:

SA Strongly agree

A Agree

N No opinion or undecided
D Disagree

SD Strongly disagree

Writing space has been left under each statement. For each item
which you check “disagree” or “strongly disagree” please explain
clearly why. Give specific examples and page numbers if you can.

SA A N D SD

 

 

 

l. The competency for this CLP is
important for teachers to have. 7 7

 

2. Each enabler is helpful in
achieving the competency. l A A A l

3. The CLP is organized in a logical .
way that is easy to follow. 2 9 l 2

 

 

A. The directions are clear; generally
I knew what to do. 2 8 2 I

 

 

S. This CLP contains about the right
number of facts and skills to be
learned in one packet. I 5 5 3

6. The glossary is adequate in both
the terms it includes and the way
it explains them. 7 A 3

7. This CLP is about the right
length (volume). 3 A l S l

 

 

8. This CLP contains about the right
number of practice and self-check
exercises. I 7 2 3 l

9. This CLP contains about the right
number of readings and instruc-
tional materials. 2 7 l A

ID. The readings and instructional
materials seem to cover the major
concepts which are important to
learn for this competency. 3 II

Continued on next page

ll.

l2.

13.

IA.

l5.

I6.
I7.

l8.

I9.

20.

2l.

22.

I38

SA

 

The readings in Human Relations
Development are helpful. I

 

 

It is helpful to have some of the
readings printed right in the CLP. 8

The activities in this CLP are
relevant to the enablers. 3

 

There are about the right number
of activities suggested. I

On answer keys (pp. l0,l2,A3-A5)

the “Reasons for Classification”

are helpful in learning to distin-
guish subtractive, reflective and
additive remarks from one another. 6

Examples generally seem realistic. 3

The assessment statements printed
in the CLP following each enabler
statement (pp. 5,l3,l9,30,A7) are
clear and understandable. 3

The enabler assessments not only
measured how well I was doing,
but I learned from them too. 3

I use the techniques which I
learned from this CLP in my
classroom teaching. 3

I use the techniques which I

learned from this CLP in informal
conversations with students out-

side the classroom. A

I use the techniques which I

learned from this CLP in conver-
sations with my family and friends,
and in other aspects of my person-

al life. 2

I can see how this competency will
help me perform other competencies
more effectively. A

Continued on next page

 

 

 

 

23.

2A.

Directions:

I39

This CLP should be included
in the CBTE program for all
PST's to use.

The CBTE program should provide
more instruction on various
human relations skills.

 

in this CLP.

 

 

 

 

SA A N D so
5 6 3
A 3 7

 

 

Listed below are the readings and exercises included
Please indicate by checking the appropriate column

how useful and helpful each one was in assisting you to gain under-
standing of the subject and skill in performing the competency.

Page

6-7

lA-IS
2l-23

31-32

A9

50

Helpful -

So-So -

very useful and informative; should definitely
be retained in CLP
didn't give me lots of new insight or under-

standing but it may have helped some; should
probably be retained in CLP

Not Helpful

probably be removed from CLP

Undecided

v’ Helpful
"' READINGS

Rationale

Classifying

Teacher

Responses

Global Scale

The Helping
Relationship

Nonverbal
Realities

Determining
Accuracy of
Reflective
Statements

A Life-Long
Skill

The Importance
of Feeling

 

Continued on

50-50

next page

Not
Hel ful

didn't find this very useful at all; should

no opinion or no basis for forming an opinion

Undecided

2A-25

26

27-29

33-A5

A6

SI-SZ

S3

55
56-57

58-59

READINGS (cont.)

Communication
"Leads'|

EXERCISES

Enabler l, Practice
Situations l and 2

Self-Check on the
Helping Relationship

TV Observations
Skills Practice

Self-Check Non-
Verbal Behaviors

Observing and
Interpreting Non-
Verbal Behaviors

Non-Verbal Commun-
ications Checklist

Student/Teacher
Interactions

Teacher Response
Classification Check

Perceived Feelings
Responses

Perception of
Students' Feelings

Response Worksheet

Response/Accuracy

Check

Worksheets Steps
A and B

IAO

Helpful

So-So

 

Helpful

So-So

 

 

 

I M P O R T A N T

 

Not
Helpful

 

Not
0100

ided

Undec

Undec

Go back over the list of readings (page 3) and exercises

above and put a check in front of those which you actually
completed.

Continued on next page

ided

 

lAl

Overall, how would you rate this CLP? (Circle a number.)
I. Excellent; one of the best I've seen or used.
2. Good; adequate for the job.

3. 50-50; not any strong feelings about it one way or the
other.

A. Weak; ineffective.
5. Very poor; useless.

Use this space to write any additional thoughts, comments or .1
suggestions you wish to make about this CLP.

 

E Writing space was provided where needed.)
I. Do you believe that it is an important part of the teacher's l
role to be empathic, understanding and supportive of kids---to .
be facilitative---in the way this packet encourages teachers 'I
to be? If you answer no, please explain.

2. What other kinds of experiences have you had which helped you
to become more empathic and understanding? (courses taken,
books read, sensitivity training, etc.)

3. Did you give this CLP to other people to read? How many others?
Who were they? What was their response to the CLP?

A. Did you discuss this CLP with people who did not know about it?
Who? How extensively did you discuss it?

5. What do you feel are the strongest parts of this CLP?

6. What do you feel are the weakest parts of this CLP?
(Continue your answer on the back of this page if not enough
room below.)

Thank you for the time you have taken and the effort you have
made to complete the CLP, Interpersonal Relations Skills, and to
respond to this evaluation form. Your cooperation is very sincerely
appreciated.

Based upon your evaluation and additional suggestions, this
CLP will be revised during winter term, printed and incorporated in
the CBTE program spring term, I975. If you would like to receive a
copy of the revised packet, please check the appropriate space below
and provide an address and phone number where you can be reached at
the beginning of spring term.

Continued on next page

IA2

As indicated earlier, your evaluation of this learning packet
and the suggestions you have made will be used for CBTE program

development,
or the final
enablers you
tion, please

We hope
you feel you

and will in no way affect your student teaching grade
competency evaluations. If you wish to have the
completed for this CLP included in your final evalua-
check below.

that you have enjoyed working with this packet and that
have gained some kinds of new skills and insights which

will help you to respond to others, both personally and professionally,

with greater

Your name

understanding and helpfulness.

 

I want to receive a copy of the revised CLP.

Home address

Phone

 

 

 

I want to have the enablers I completed for Interpersonal
Relations Skills CLP included in my final CBTE evaluation.

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

Interpersonal Relations Skills
by

Jamie B. Yule

©Copyright Jamie B. Yule I975

lA3a

lAAa

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

”Nonverbal Realities” on pages 2l-23 from Charles M. Galloway,
”The Nonverbal Realities of Classroom Life,” Observational

Methods in the Classroom. Edited by Charles W. Beegle and Richard
M. Brandt. pp. AS-SS. ©Copyright I973 by Association for Super-
vision and Curriculum Development, Washington, D. C. Reprinted by
permission.

Materials on pages 8, 27-29, 50 and SA from George M. Gazda et al.
Human Relations Development: A Manual for Educators. (:)Copyright
I973 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston. Reprinted by permission.

 

IASa

COMPETENCY:

To respond consistently to students with verbal expressions
which clearly show that the PST both understands and accepts the
students' thoughts and feelings.

ENABLERS:

I. To use the Global Scale with accuracy in classifying
given teacher statements as reflective, additive or
subtractive.

2. To discriminate accurately between helpful and not
helpful styles of teacher communication.

3. To identify non-verbal behaviors and expressive
movements which may communicate feelings to another
person and to identify what those feelings may be.

A. To classify accurately teacher responses in classroom
dialogue as reflective, additive or subtractive.

5. To respond to students in classroom dialogue with
verbal expressions which are reflective and/or
additive.

lA6a

RATIONALE:

Learners and teachers are alike in many ways; indeed, we are
much more alike than we are different. We both have the same
kinds of needs --- to be loved and cared about, to believe in our
own value and worth as a person, to be successful in doing things
that are important to us, to be understood by people who are
significant in our lives.

Our job as teachers is to help the young become healthy,
fully functioning persons, and this means that our day-to-day
interactions with children --- the way we answer their questions,
direct their activities, respond to their complaints, correct
their errors, cope with their resistance, share their confidences
and so forth --- all must be as positive, constructive and
growth-inducing as we can make them. Valuing himself and his own
abilities to be successful are things which a child learns from
others . . . like teachers . . . and he learns these things by
the way that others treat him.

 

 

No response that a teacher makes to a learner is neutral in
the way it affects that learner. All interpersonal processes ---
even the most “insignificant“ conversations --- appear to have
either constructive or deteriorative consequences for the persons
involved. The teacher-learner relationship may indeed be for
better or for worse. Much depends upon the teacher.

Research studies show that there is a significant relation-
ship between teachers who are warm and understanding and

- the academic achievement of their students as
measured by standardized achievement tests,

- the extent to which their students engage in
purposeful, productive behavior, and

- the attitudes their students have about them.

One study of 6A8 students in grades 8, 9 and lO shows that of the
concerns these children had about school, over two-thirds related
to personal qualities of their teachers. Moreover, there is evi-
dence that what the teacher objectively knows about the student
is not as important in building strong, positive interpersonal
relations as is the belief on the part of the student that h is
understood. ‘

 

Teacher-learner processes may be for better or for worse.
The activities in this packet are designed to help you understand
learners better and facilitate their growth . . . to make your
teacher-learner interactions consistently pppstructive.

Additive response -

Confirming response

lA7a
5

Glossary

a verbal statement which shows another person
that one not only understands the thoughts and
feelings he has already expressed, but is also
aware of some feelings he has not yet expressed
or may not even be fully aware of himself.

- a statement or non-verbal behavior which in-
dicates that a reflective or additive response
which has just been made is accurate, perceptive,
“on target.’'

Global Scale - a measure for judging or rating the quality or degree

of helpfulness of interpersonal interactions.

Helping relationship - any interpersonal relationship in which

persons interact with understanding, warmth,
genuineness and honesty, and thereby build an
environment in which problem-solving and respon-
sible growth are encouraged.

Non-verbal behaviors - gestures, facial expressions, posture, ex-

Reflective response

pressive body movements, rate of speech, tone

of voice and similar behaviors which convey mes-
sages to others without depending upon the mean-
ing of words for communication.

- a verbal statement which shows another person
that the thoughts and feelings he has already
expressed are clearly understood; a statement
which is essentially interchangeable with what
another person has just said; a statement which
mirrors the other's thoughts and feelings.

Subtractive response - a verbal statement which is hurtful to another

person or irrelevant to his concerns; a state-
ment which shows one has misunderstood or dis-
torted the other's thoughts and/or has ignored
the way he feels.

Surface feelings - the feelings a person has which are very apparent

Underlying feelings

to another.

- the feelings a person has which are not ob-
vious to another; feelings which must be inferred
from the way a person speaks or acts, or from

the way portions of his conversation are put
together.

lA8a

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gazda, George M. et al. Human Relations Development: A Manual
for Educators. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., I973.

 

Weigand, James E., ed. Developing Teacher Competencies.
Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., l97I.

 

lA9a

Enabler I

To use the Global Scale with
teacher statements as reflective,

accuracy in classifying given
additive or subtractive.

Enabler l Assessment: Given the Global Scale and a series

of teacher responses to students'

classify
subtracti

9 out of IO responses as reflective, additive or

V8.

This enabler will be checked out in the lab.

Learning Activities

 

comments, the PST will correctly

 

 

 

Activity . . .
Number ACtIVItY Location
I. Read “Classifying Teacher Responses.” CLP, p. 6-8
2. Complete Practice Situation l. CLP, p. 9
Check with answer key. CLP, p. IO
3. Complete Practice Situation 2. CLP, p. ll
Check with answer key. CLP, p. I2
A. For additional practice, complete Lab
pp. 99-lOl in Human Relations Development.
Check with answer key p. 102.
5. Complete Enabler l Assessment and check Lab

your classifications with the answer key.
Go over any you missed with your lab
instructor.

ISOa
8

Classifyinngeacher Responses

Talking with our students, colleagues, friends, family
members and people in general is one activity most of us engage
in for much of each day. It is, in fact, so commonplace that
we rarely think about the effects of our words on the individuals
to whom we speak. It is an important part of understanding others
to be sensitive to the way in which our words (responses) either
help or do not help them.

Verbal responses generally fall into one of the following
categories:

HELPFULI

 

 

l. Reflective - our verbal response shows the other
person that we have clearly heard and
understood BOTH

- what he said (thought content) and
- how he feels (feelings).

Our response is “interchangeable“
with what the other has just said.

2. Additive - our verbal response shows the other
person that we have not only under-
stood his thoughts and feelings, but
that we have ”read between the lines”
and are aware of some feelings that
he has not yet directly expressed to
us or, perhaps, is not even yet fully
aware of himself.

 

 

 

NOT
HELPFUL

 

3. Subtractive - our verbal response shows the other
person that we

 

- haven't heard a word he said or

- think he is wrong to feel the way
he does or

- are thinking about things which are
irrelevant to him or

- are contradicting him or

- are ignoring how he feels or

- can't wait to peddle advice.

 

 

'1—
.l.‘

lSla
9

The following kind of situation occurs frequently in classrooms.
Examine the way in which the teacher's responses are classified.

 

Student to teacher: I just can't stand up in front of all the kids
in the room and give an oral report. I just can't --- I WON'T!

You can flunk me if you want to, but I'm not going to do it!!

Teacher Responses

 

A. Standing up in front of
the others and giving your
oral report is really up-
setting you! You feel you
just can't face that.

B. You're determined not to

give your oral report because
you are afraid of what might

happen when you do.

 

C. That's silly! You
shouldn't feel that way!
You'll do just fine!

D. Your sister never had any
trouble with oral reports at
all.

Classification

 

A. Reflective-the teacher's
reSponse shows the student that
both what he meant and how he
felt were understood. Teacher
and student remarks are
”interchangeable.“

B. Additive-the teacher recog-
nizes that the student's emphatic
words and willingness even to fail
indicate very powerful feelings
associated with this assignment
even though the student has not
directly said that.

C. Subtractive-the teacher
ridicules and criticizes the
way the student honestly feels.

 

D. Subtractive-irrelevant.
What does his sister have to
do with this?

 

 

RESPONSE

 

Reflective - “reflects” back the other's
HELPFUL thoughts AND feelings

Additive - shows awareness of even more
feelings than have been expressed

 

 

 

NOT
HELPFUL
RESPONSE

 

Subtractive - denies, ignores, criticizes or
minimizes what another has
expressed

 

 

152a

 

 

.mm .0 ...0 00 00N0u .z 0m:00o >0 0:050@.0>0o 0:0.00.0m :053: .0.00m .00o.o 50:0 000000<0

mmmzommmm 0Dmm0m1

 

m>_H_oo<
kill

H J‘ I

.a.:0:o.00.0:

0:0 0:0:0mc0:00

00:0 >03 0 :. 0m:..000
000:0 00000.:35500 0:0
:0.>0:00 0:0>o 0.: 0:0
.0>.00m0: :0 0>.0.000v
0m:..00w 0.: :003000
00:03:m:00 0:.3c0m 030:0
.0>.0:0000 >.00:00:. 0.
.0:00.03 0.0:00300 00 000
u0.5500 0. .0m:.:005 0:0
0m:..00w m:.>.:00:3 m:.>.
n.0c0o. >0 :o.000.:35500

V

m>_hum00mm
L/

.000:.:o:0 00 0:m.0

o: 030:0 .0:00300 0:0 :.
m:.>0..00 0:0 :0. m:.:00
00 :000 0. 0: 00:0 030:0
.00:3000m :o 0:0.000:0x0
.00:0>u:o: :m3o::0 000
u:00:. 0:0 :o.0:0000 0.:
00000.:35500 .>.0>.003:00
u:00 m:.000 0:0 0.005.:
m:.000:QXO 0:0 m:.x:.:0
00 0.00000 .00:03 00 :00
n:00 0 00 0:00300 00N.:
nm000: .a.:0:0.00.0: m0.
no.0: 0 m:.:00:0 00 000:
u:000 0.: 00000.:35500

mmmzommmm 0:0:0m: #02

K
/

I
\

m>_hu<th:m
t)!

..e_;

>..00: 0.:0. :0.:3 0.0:

0 0000 .0... 0m:..00.
03:0 0.: :0.3 0:03:m:00:.
0. 030 .m:.x00 0. 0: 0.0:

00>.00:000:0 0500 :0.3 0:0

I3:m:00 :0::05 0 :. 00>0:

:00 .00:3000m 0:0 0:0.0
u00:0x0 .00:0>u:o: 0.: :.
.0:030: 0. .:0.0030.0 0:0
m:.0:000:00:3 >..00: 0:00
:00 00.>00 :000:0: m:.>.m

:0 .>03 .03000 0 :. mc.

:0:0000: .0:00300 m:.:0:m.
.0.0: 00 m:.:..000 >0 0:00

I300 0:0 00.3 0:050>.0>:.
50:» 0.005.: 00.0:
u:0.3 .00000.:35500 :000

.0000: :30

0.: 0005 00 >.0>.03.0X0
0.005.: 03000 0m:.:0
0.00>0: .05:00 .0:0c0m
:. 0:00300 :0.3 0.000
:0 03m0> 0. “0:00:00
0:0 00.000 :0 00.30.0.:
.003.0>00 .00.00:00.0

 

000:0:00: :0:000h m:.00x :00

 

.03<00 3<004m

0.0:00300 0:0 .0 00:0000 .0:00:00 0:000.0 00: 0000 00: 00:3 00:000.0 :0 0:00 .0:00300 00 0mc..00.
0:0 00 00:0000 0:0 00 0:0 0:00300 00 0m:..00m I300 00 0m:..00m 0000:30 0000:30 0:0 :0: 0:00:00
:0.000.w0: 0:0>00 000m 0000:30 0:0 0000.00: 00 00:0000 >..0.0:00 >.:0 0:0 :0:0.0: 00 00:0000
:0:0000 :0.:3 :. 00:0000: :0:0000 :0.:3 :. 00:0000: :0:0000 :0.:3 :. 00:0:00: :0:0000 :0.:3 :. 00:0000:
f Kr \fI \( \
1‘ I4 H <
3 m.m m 0.0 N m._ _

l53a
ll

Practice Situation 1

Directions: Classify each teacher response by circling the
appropriate letter.

Reflective
Additive
Subtractive
Give a reason for your classification.

R
A
S

Student to teacher: ”Smart kids are so lucky! Some of them don't
crack a book all year, and they still breeze through with A's.

Me, I beat my brains out and no matter how hard I try it doesn't
seem to make any difference in my grades. Things just don't sink
in.“

Teacher Responses Classification Reason for Classification

 

1. “Smart kids have their R A 5
problems too!”

 

 

 

 

2. ”You're discouraged R A S
because your efforts to
raise your grade average
just aren't paying off.”

3. ”Maybe you ought to R A S
get a tutor for the

subjects that are giving

you the most trouble.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A. ”It's so depressing R A S
to try your best and find

that it just doesn't make

any difference at all!

Sounds like you are a

little disappointed in

yourself.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. ”Come on now. Things R A S
are not as bad as you're

making them seem. I'll

bet you're tired today.

How much sleep did you get

last night?”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teacher
Response

'0

Classification

R

A

lSha

l2

Key-Practice Situation I

© I.

S 2.

Reason for Classification

Irrelevant. Ignores student's
feelings.

Acknowledges obvious feelings of
student and conveys that the con-
tent of the message has been
understood.

Offers advice about how to solve
problem before taking time to

understand what the real problem
is. Ignores student's feelings.

Contains all elements of a re-
flective response plus it commun-
icates that the teacher is aware
of underlying feelings---that the
student has not achieved the goal
he set for himself.

Contradicts the student and de-

values his feelings. Focuses on
an irrelevant detail instead of

student's feelings.

Practice Situation 2

1553
l3

Directions: Classify each teacher response by circling the

appropriate letter.

 

R = Reflective

A = Additive

S = Subtractive
Give a reason for your classification.
Student to teacher: “I've tried to be nice to Billy Watson, but
I'm not gonna try anymore. I even traded my best cookies with

him yesterday, but he just makes fun of me and calls me Sidney

Sissy Pants in front of all the other kids.“

Teacher Responses

 

l. ”You'retired of having
Billy embarrass you and take
advantage of you.‘I

2. ”You shouldn't take it to
heart so much. You know

what a big tease he is.

Billy teases all the kids.“

3. “You feel like the harder
you try to be nice to Billy
the more he embarrasses you.
That's hard to understand.“

A. ”Well the next time he
does that you just pretend
it doesn't bother you. The
only reason he does it is
to see you get mad.“

5. ”Oh come on! You're not
going to get upset just be-
cause someone calls you a
silly name!“

Classification

R

A

5

Reason for Classification

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l56a
l4

Key-Practice Situation 2

Teacher
Response Classification Reason for Classification

I. (:3 A S l. Essentially this response is
interchangeable with what the
student said.

2. R A (:3 2. Irrelevant. Minimizes the
student's feelings.

3. R 69 S 3. Not only reflects what student
has said, but shows the teacher
realizes the student is baffled
as well as embarrassed by Billy's
behavior.

1+. R A © LI. Gives advice without paying
any attention to how student feels
now. Denies student's feelings.

5. R A (9 S. Devalues, ridicules student's
feelings.

l57a
l5

Enabler l Assessment

Directions: Classify each of the following teacher responses by
circling the appropriate letter which follows it.

R = Reflective
A = Additive
S = Subtractive

You may use the Global Scale in your CLP for help if you wish.

Student to teacher: I sure wish we didn't always have to play team
sports when we go outside for gym! Seems like I'm always the last
one chosen when we divide up for teams. Besides I think sports
that a guy can do by himself are a lot more fun!

 

 

 

Teacher Responses Classification
I. You're tired of team sports, huh? R A S
2. Try to show a little more enthusiasm for the R A S

game, Bill, so that the other kids will want
you on their team.

3. It hurts to feel like the other kids don't R A S
want you to play with them. That wouldn't
happen so often if we played more
individual sports.

A. It'd be better to divide up our outdoor gym R A S
time between team and individual sports be—
cause getting chosen Iast isn't fun and
individual sports are.

5. Okay. We'll work on the lOO-yard dash R A S
tomorrow.

Student to teacher: Man, I'm sick of doing algebra. Why do we have

 

to learn this stuff anyway?

6. It seems dumb to do the assignments when you R A S
don't see how you'll ever use algebra.

7. I felt exactly the same way when I took first R A S
year algebra! But stick with it. Later on
you'll see how useful it is.

8. Have you always disliked math? R A S

9. We have to do this assignment so that you'll R A S
have a good foundation for the next unit.

l0. It's a rotten feeling to be forced to do R A S
something that seems to be a waste of time.

l58a
l6

Key-Enabler l Assessment

 

 

Teacher Responses Classification
IR A Cs)
2 R A G)
3 ..... . ........ . ...R ® 5
'4. ® A s
5........ .......... ......R A G)
6. ® A s
7.. .. ..... ...... R A Cs)
8. R A G)
9... ....... . ........ .....R A (5)
IO. R @ s

159a
l7
Enabler 2

To discriminate accurately between helpful and not helpful
styles of teacher communication.

Enabler 2 Assessment: The PST will correctly identify I8 out
of 20 given teacher responses as either helpful or not helpful.
Helpful responses are those which reflect understanding of both the
student's thought and feelings.

This enabler should be checked out in the lab.

LearningrActivities

 

Activity

 

 

 

 

 

Number Actuvuty Location

6. Read ”The Helping Relationship.” CLP, p. Ih-l6

7. Complete ”Self-Check on the Helping CLP, p. l7
Relationship.“
Compare with answer key. CLP, p. l8

8. Read pp. 62-65 in Human Relations Lab
Development.

9. Read pp. IDS-Ill in Human Relations Lab
Development.

IO. Complete the Enabler 2 Assessment and Lab

check your answers with the answer key.

l60a
l8

The Helping Relationship

A helping relationship between a teacher and a student is one
which encourages the student to

- look rationally at his own problem, feelings
or situation,

- understand both the problem and himself to
the extent that his development and maturity
will permit and

- act in an appr0priate way regarding that problem.

In short, a helping relationship assists students in facing,
understanding and coping with their day-to-day concerns---problem
solving. It helps them become self-directed persons who have
learned to manage in an appropriate way the difficulties of daily
living.

In order to establish this kind of a relationship between
teacher and student, it is important that the student believes
the teacher cares about him, understands him and does not pass
judgment on him. Notice the use of the term “the student be-
lieves.“

Many, perhaps most, teachers do genuinely care about their
students; they want them to learn, grow and develop in the most
wholesome and productive ways possible. But they do not communi-
cate their concern effectively to their students.

Preoccupied with planning lessons, grading papers and exams,
completing report cards, keeping records, setting up resource
centers, securing audiovisual aids, dealing with “troublemakers“,
and the dozens of other responsibilities which are part of the
instructional role, the teacher too frequently gives students
the message that the thing which is most important is ”covering
this chapter,“ ”finishing up the experimentll and so forth. The
genuine concern which the teacher has for students just doesn't
come through very clearly.

To establish a helping relationship with students, the
teacher must clearly communicate several things:

 

- students are listened to---carefulIy----and
their thoughts are understood;

- students' feelings are perceived, considered
and understood;

 

 

- students are respected and cared about.

 

 

I6la
l9

How does the teacher communicate these things? The same way
most other messages are communicated, through what is said and
what is not said, through what is done and what is not done. Speech
and action.

If the teacher's words and actions communicate to students
that their thoughts and their feelings are important and considered,
then students will believe that the teacher cares about them and
understands them. When this happens, a classroom environment will
exist which encourages students to face, understand and cope with
their problems and concerns.

 

As you progress through this CLP, you will develop the skills Pi
you will need to communicate to your students that ”
- you are listening to and understanding their thoughts,

- you are perceiving, considering and understanding
their feelings, A}

- you respect and care about them.

 

l62a

20

 

.>..0:o.00000:0 5000 00.000 00

00.0..030 000..0.0000 00 00::000: 0:0 030 .:000000

000 >0 >.0>.0.:30 00000:0 00: 0:0 0:0.>0:00 .05:0:
:00 :0 050.00:0 m:.::00. :0\0:0 .0:o.0050 030.:00 u

.0>.0.000
:0 0>.000.00: >.0:0300:0 0:0 00.03 000:0000:
0:.00:00 00:00300 00.3 :0.000:00:. 0.:000000 000 u

.0m:.:0 :0:00:005. 0:05: 00.3 :0 00m
:00 :000000 000 0000 00 50.0o:0 0.: 0:0 0:00300
000 :00 0.: 00m: 00 >.0:05 :0>.m 00: 0. 00.>00
:00000: .:o.0030.0 .00: 0.0:00300 0000 0:000
u:00:3 00 0:0000 0:.3c0m 0 0005 0:0 05.0 000 :0000
000 :000000 000 :0000 >.:0 .030.>.0:. :0 00 :0
.00000:30 .0:o.003:00:. 0005.0.00. :00 000.0 0.003
0 00 :0>.m 0:0 .000 .0:0.:.00 .00.>00 .0:o.000:.0 n

.00:0 0>.0.000 0:05

00000 00 ::00. 00:00300 00.00 0:0 00.X0 >000 0000

00N.:m000: 00 ..000 .>~0. .0.0300 .>...0 .000

.0... 00030.000 0:0 00:..000 .00:00300 m:..000.
0:0 0:.003m 50:0 0:.0:00: :000000 000 0..03 u

.050.0o:0 :30 :.000
m:.>.00 0:0 0:.000 :00.000:0: :00 00:00300 :0.:3
:. 0:05:0:.>:0 0>.0:00030 0 00000:0 :000000 000 u

.0m:..000 :.000

00 03o.>..00 0:.00 00: >0 0.00 00 5000 00.00

:000000 005 .:. 0000.0.0:00 00 5000 :00 >:00

-0000: 0:0 00.03 00.0.>.000 03000 0>00 >000 00:.
1.000 000 000000 0:0 0000 00 000.00 0:0 00:00300 u

 

0000 z<uz mmoo
:000000 :m:.0.00: 0:0 m:.0:000:00:3 :0 m:.0m

.0:0.>0000 .05:0:00
>.0:00.0.:m.0 000:00:0500 003 :0 050.00:0 mc.
u::00. :0\0:0 .0:0.0050 030.:00 0000 003 00:0
I0300 00000 .00:300 00 >:0 0.30:0 :000000 000 u

.0>.0.000 :0 0>.000.00: 00
.0.3000 :0>0 :0 .0035 00:0000: :000000 >:0>0 u

.500:000.0 000 :. .000 .0:o.:.0o
.00.>00 .0:0.000:.0 00>.m :0>0: :000000 000 u

.00030.000
0:0 0m:..000 m:.:005.u003o:m :0 05000.003c3
00:00:.0: 0:0 000:300:0 0.3000 :000000 000 u

.050.00:0
0.0:00300 00 0:030:0 0:0 ..0 000 :000000 000 u

.m:.00
00.. .000 >000 :0>00003 00 :00 00:00300

 

0000 z<0z 002 0005 00:._000
:.0:0 00 m:.0:000:00:3 0:0 000m3o:0 :.0:0 00
0>.0:0000 0:0 30> 0000 30:0 00:00300 0:.0000

 

:000005 .30000: 0 0o m:.:00z 0:5

Directions:
responses to students' comments. Decide if you think each
characteristic is generally helpful (H) or generally not helpful
(NH) and circle the appropriate Ietter(s).

H NH
H NH
H NH
H NH
H NH
H NH
H NH

163a
2l
Self-Check on the Helping Relationship

Listed below are some characteristics of teacher

Attends to the feelings of the student.
Does not pass judgment on how the student feels.

Provides immediate answers to the student's problem
by suggesting how he ought to feel or act.

Shows a willingness to discuss the situation a little
more if the student wants to.

Labels the student and his feelings (constant complainer,
“A” student, hypochondriac, etc.) so they can be dealt
with more directly.

Distracts student so that he will get his mind off the
problem.

Shows student that his problem is not very significant
by comparing his feelings to the teacher's or those of
other persons.

Gives full attention to the student.

 

l6ha
22

Key- Self-Check on the Helping Relationship

.@ 0
.® NH

H

G)

H
H
H

@®®§©

mummpwm—

GI) NH

 

Directions:

Decide if you think each response is helpful (H) or not helpful (NH),

l65a
23

Enabler 2 Assessment

Below are some teacher responses to others' comments.

and circle the appropriate Ietter(s).

H NH
H NH
H NH
H NH
H NH
H NH
H NH
H NH
H NH
H NH
H NH
H NH

Student to teacher: Mary Lou turned me down for Saturday

 

night! That's the third time in a row! What am I doing
wrong?

Looks like you've got a lot to learn about girls!

2. That hurts! Makes you really wonder why it's happen-
ing. Doesn't it?

3. Don't let it get you down. Remember Mary Lou isn't
the only pebble on the beach.

A. I thought you were going out of town with the team
this weekend.

Student to teacher: I didn't get a part in the school

 

play because I was late for the try-outs.

5.
6.

What were you doing that made you late?
Sounds like you're developing a bad habit!

Maybe you can talk with the drama coach and explain
what happened.

Well, you'll have to make sure you're on time for
the spring try-outs.

Student to teacher: It seems like we're never going to
get through reading this dumb play!

9.

l0.

ll.

l2.

You aren't enjoying ”Macbeth” much, huh?

We're only spending two weeks on ”Macbeth.” That's
really not so much. Is it?

Be fair. A masterpiece which has lasted for centuries
can hardly be called ”dumb.‘| Can it? Try to see if
you can understand why it has been popular for so long.

I get the feeling that there's a lot about “Macbeth”
that doesn't make much sense to you.

. .-JuL-Lw
3"

ml

 

NH

NH

NH

NH

NH

NH

NH

NH

l66a
2h

Enabler 2 Assessment (cont.)

Teacher to teacher: It really burns me up the way I'm

 

given cafeteria duty week after week just because I'm
new on the faculty!

13.

I“.

l5.

l6.

l7.

l8.

I9.

20.

I know what you mean. Same thing happened to me my
first year.

It makes you feel like you're being discriminated
against just because you're new!

I'll bet the principal doesn't realize how long you've r1
had cafeteria duty. Why don't you ask him for a l '
change?

It's lousy to feel that everyone else matters more
than you do.

 

Student to teacher: We're having a test in geometry
today, and I'm petrified! I'd give anything in the world
to get out of Mr. Zonk's class because he makes every-
thing so hard---and he scares me. He's so stern!

You really shouldn't feel that way. Mr. Zonk is a
very good teacher. His bark is worse than his bite.

Could be that if you spent a little more time studying
geometry the tests wouldn't be so frightening.

You don't have anything to worry about! You always
breeze through tests without a problem!

The more you think about it the more nervous you're
going to be. Come on over here and help me set up
the film projector.

.p-w

C‘UW

@:

I
Z
I

Q©O®®®

I
Z
I

Q N.

H

00

l67a
25

Key-Enabler 2 Assessment

 

 

l68a
26

ML}.

To identify non-verbal behaviors and expressive movements
which may communicate feelings to anothergperson and to identify

what those feelings may be.

Enabler 3 Assessment: Following a 20-30 minute observation of
a teacher involved in instructional activity and using the completed
Non-verbal Communications Checklist, the PST will identify ten
non-verbal behaviors and expressive movements demonstrated by students,
and will supply at least two words which describe the feelings those

behaviors probably express. There should be substantial agreement

between the PST and the clinical instructor on nine out
behavior-feelings pairs indicated.

This enabler will be checked out at school.

Learning Activities

 

of ten of the t1

 

 

 

 

Activity . . .
Number Actuvuty Location
ll. Watch (do not listen to) a soap opera or
drama on television for ID minutes. Be sure
to keep the sound turned off.
Complete ”Observation Skills Practice-Part A” CLP, p. 20
as you watch. Complete Part B when you have
finished viewing.
l2. Read pp. 87-93 Human Relations Development. Lab
l3. Read ”Nonverbal Realities.“ CLP, pp. 2l-23
lh. Complete I'Self-Check on Non-Verbal Behaviors“ CLP, p. 2h
Compare with answer key. CLP, p. 25
IS. Observe a class for at least 20 minutes dur- School
ing which the teacher is providing instruc-
tional activity. Complete l'Observing and CLP, p. 26
Interpreting Student Non-Verbal Behaviors.”
Discuss your observation with the teacher,
noting especially any discrepancies in
interpretations.
l6. Observe a-teacher involved in instructional School

activity for 20-30 minutes. Complete
”Non-Verbal Communication Checklist.”

l7. Complete Enabler 3 Assessment and discuss
with your clinical instructor.

CLP, pp. 27-29

School

l69a
27

Observation Skills Practice

Directions: Watch (do not listen to) a soap opera or drama on
television for ID minutes. Be sure to keep the sound turned off.
Complete Part A below as you watch. Complete Part B when you have
finished viewing.

 

Part A Part B

Note below the non-verbal be- Label, as best you can, with one

haviors and expressive move- or two words the feelings which ,

ments you see. the behaviors or movements L
expressed. 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l70a
28

Nonverbal Realities*

 

Whenever human beings come into contact, a reality exists
that is understood and shared without words. This is the funda-
mental assumption that undergirds the significance of nonverbal
communication. People everywhere bear testimony to the assump-
tion that nonverbal influences are recognized and understood.
Since teachers and students engage in continual communicative
contacts, it is reasonable to assume that nonverbal relationships
exist.

Nonverbal behavior can be viewed as a relationship language.
Silent cues signal a change or provide continuity for any inter-
personal relationships. These cues, whether by face, eyes, or
gesture, can be the primary means of expressing attitudes of in-
timacy, aloofness, concern, or indifference. Teacher attitudes
can be inferred from the way a teacher looks at a student or looks
to avoid him. Not only do special nonverbal cues appear to exist
between a teacher and some students implying favorable relationships,
but the very absence of these cues can be noticed between the same
teacher and other students. Although differing teacher-student
relationships can be quite evident on these nonverbal terms, little
or no conversation occurs regarding this reality.

A second assumption, generally shared by psychologists, is
that nonverbal behaviors are the primanypvehicles for expressing
emotion. (italics added) Behaviors convey hate, fear, anxiety,
and other emotionalities. Feelings of pleasure or distrust can
be transmitted by teacher or student. Although teachers may
state their feelings in verbal forms, the existence of nonverbal
signs can belie and contradict verbal utterances. Students often
wonder whether a correspondence exists between what a teacher
feels and what he says. Words may fail to be persuasive carriers
of feeling since nonverbal behaviors are often more convincing.

Another assumption is that nonverbal cues function as quali-
fiers in the form of metacommunicative messages to indicate how
verbal statements ought to be understood. For instance, a student
at his desk may signify verbally that he is working but simultan-
eously act out a nonverbal performance that he is busy, believing
that this kind of behavior is more convincing. While he may
actually be working at his assigned task, much of his energy is
spent in looking as though he is working. Often, a teacher will
lack a certain firmness in his voice when remonstrating students
to stop talking, causing students to surmise that it is okay to
continue their conversation. Conversely, a smile, frown, or
gesture can accompany a verbal request which makes the directions
of the intended meaning clear.

An assumption shared by behavioral scientists in several
fields and strongly supported by psychiatrists is that nonverbal
behavior provides a leakage channel which is difficult to control
or censor (Ekman and Friesen, I969). In simple language, this

. /_Iz.

 

l7la
29

means that nonverbal behavior is more likely to reveal true
emotions and feelings and is less likely to be deceptive. Non-
verbal behaviors betray one's feelings, whereas verbal communica-
tions are easier disguises for expressing feelings.

It is well known that most people are unaware of their body
language and the feelings they convey to others. In ordinary
circumstances one has no feedback available regarding the leakages
of feelings that occur in body language. Verbal language offers
the marvelous facility of providing immediate feedback, because a
person can hear himself talk. But one is tempted to infer that
others grasp the meaning of his verbal statements to the same ex-
tent that he understands the meaning of his own information. Fl
Whether information comes in the form of verbal or nonverbal mes-
sages, it is essential to obtain feedback and to recognize that
leakages and misunderstandings can constitute the message.

A difficulty in monitoring one's own nonverbal messages is .
that little feedback is available because a person cannot see him- 4‘
self. Others may comment on what someone says or how he says it, NJ
but little information is shared regarding body movement and ex-
pression. Our culture lacks a ready language for discussing non-
verbal cues, and people are hesitant to discuss how others act to
their faces. Students have long delighted in discussing among
themselves the behavioral idiosyncracies of teachers, but rarely
will they discuss them with the teacher himself.

 

We can assume that we are much less aware of our nonverbal
behavior than our verbal. Goffman (I959) presents another view
on this matter. He suggests that nonverbal behaviors can be man-
aged to achieve a desired effect. His view emphasizes the idea
that people in everyday life take on roles for the express purpose
of achieving proper impressions. This does not mean, however,
that impression management is easy. Everyone is not successful in
achieving effects that are in his best interest. Despite the
successes of behavioral management, which can be associated with
courtroom lawyers, diplomats, used car salesmen, and others,
nonverbal cues are less manageable and often more revealing than
verbal information.

A final assumption about nonverbal behavior implies that
learned patterns of body language are associated with what it
means to be a teacher or student in school. Certain specified
behavioral cues and responses are learned by teachers and students
in their role-taking activities in classrooms. Teachers through-
out this culture have been observed in the act of snapping their
fingers to get attention, holding a finger to their lips to achieve
silence, folding their arms to signify disapproval, staring directly
at students to convey negative reinforcement, and pointing at
students to give directions. These signs and signals are well
understood by students, and any observer can see the results.

l72a
30

Students also acquire behavioral cues necessary to their
role as school-goers. They can be observed as looking as if
they are listening, as appearing busy at work with their academic
assignments, and as head-nodders who appear to understand teacher
explanations and instructions. Students learn very early in
school to raise their hands to be recognized, and they soon dis-
cover that hand-raising strategies are in their best interests.
Body cues among teachers and students provide the means for influ-
ence when words would probably fail to be as effective. Many
nonverbal behaviors are common to the performance of what it means
to teach and to go to schools.

Why should it be necessary to say that nonverbal behavior F}
provides unique information apart from verbal information? What '
is the significance of body language to classroom interaction and
school life? Information seekers, whether they be teachers or stu-
dents, will always search for extra data when they are not satis-
fied with verbal information alone. This condition of being
discontent with the narrow range of verbal information and of rely- ;j
ing on nonverbal data occurs when teachers or students are
(a) unwilling or incapable of verbalizing information, (b) unap-
proachable to obtain information, or (c) uncertain about what is
said verbally. In effect, body language speaks loudly when verbal
information is missing or in doubt.

 

Ekman, Paul and W. V. Friesen. I'Nonverbal Leakage and Clues to
Deception.‘I Psychiatry 32 (l): 88-l05; February I969.

Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Living.
New York: Doubleday and Co., I959.

*Excerpt from Charles M. Galloway, ”The Nonverbal Realities of
Classroom Life”, Observational Methods in the Classroom. Edited
by Charles W. Beegle and Richard M. Brandt. pp. AS-SS.

Copyright I973 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, Washington, D. C. Reprinted by permission.

l73a
3l

Self-Check on Non-Verbal Behaviors

Directions: Read each of the following statements and circle
the appropriate letter if you agree (A) or if you disagree (D).

 

A D I. When verbal and non-verbal messages contradict, we
usually believe the non-verbal one.

A D 2. The meaning of an act or gesture must be judged in
context since non-verbal communications have dif-
ferent meanings for different persons.

A D 3. Changing one's non-verbal behaviors is generally
rather easy to do.

A D A. Hand gestures and facial expressions are essentially
the only non-verbal behaviors to which we need attend
in trying to understand another's feelings.

A D 5. A teacher who is highly understanding may be reserved
and unexpressive.

A D 6. One's cultural or ethnic background has little to
do with one's non-verbal behaviors or movements.

A D 7. Unexpressive pe0ple are sometimes seen as unfeeling.
A D 8. The way a person arranges or doesn't arrange furniture

and other objects in the environment around him is a
form of non-verbal communication.

 

®®>®> >®®

mNC‘U'IcP'WN
o no.

l7ha
32

Key-Self-Check on Non-Verbal Behaviors

 

l75a
33

Observing and Intecpretipg Non-verbal Behaviors

Directions: Observe a class for at least 20 minutes during which
the teacher is providing instructional activity. Focus closely on
the expressive movements of the students. (These will not neces-
sarily be the same thing as non-attending behaviors.) Note at
least ten such non-verbal behaviors which you believe express
students' feelings either positively or negatively. Describe what
you believe those feelings to be in one or two words.

 

Expressive movements demonstrated
by students Feelings expressed r}

l.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l0.

 

 

l76a
3H

Non-Verbal Communication Checklist*

 

Directions: Read this checklist carefully, then observe a

 

involved
check to
at least
see some
behavior

teacher

in instructional activity for 20-30 minutes. Place a

the left of every behavior you see the teacher demonstrate
once. Place a check to the right of every behavior you

student(s) demonstrate at least once. (Don't chec
more than once in either column.)

k any

 

Teacher

Non-Verbal Communication Behaviors

Students

 

Promptness in responding to the other.
Delay in responding to the other.

Eye contact

 

Looking at a specific object instead of person
addressing you

Looking down instead of at person addressing you

. .Steady gaze. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Glaring

Shifting eyes from object to object

Looking at student (or teacher) but looking away

when looked at

. .Covering eyes with hand(s) . . . . . . . . . . .

Other

 

Posture

 

Eager, as if ready for activity
Slouching, slumping, tired-looking
. .Arms crossed in front as if to protect self. . .
Crossing-uncrossing legs
Sitting facing speaker (not sideways)
Hanging head, looking at floor, head down
. .Body positioned to exclude others from interacti
Standing with weight on one leg
Other

 

Facial Expression

 

No change, constant expression

Wrinkled forehead- worry or frown
. .Wrinkled nose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Smiling, laughing

“Sad“ mouth
Biting lip
. .Other

 

Hand and arm gestures

 

 

Symbolic gestures

Literal gestures (showing size, shape)
. .Demonstration of how to do something . . . . . .

Demonstration of how something happened

Other

on O O O

 

 

 

l77a
35

 

Teacher

Non-Verbal Communication Behaviors

Students

 

Signs of nervousness or restlessness

 

Drumming or thumping with fingers, tapping foot
Tapping pencil

. .Scratching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fidgeting, squirming
Nail biting
Playing with chalk, eraser, pen

. .Playing with hair, moustache, clothing. . . . .
Rocking back/forth on feet, in chair
Cracking knuckles
Rubbing or stroking face
Other

 

Signals or commands

 

Snapping fingers
Holding finger to lips for silence

. .Pointing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Staring directly to indicate disapproval
Shrugging shoulders
Waving

. .Nodding in recognition. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Winking
Nodding in agreement
Shaking head in disagreement
Other

 

”Touching

To get attention (such as shoulder tapping)
Affectionate, tender

. .Sexual. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Challenging (such a hitting arm)
Symbols of friendship (such as back slap)
Belittling (such as pat on top of head)
Other

 

Tone of voice

 

Flat, monotone, little feeling
Bright, vivid, changes of inflection
. .Strong, confident, firm . . . . . . . . . . . .
Weak, hesitant, shaky
Broken, faltering
Other

 

Rate of speech

 

Fast
. .Medium. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

Slow

 

 

l78a
36

 

Teacher Non-Verbal Communication Behaviors Students

 

Loudness of voice
Loud

I O O O I .Medium. 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0

Soft

 

Diction
Precise
. . . . . .Careless. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Regional or cultural differences, accents
Other

 

Distance

Moves away when the other moves toward
. . . . . .Moves toward when the other moves away. . . . . . . . .
Takes initiative in moving toward or away from
Other

 

Arrangement of physical settipg
Neat, ordered, organized

. . . . . .Untidy, haphazard, careless . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other

 

 

Posithwiin room

Fortifies or protects self behind desk, chair, etc.

Takes Open ”vulnerable” position

. . . . . .Takes position which boxes others in,
prevents exit . . . . . .,. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Moves around room

Other

 

 

 

 

*Checklist derived from l'Categories and Examples of Non-Verbal
Communication Behaviors” in Human Relations Development by
George M. Gazda et al.

l79a
37

Enabler 3 Assessment

 

Directions: Using your observation and the results of the
checklist, complete the questions below.

 

A. Note below ten non-verbal behaviors or expressive movements
demonstrated by students which you believe express students'
feelings either positively or negatively. Give at least two
words which describe what those feelings probably are.

Expressive movements Feelings expressed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l0.

 

 

l80a
38

8. Review the checks in the “Teacher'' column of the checklist.
Altogether, what are the most forceful things these behaviors
communicate to students about the teacher and his/her feelings?

C. Review the checks in the “Students” column of the checklist.
Describe with lO-l2 words the most obvious messages the
class as a whole was sending to the teacher.

 

l8la
39
Enabler h

To classify accurately teacher responses in classroom
dialogue as reflectivey additive or subtractive.

Enabler h Assessment: Observing teachers involved in class-
room interaction, the PST will accurately classify at least ten
teacher statements as reflective, additive or subtractive.

Accuracy is determined by whether or not student responses confirm
the teacher's statement. These classifications will be made during
an observation period set aside specifically for the enabler 4
assessment, not merely during cumulative practice periods.

This enabler will be checked out in the lab.

Learning Activities

 

Activity

Number ActIVIty Location

l8. Review ”Classifying Teacher Responses“ and CLP, pp. 6-8
”Global Scale.”
l9. Read pp. 70-75 Human Relations Development. Lab

20. Read l'Determining the Accuracy of
Reflective Statements.” CLP, pp. 3l-32

2l. Read and complete the appropriate responses CLP, pp. 33-h2
”Student and Teacher Interactions.“

Check with answer key. CLP, pp. h3-45
22. Practice classifying the responses which School

three teachers make in IS minute classroom

dialogues. Use ”Teacher Response CLP, p. #6

Classification Check.“

23. Complete Enabler 4 Assessment and check School
with your lab instructor.

l82a
l+0

Determining the Accuracy of Reflective Statements

Up to this point you have been deciding whether or not
statements are reflective, additive or subtractive on the basis
of how completely they “say back” to the other person what s/he
has initially said to you, i.e., how fully they tell the other

person you have heard and understood his/her thoughts and feelings.

The interaction could be diagrammed thus:
Student statement--------Teacher response

We have, however, automatically assumed that if you make a
statement as reflective as you can, the other person---the student
---will always agree that you have “hit the nail on the head.“
This may be the case in books, instructional materials and other
controlled situations, but unfortunately it doesn't always work
out that way in real life. In day-to-day interactions with others
you may try very hard indeed to show your understanding, only to
discover that you llmiss the boat” as frequently as you llhit the
nail.‘I

Practice, of course, will help you to be more and more
accurately reflective. The important point for you to be aware
of now, however, is how you know when ypu have not reflected
accurately. The answer is easy. The other person will tell you
so.

Would you decide that you had truly understood and reflected
back what a student had said to you if he, in return,

-gave you a blank stare?

-gave a wry smile and shook his head “no”?
-asked “Are you kidding me?”

-said, ”Well, sort of . . . .”

Probably you wouldn't. The student's response to you has not
confirmed your statement. You probably don't understand very
well yet what he is thinking and feeling.

It wouldn't take long for you to confirm that you had under-
stood correctly, however, if he, in return,

-grinned and shook his head “yes“.

-said ”That's for sure!”

-said ”Yeh.”

-became engrossed in the topic and proceded to tell
you even more.

l83a
l+l

From now on, whenever it is possible, try to be aware of
the relationship between

 

 

Student statement----Teacher response----Student response

 

 

The student's response, verbal or non-verbal or both, is the only
sure way you have of knowing how accurately your verbal expressions
reflect the student's thoughts and, particularly, his feelings.

In the interactions which follow, make a special mental note
of the student responses which follow teacher responses. You will
see examples of those which confirm and those which do not confirm.

l89a
#2

Student and Teacher Interactions

Reflective and additive responses are not the only kinds of
responses which understanding teachers make; however, their inter-
actions with students rather consistently contain “helpful”
remarks, i.e. those which communicate to students that they are
being heard and understood.

Consider the two brief interactions below. Do you get the
overall impression that one teacher is more understanding than the
other?

 

l. Teacher: Billy, are you through with your arithmetic yet?
2. Billy (gazing out the window): Uh-uh.
3. T: Why not? What have you been doing over here all this time?

h. 8: Watching those two squirrels out there get acorns. See,
first that big gray one runs out to the very end of that
big branch and . . .

S. T: Sure enough. They're fun to watch, aren't they? But
watching squirrels doesn't get the arithmetic done, does
it?

6. B: Uh-uh.

7. T: Okay then. You'd better get going on it. There's only ten
minutes left until recess, and there'll be no time after
that to work on arithmetic.

n" §'4

8. T: What're you watching so closely out that window, Bill?

9. B: Those two squirrels. They're gathering acorns. The big
gray one runs out to the very end of that big branch there
and drops them down to the other one. He collects them and
runs off with them. Sure wish I could see where he hides
them!

lO. T: You'd rather be outside hunting the squirrel's nest than
inside doing arithmetic. Right?

II. B: Right!

l2. T: Well maybe we can arrange that. Why don't you quickly
finish up the problems on this page---they should only take
you a couple of minutes. We'll go out for recess as soon
as you're through.

l85a
H3

The first teacher is attending more closely to the arithmetic,
while the second focuses more upon Billy's feelings. Compare state-
ments l and 8. What messages might each of these convey to Billy?

Compare statements 5 and I0. Which is more accurately
reflective of Billy's thoughts and feelings? Which would more con-
vincingly communicate to Billy that his teacher cares about him
and understands him?

Compare statements 7 and l2. Notice that neither teacher
excuses Billy from his responsibility simply because he doesn't feel
like working on it at the moment. Teacher Two has communicated to
Billy that

- she understands how he feels and what interests him,

- she believes schedules and routines should serve the
needs of people, not vice versa, and

- it is necessary for him to complete a reasonable
assignment.

l86a
14.1.,

Directions: Read through the first interaction completely. Look
more closely at the responses which have a line on the left. Write
the appropriate letter on the line to indicate if the response is
essentially

Continue

R = Reflective
A = Additive
S = Subtractive

in the same way through interactions 2 and 3.
Interaction l

Student (to home economics teacher): Can you tell me how
to lose weight? Give me a diet or something? I'm so
sick of being fat and ugly and unpopular! I've finally
made up my mind to d9 something about it!

T: Well, that's fine, Betty. What got you so determined
all of a sudden?

S: (vaguely): Oh, I don't know----guess I just got so
sick of it I had to do something.

T: Well, I can surely understand that. All the time I
was in college I weighed between I60 and l7O pounds . .

S: Really?

T: Yes, and I got mighty sick of it. So I know just how
you feel. But frankly, Betty, I think what you ought
to do is see your family doctor. Get him to give you
a diet and be sure you won't injure your health by

dieting.

S: I thought maybe you'd say that. It's what you always
read in magazines and stuff. We learned that in health
too.

T: Did you? Well, it is a good idea. Don't you think?
S: Yuh, I guess so. Well, thanks a lot . . .

T: (smiling): Sure, Betty. Anytime you want to talk, feel
free to stop by.

15.

I6.
17.
l8.
I9.

20.
2|.

22.

l87a
45

Interaction 2

 

Teacher (to French class): Okay, let's cut the chatter

and get down to business. Today we're going to
practice conjugating “-er” verbs. (Turns to board.)

 

Students: Yuk!! Oh nuts!! Assorted groans and yawns.
T (smiling): I can sense that you think the idea of
conjugating verbs is a lousy one.
Ss:Right on! You said it! Hey, how come we never get r?
to learn useful things like ''Love ya, baby!” (Laughter.) '-4
T (laughing): I can see what you mean by useful!
5: Well, how about it? How do you say it?
T: Love ya, baby? _ i;
55 (with interest): Yeh!
T: Well, it depends upon how well you know this particu-
lar person. (Laughter, nudges, winks, etc.) You
might say ”Je vous aime” if what you really meant was
that you liked the person a lot. But for your best
girl you'd probably be more inclined to say “Je t'aime.”
(Writes both on board.)
5: I don't get it.
T: Y0u don't understand when to use “vous“ and l'tu."

: Yeh.

Class continues.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.
28.

29.

30.

3I.

l88a
A6

Interactionp3

Yesterday you had so many good questions about how
sunlight affects growing plants! I thought that
today we could each start an experiment, right here
in our classroom, to show the effect of sunlight on
plant growth.

Do we each get to do our very own experiment?

Yes. And each experiment can be a little different
in some way from all the others.

Hey, that's keen!

Sounds like you are going to enjoy this, Billy.

Yah! My brother works experiments over at the college
all the time and now I'm gonna get to do one! Oh boy,
I can hardly wait to tell him! Can we do lots of

them?

It makes you feel more grown up to be able to do
important things that adults do.

Maybe I'll be a scientist when I get to college.
Science is really neat----'specially the experiments.

It is exciting to see how experiments turn out. Some
times there are unexpected surprises. Has anyone

ever done an experiment before?

Class continues.

 

 

l89a
47

Directhw: Read through the interactions which follow. Identify
those teacher responses which are essentially reflective (R),
addithuz(A) or subtractive (S), and write the appropriate letter
Kathe kfit of those statements. Remember: every statement the
teacher makes will not be classifiable, only some.

Interaction h

 

32. Bookkeeping teacher to student dawdling at pencil sharp-
ener: This is the third time You've been to the pencil
sharpener this period, Bill. Tell me the problem.

33. S: What'd you mean, the problem?

3h. T: The way you're using that pencil sharpener and look-
ing out the window suggests that there's a reason
you're not doing the exercise. How about it?

35. S: Well, darn it, no matter how many times I do the
stupid thing I can't get it to come out right.

36. T: You're really put out because you can't get it to
balance.

37. S: Not only that, but I'm already two exercises behind
everyone else. I'm getting farther and farther
behind!

38. T: And you're getting more and more tied up about the
fact that you might not finish the course, especially
since you don't know how to make it any better.

39. S: Yeh. It's a mess. Isn't it?
40. T: I know it looks that way to you. Let's go over to

your desk and you show me, step by step, just how
you're working out this exercise.

.I

 

Al.

42.
A3.

45.

A6.

A7.

#8.

l90a
#8

Interaction 5

Teacher to student running in the hall: Bettyl! Slow

it down! Come on over here. I want to talk to you.

S: Aw gee, I'm gonna be late for . . .

T: I don't care what you're going to be late for! What
you were doing is really dangerous! You were tear-
ing around that corner so fast you nearly knocked
Lee (blind student) over.

S: No I didn't! I saw him there!

T: Well, it certainly didn't look like it to me! And
Lee grabbed his locker as you tore by. ‘

S: Well, maybe I did scare him a little. I didn't mean
to though.

T: I know you didn't mean to, Betty, but you did. I
think you'd better go apologize to him. And see to
it that this doesn't happen again. ‘

S: Okay.

 

“9.

50.

SI.

52.
53.
54.

55.
56.
57.
58.

59.

l9la
“9

Interaction 6

Student I to student 2: You cut that out! (Hits S.2

SI:

52:

SI:

$2:

SI:

SI:

who hits him back, etc. etc.)

Boys! I want you to stop that fighting right now!
(Pulls boys apart.) What is this all about?

He stuck out his foot just when I was carrying my
stuff over to the science center. He tripped me on
purpose!

I did not! :8

Did too!

That's enough boys. Billy, did you deliberately
put your foot out in the aisle when you saw Mike ;
coming with his arms full? u}

 

No ma'am.

He did too!

Well, I think this was just a misunderstanding ...
Uh-ghll! He tripped me!

That's enough, Mike. It was probably just an acci-

dent. Billy, will you come over here and pass out
these books while Mike collects his science things?

60.
6].

62.

63.

6h.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

7].
72.

(D

l92a
50

Interaction 7

 

Why the sad face, Betty?
My dog got run over by a car last night and the vet
said she'd never make it so he had to put her to

sleep. (Tears.)

Your dear pet! It's so painful when someone or
something you love is hurt or dies.

(Nods in agreement.)

Hard to concentrate on other things, like school.

I:-
I

(Nods again.) Ginger was the smartest dog in the
whole world. She always minded me too. She was my
very, very best friend.

 

You miss her. . . . maybe you're even thinking about ,J
how lonely it's going to be without Ginger to play
with.

Yeh. My mom was talking this morning about getting
another dog, but I don't want another one! She's
already forgotten about Ginger, but i won't! I'll
always remember Ginger.

Ginger sounds like a wonderful pet. Lots of the kids
in our room have never had a pet at all. Would you
like to share some of your adventures with Ginger
with the other kids?

Yes. How?

Write a little paragraph or two, or as much as you
want. When you have written down all the things
you want to tell, then maybe you could bring a
snapshot of Ginger from home so we could see how
pretty she was. You could read your paper to the
class, and I'll bet the other kids will have lots
of questions to ask.

Do you think I'd know all the answers?

Sure. You just tell them about Ginger.

73.
74.

75.
76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

BI.

82.
83.

840

l93a
SI

Interaction 8

Student enters room, slams door, throws crumpled paper
on floor, and sits moodily on window sill.

Journalism teacher: Well, what in the world's eating you?

S:

It makes me so DARN mad!! Everytime we get a really
good story---something with some real guts to it----
old man Burns says we can't print it. (Mimics) ”It

might not go over so well with some of the parents---
or the board.“ Nuts! What ever happened to freedom
of the press? People around this school act like
they've never heard of democracy! Old Burns really

burns me!

Which story are you talking about?

The one about the teachers' strike. We really nailed
those union guys who are stirring things up!

Maybe I'd better take a look at it, Bill.

How come? There's nothing wrong with it. Every
word is the truth. You want to censor it too?----
clean it up nice for old man Burns?

Not necessarily, Bill. I can sure see your point.

I'd be darned mad if I were in your shoes. But Mr.
Burns is the principal, and he does have a responsibil-
ity for what goes on in this school.

Do you think he's responsible for running this place
like the Third Reich? Do you think that's what
parents want?

Hold on, Bill. I'm on your side. Remember? I was
just trying to help you see his point of view.

Why should I, when he doesn't care about mine?

I'm sure he does. It's just that he takes his
responsibility seriously.

(sarcastically): I'll say!

 

l94a
52

Key-Student and Teacher Interactions

CLASSIFICATION REASON FOR CLASSIFICATION

 

Interaction l

2. S 2. Irrelevant question. Ignores student's
feelings.

4. S 4. Irrelevant remark. Ignores student's
feelings. Shifts focus of conversation
to the teacher rather than keeping it
with the student who has a need. r]

6. S 6. Gives advice--even good advice--before
taking time to understand the student.
Betty's responses (3 and 7) may suggest
that the diet was merely a pretext for

 

 

talking about something else. a]
8. S 8. Oblivious to both surface and under-
lying feelings. Puts words in student's
mouth.
Interaction 2
l3. R l3. Teacher reflects students' feelings.

Their response (l4) confirms that
teacher understands correctly.

IS. R l5. Non-verbal response (laughter) and
inferred meaning of “useful“ show that
teacher follows students' thoughts.

2l. R 2l. Reflects student's thought in order
to clarify.

Interactiong3
27. R 27. Interchangeable with 26.
29. A 29. ”Reads between the lines” and sees
student's desire to be grown up and

to emulate his brother.

3l. R 3l. Essentially the same as 30.

 

l95a
S3

Interaction 4

 

32. R(?) 32. May be classified as reflective since
teacher responds with sensitivity to
non-verbal behavior.

34. R 34. Reflects student's non-verbal behav-
iors and their most obvious meaning.

36. R 36. Interchangeable with 35. (Confirmed
by 37)

38. A 38. Recognizes that the underlying feeling

is helplessness, frustration.

Interaction 5

43. S 43. Scolds. Devalues student's feelings.
Hurtful.

45. S 45. Ignores and devalues student's
feelings.

47. S 47. Gives directions irrespective of

student's feelings. Scolds.

Interaction 6

 

50. S 50. What the teacher wants is irrelevant.

54. S 54. Ignores Mike's feelings. Focuses on
who is “guilty.”

57. S 57. Wrong focus. Should look at what
students feel, not what teacher thinks.

59. S 59. Ignores feelings. Makes a judgment
without adequate information. Tries
to correct situation by distracting
children.

Interaction 7

 

60. R(?) 60. May be classified as reflective since
teacher responds with sensitivity to
non-verbal behaviors.

62. A 62. Recognizes underlying feeling of pain.
(Confirmed by 63)

64. A 64. Recognizes a problem the student is
facing. (Confirmed by 65)

Interactiongzi(cont;)

66. A

68-70-72.

Interaction

 

75.
77.

79.

8|.

83.

66.

75.
77.

79.

8l.

83.

l96a
54

Tentatively suggests another painful
thought the student may be experi-
encing. (Confirmed by 67)

Not necessarily classifiable, but show

sensitivity to the student's feelings.

Note that teacher does not excuse stu-

dent from engaging in educational

activity, although an appr0priate

activity is suggested. I

Ignores student's very strong feelings.

Still focuses on story rather than on
student and his feelings. J

_!4_

Says he sees student's point of view,
but his behavior doesn't show that.
Trying to teach about the principal's
point of view when student is upset
is futile.

Same as for 79. Student's feelings
are totally ignored.

The principal is not the point. The
student is.

l97a
55

 

 

 

:0.000.0.000.o 000:00000 0:00300 00:0500000 :000005
.00: 0000 0. :o 0:0500000 0.:000000 000 05:.0:00 :000.0 00.03 00:0000: 0:00300 0:0

000: .00.000 :3o> 0:00030 05 .0>.000:0030 :o 0>.0.000 .0>.000.00: >.:00.0 0:0 0>0..00 30> 00.03
00:0500000 :000000 30.00 0002 .0:o.>0000 .00:0>a:o: 00 >..300:00 0:000< .0:0000 m:.0:300.0 03o
n:0.3 00.:3 :00 0:0 .>.:00.0 :00: 0:0 000 :00 30> 0:003 500:000.0 0 :. >.0>.03:00o:3 0.0 ”0:0.000:.o

 

 

00000 :0.000.0.000.u 00:00000 :000005

 

0000050
.0>00 000:w

 

 

 

.: .0 .0 .0
.m .m .m .m
.N .N .N .N

 

l98a
Sb

.. .. .. ..

m :o < .0 00:omw0: 0:00300 0:0500000 :000005 >..0.0.:. 0.0 :0 0.00 0:00300 00:3

0
.00: 0000 0. :0 0:0500000 0.:000000 0:0 05:.0:00 :000.0 00.03 00:0000: 0:00300 000 000: .00.000 :30>
0:00030 05 .0>.000:0030 :0 0>.0.000 .0>.000.00: >.:00.0 0:0 0>0..00 30> 00.03 00:0500000 :000000
:00 0000. 00 30.00 0002 .0:0.>0000 .00:0>u:o: 00 >..300:00 0:000< .0:0000 m:.0:300.0 03000.3
00.:3 :00 0:0 .>.:00.0 :00: 0:0 000 :00 30> 0:003 500:000.0 0 :. >.0>.03:00o:3 0.0 “0:0.000:.o

 

0:0500000< : :0.0mmm

 

0000050
.0>00 000:0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.o. .o. .o. .o.
.m .m .m .m
a
9 7
OJ 5
om om ow ow
0“ 0“ 0N 0N
90 cm cm 00
mm :o < .0 00:0000: 0:00300 0:0500000 :000005 >..0.0.:. 0.0 :0 0.00 0:00300 00:3

 

..0cooqlwc0500000< J :0.00:m

200a
58

M

To respond to students in classroom dialogue with verbal
expressions which are reflective and/or additive.

Enabler 5 Assessment: Given an audio- or videotape of his/
her own teaching, the PST will identify at least five of his/her
own verbal expressions which are reflective and/or additive.
Expressions will be classified as reflective or additive if stu-
dents confirm them by their responses. The tape may be reviewed
at school or in the lab, which ever is more convenient.

This enabler will be checked out in the lab.

LearningrActivities

 

Activity
Number

24. Read ”A Life-long Skill” and “The Importance CLP, pp. 49-50
of Feelings.”

Activity Location

 

 

25. Read pp. 66-69 Human Relations Development. Lab
Respond to the Situations l-lO as directed
using “Perceived Feelings Responses.“ CLP, p. 5l
Check answers with answer key. CLP, p. 52
26. Complete ”Perception of Students' Feelings.‘I School/
Discuss your perceptions of statements and CLP, p. 53

feelings with your clinical instructor to
gain further insight.

 

27. Read “Communication 'Leads'.“ CLP, p. 54
28. Read pp. 75-77 Human Relations Development. Lab
Respond to Situations l-lO as directed using
”Response Worksheet.“ CLP, p. 55
29. Complete ”Response and Accuracy Check.“ CLP, pp. 56-57
30. Working with small groups of students--in School

the classroom, cafeteria, halls, playground,
etc.--practice responding to them with state-
ments which reflect their feelings. Listen
and watch especially their responses so that
you know whether or not you have perceived
accurately.

 

3l. Read pp. 288-92 Developinngeacher Comp- Lab
etencies. Complete steps A, B and C as
directed using the appropriate worksheets. CLP, pp. 58-59

Complete step D by comparing your written
response to those of the best standardized
responses by looking for key words in both
sets of responses. Hypothesize the rating
your response would receive if rated by
trained judges.

ZOla

 

 

59
Activity Activity Location
Number
32. Audio- or videotape a l5-20 minute segment School
of your teaching which includes dialogue
with students. Complete Enabler 5 Assess- CLP, p. 60

ment and check with your lab instructor.

 

202a
60

A Life-Long Skill

One of the things which we, as human beings, are most skilled
at is identifying and responding to other persons' feelings. For
example, as little children we were expert at distinguishing what
Mom really meant when she said, “We'll see.” Sometimes it meant
”yes,“ sometimes ”no,“ sometimes it meant “give me time to think
it over.” We ”read” her feelings easily and naturally, and (if we
were smart) we acted accordingly.

Similarly, it doesn't take long before we |'know'I when a boy-
friend is jealous, a wife is irked, a husband is worried, a child
is fearful. They may not tell us in so many words that they are
jealous, irked, worried or fearful, but beacuse we care for them
we attend carefully to the verbal and non-verbal behaviors which
they demonstrate (and to those they omit as well). We I'read between
the lines,“ identify their feelings and then act appropriately.

So Enabler 5 requires you to do only two new things---l) con-
sciously label, with words, the feelings you perceive 2) in persons
who are unfamiliar or not particularly close to you. The same
process you've been engaged in all your life, identifying and
responding to other persons' feelings, is carried one step farther----
out of your personal life and into your professional life as well.

203a
6l

The Importance of Feelingfi

 

The way we deal with our feelings and emotions is probably one
of the most frequent sources of difficulty in human relationships.
Typically, our culture has not encouraged the open expression of
feelings; self-control and restraint often have been overemphasized
to the point of personal harm. While learning to inhibit the out-
ward expression of many of our feelings, we have also been taught
to deny them. Consider how often we hear the following kinds of
responses:

When we are depressed: “What are you looking so sad about?”
“Stop feeling sorry for yourself!“
“Cheer up, things will get better.”

When we are angry: llCalm down!”
''There's no point in losing your
temper!“
When we are excited: ”You're acting like a child.“

“Act your age, will you!II

But feelings do not disappear just because we refuse to
recognize them. Feelings and emotions are subjective reactions
that involve both psychological and physiological processes. When
we inhibit or overcontrol our feelings, rather than give them
legitimate expression, physical tensions are stored up in our sys-
tems. These tensions, if unrelieved, can get us into enormous
difficulty with ourselves and others.

As Ellis writes, “The human being may be said to possess four
basic processes---perception, movement, thinking and emotion---
all of which are internally interrelated.“ When a person functions
as a whole or when he has it “all together,” he is aware of his
feelings and the feelings of others, cognitively understands what
he feels and feels what he understands, and acts in ways that give
expression to these perceptions, thoughts, and feelings, in meeting
his needs and the needs of others.

It takes a lot of human feeling to be a human being, for much
of life is feeling. Feelings give our lives richness, color, depth,
and fullness. In order to discover personal meanings in our lives,
we need to use our feelings, because such meanings are derived from
the experiences we have and the feelings associated with these experi-
ences. In the final analysis, the life worth living is characterized
by personal meanings.

Ellis, A. E. “Rational Psychotherapy.“ Journal of General
Psychology. 59. I958. 35-49.

*From Human Relations Development by George M. Gazda et al.,

l59-60.

Zone
62

Perceived Feelings Responses

Situation 1 upset, mad,yangry, tired, guiltyy ashamed, uncomfortable

 

Situation 2

 

Situation 3

 

Situation 4

 

Situation 5

 

Look over the feelings you have perceived in situations 2-5. Circle
those which you would classify as underlying.

Surface feelings Underlying feelings

Situation 6

 

 

Situation 7

 

 

Situation 8

 

 

Situation 9

 

 

Situation lO

 

 

205a
63

Key-Perceived Feelings Responses

There are no ”right” and ”wrong'I answers for this exercise. Compare
your answers with those suggested below. Are some of yours the same,
or similar?

Situation

Situation

Situation

Situation

Situation

Situation

Situation

Situation

Situation

Situation

b,

upset, mad, angry, tired,-- uncomfortable
irritated, mad, frustrated,--
aggravated, antagonized

puz ed, m annoyed, uncomfortable, uncertain, ll.
am nsuppor eo ‘
am mad, critical, outraged, furious,-
-ntagonize-

annoyed, (isappointed inm-
irritated,w shy, I life—d

 

 

 

 

 

Surface feelipgs Underlying feelings
overwhelmed, uncertain, inadequate, unprepared
unsure
unhappy, uncomfortable, fearful, lonely, confused
upset

earnest, sincere, trying frustrated, puzzled, mis-
diligent understood, hopeless

thoughtful, wondering, uncertain, unhappy, longing
tired of school

disappointed, sad, un- hurt, bitter, unloved,
happy unrespected, unsupported

206a
64

Perception of Students' Feelings

Directions: Sit unobtrusively in a classroom where you can see
clearly and make notes without disturbing others. Listen closely
to what the students say, taking special note of their non-verbal
behaviors and movements.

 

Write the student comments and/or statements below.
Indicate the feelings which you perceived to be present. Circle
those feelings which you would classify as underlying.

Student statements Feelings present

 

 

IO.

207a
65

Communication “Leads”*

To understand another person's feelings and experiences we need
to attempt to enter his phenomenal field, his personal frame of
reference through which he interacts with his world. However, since
it is impossible for us to be the other person, the best that we can
do amounts to reasonably correct but approximate understandings.
With this in mind, it seems desirable that we be continuously open-
minded and cautious in appraising others, consider most judgments as
tentative, and remember that at best we will have a limited under-
standing of the unique person with whom we are interacting.

Phrases that are useful, when you trust that yourpperceptions
are accurate, and the helpee (student) is receptive to your com-
munications:

 

You feel ... What I hear you saying...
From your point of view ... You're...(angry, sad, etc.)
It seems to you... I'm picking up that you...
In your experience... I really hear you saying...
From where you stand... Where you're coming from...
As you see it... You figure...

You think... You mean...

You believe...

Phrases that are useful when_you are having some difficulty
perceiving clearly, or it seems that the helpee (student) might
not be receptive to your communications:

I'm not sure if I'm with you, but... Could it be that...
Does it sound reasonable to you that... I wonder if...

This is what I think I hear you saying...Is it possible that...
I somehow sense that maybe you feel... It appears you...
Would you buy this idea... Maybe you feel...

What I guess I'm hearing is... I guess that you're...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but... As I hear it, you...
Could this be what's going on, you... It seems that you...

Is there any chance that you...

Is it conceivable that ...

Maybe I'm out to lunch, but...

Maybe this is a longshot, but...

Let me see if I understand; you...

Let me see if I'm with you; you...

I get the impression that...

From where I stand you...

You appear to be feeling...

Perhaps you're feeling...

Do you feel a little...

I'm not sure if I'm with you; do you mean...
I'm not certain I understand; you're feeling...
...is that the way it is?

...is that what you mean?

...is that the way you feel?

*From Human Relations Development by George M. Gazda §g_al,, l6l-62.

 

10.

You feel
because
Natural:

You feel
because
Natural:

You feel
because
Natural:

You feel
because
Natural:

You feel
because
Natural:

You feel
because
Natural:

You feel
because
Natural:

You feel
because
Natural:

You feel
because
Natural:

You feel
because
Natural:

208a
66

Response Worksheet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kl

209a
67

Response and Accuracy Check

The only way that we can be perfectly sure we are “reading”
other persons' feelings correctly is to reflect back what we think
they feel, and then note their response.

 

Listen closely to the other people around you today--—your
spouse or roommate, cluster consultant, salespersons, bus drivers,
janitors, professors, anyone. Practice responding to them in ways
which you feel reflect their feelings. How do they respond?

If they confirm your statement (”Yehl“, a nod of the head,
I'uh-huh," ”And not only that but . . .”) they are telling you that
you have perceived accurately, that you have understood what they
were trying to tell you.

If they do not confirm your statement (”Well, not so much that
as . . . ,“shake of the head, l'Hold on---that's not quite what I
was driving at,“ ”I knew you wouldn't understand”) then you need to
continue listening, identifying and responding.

Note on the following pages five interactions you had in which
you successfully reflected feelings to persons on five different
occasions.

210a

68

:.u_ Low

30> mc_mm:n amox mLmEOHmso

cog; >__m_ooamm .>£3 zocx

no: ocm cooco 30> mmaum 0;“

:_u_ o_mm 30>: uom Op uOc mc_cmomE m.u_:

 

 

xomn noocoamoc Locuo ups: oopcOQmoL now own:

._

:_>;2 “so uc_c acm

ucmo_mocq >cmaeoo osu ou_L3 0u >umoc
unonm E._ .om_o mc_;uoEOm ;u_3 ommo
>L_mo ocu :_ mo_o; mcu a: ___w muuom
_ .oocovco _ umsu oc_cmmLmE amoco
0: can xooz m_:u Lmooogo acmzm 0:

we ocom u.co_o >och: ”ocean >LoooLm
c_ Lommcme ommo >L_mo "mamammm.

 

o_mm COmLoalcocuo own:

lea

69
Step A Worksheet-Brief Written Response

212a
70

Step B Worksheet-Response Selection

First choice

Second choice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Omit third and fourth choices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...-H oJ 0+“ 0;
om om 0M om
a
3 .I
l 7
2
0N 0N 0N 0N
._ ._ ._ ._
Locomou cu x4;m_umc_ o_o
w< co m mmcoamoc ucmnaum omcoamoc Locumoh Lo o_mm ucoosum “on:

.A<v o>_u_nnm Lo Axv o>_uoo_moc

mm: ucoeoumum Lso> m_ oumo_pc_ .mmz 30> cu omcoamoc m.u:oo3um osu umzz >__mc_w ocm mm: omcoamoc Lao>
umcz .>__m_u_c_ u_o Lo o_mm ucooaum on» own: zo_on mc_u0c >3 mmc__omm new mu5m305u .mocoonum mo mc_ocmum
stove: Lso> 305m Lo_53 mco_uomcouc_ m>_m ammo. om oc_u .oamuooo_> Lo uo_vsm :30 Lao> 3o_>om umco_pooc_o

 

 

 

uommnsm ucmEmmomm< mice—nmcm
_m>m_ oumco

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Amidon, E. J., 8 Flanders, N. A. The role of the teacher in the
classroom (Rev. ed.). Minneapolis : Association for
Productive Teaching, I967.

Asbury, F. R., 8 Costantino, N. V. Developing the counselor
teacher. Journal of the Student Personnel Association for
Teacher Education, I972, 19, 83-9l.

Aspy, D. Toward a technology for humanizing education.
Champaign, Il.: Research Press, I972.

Aspy, D., 5 Hadlock, W. The effects of high and low functioning
teachers upon student performance. In R. R. Carkhuff & B. G.
Berenson (Eds.). Beyond counseling and therapy. New York:
Holt, Rinehart 8 Winston, I967. (Abstract)

Aspy, D., 8 Roebuck, F. An investigation of the relationship
between student levels of cognitive functioning and the
teacher's classroom behavior. Journal of Educational

Research, I972, éfi, 365-368.

 

Bender, R. C. A comparative analysis of the short term and long
term effects of didactic and programmed empathy training
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Maine, I973).
Dissertation Abstracts International, l97h,.25, 7530A-753lA.
(University Microfilms No. 7h-l0, I03)

Berenson, D. H. The effects of systematic human relations training
upon classroom performance of elementary school teachers.
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 197l, 5(2),

70-35.

Bidwell, W. W. A study of openness as a factor in the human
relations training of preservice teachers (Doctoral disserta-
tion, Ohio State University, 1966). Dissertation Abstracts
International, I967, 27, 2909A. (University Microfilms
NO. 67-2hl3) _—

Burns, C. R., Jr. Description and evaluation of the systematic
human relations training component of a teacher preparation
program (Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts,
I974). Dissertation Abstracts International, I97h,'22,
2761A. (University Microfilms No. 7h-25, 822)

Zlh

2l5

Campbell, D. T., 8 Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-
experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally,

I963.

Carkhuff, R. R. Helper communication as a function of helpee
affect and content. Journal of Counseling Psychology, I969,
16, l26-13l. (a)

Carkhuff, R. R. Helping and human relations: a primer for lay
andyprofessional helpers, Vol. I, selection and training.
New York: Holt, Rinehart 8 Winston, I969. (b)

Carkhuff, R. R. Helping and human relations: a primer for lay
and professional helpers, Vol. 2, practice and research.
New York: Holt, Rinehart 8 Winston, I969. (c)

Carkhuff, R. R. The development and generalization of a
systematic resource training model. Journal of Research and
DeveIOpment in Education, I97l,'&(2), 3-I6.

Carkhuff, R. R., 8 Truax, C. B. Toward explaining success and
failure in interpersonal learning experiences. Personnel
and Guidance Journal, I966, 55, 723-728.

Christenberry, M. A. An exploratory study to investigate the
relationship between teaching effectiveness and level of
empathic understanding of paraprofessional teachers of young
children (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University,
I974). Dissertation Abstracts International, I975, 25,
5l83A-518hA. (University Microfilms No. 75-3738)

Christensen, C. M. Relationships between pupil achievement,
pupil affect-need, teacher warmth, and teacher permissive-
ness. Journal of Educational Psychology, I960, 21, l69-l7h.

Combs, A. W. Thegprofessional education of teachers: a percept-
ual view of teachergpreparation. Boston: Allyn 8 Bacon,

I965.

Combs, A. W. Some basic concepts for teacher education. Journal
of Teacher Education, I972, 2 , 286-290.

Combs, A. W., Avila, D. L., 8 Purkey, W. W. Helping relationships:
basic concepts for the helping professions. ‘Bbstbn: AIIynTE

Bacon, l97l.

 

Cyphers, A. L. The efficacy of video and symbolic modeling,
feedback and reinforcement as means of teaching empathy to
student teachers (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Tennessee, I972). Dissertation Abstracts International, I973,
32, hI7OA. (University Microfilms No. 73-2437)

2I6

Dell, H. L. D. The evaluation of teaching procedures designed to
increase empathic ability (Doctoral dissertation, Ball State
University, I967). Dissertation Abstracts International,
I968, 22, lhh7A-I448A. (University Microfilms No. 68-324I)

Dillard, J. W. An investigation of the effects of teacher
effectiveness training on the types of verbal responses and
attitude change opre-Serviceteachers (Doctoral dissertation,
George Peabody College for Teachers, I974). Dissertation
Abstracts International, I975, 22, h282A. (University
Microfilms No. 7h-29, 159)

 

Dixon, W. R., 8 Morse, W. C. The prediction of teaching perform-
ance: empathic potential. Journal of Teacher Education,
I96I, 12, 322-329.

Flanders, N. A. Teacher-pupil contacts and mental hygiene.
Journal of Social Issues, I959, l§(l), 30-39.

Flanders, N. A., 8 Simon, A. Teacher effectiveness. In R. L.
Ebel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research. New York:
Macmillan, I969.

Gage, N. L. Explorations of teachers' perceptions of pupils.
Journal of Teacher Education, I958, 2, 97-IOI.

Gazda, G. M. Systematic human relations training in teacher
preparation and in-service education. Journal of Research
and Development in Education, I97I, 3(2), h7-Sl.

Gazda, G. M., Asbury, F. R., Balzer, F. J., Childers, W. C.,
Desselle, R. E., 8 Walters, R. P. Human relations development:
a manual for educators. Boston: Allyn 8 Bacon, I973.

Hamachek, D. E. Characteristics of good teachers and implications
for teacher education. Phi Delta Kappan, I969, 29, 3hI-345.

Hamachek, D. E. Toward more effective teaching. In D. E.
Hamachek (Ed.), Human dynamics in psychology and education:
selected readings (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn 8 Bacon, I972.

Hefele, T. J. The effects of systematic human relations training
upon student achievement. Journal of Research and Development
in Education, I97I,_fl(2), 52-69.

Huber, H. W. Investigation of effects of selected simulated
classroom situations on student teacher attitude and empathy
(Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, I972).
Dissertation Abstracts International, I973, 33, 62l7A-62I8A.
(University Microfilms No. 73'5h05) '_—

217

Jones, L. K. Human relations training for teachers: opportunities
for student personnel workers. Journal of the Student
Personnel Association for Teacher Education, I973, 12, h-7.

 

Kratochvil, D., Carkhuff, R., 8 Bcranson, B. Cumulative effects
of parent and teacher offered levels of facilitative conditions
upon indices of student physical, emotional, and intellectual
functioning. Journal of Educational Research, I969,'§3,

l6l-l6h.

 

Lewis, W. A., Lovell, J. T., 8 Jesse, B. E. Interpersonal
relationship and pupil progress. Personnel and Guidance

Journal, 1965, fig, 396-h01.

Lewis, W. A., 8 Wigel, W. Interpersonal understanding and assumed
similarity. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 196A, h ,

'55-'58.

Lueder, D. C. A study of the relationship between the perceived
quality of interpersonal relationships in the classroom and the
helping process discrimination level of the classroom teacher
(Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1973). Disserta-
tion Abstracts International, I97h, 32, 1502A. (University
Microfilms No. 7h-IO, 159)

Mehrens, W. A., 8 Lehman, I. J. Measurement and evaluation in
education and psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart 8 Winston,

1973.

Miller, J. P. The effects of inservice human relations training
on teacher interpersonal functioning (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Toronto, Canada, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1973. 22, 6219A-6220A. (Order microfilm copy
directly from National Library of Canada at Ottawa)

Morgan, S. R. Personality characteristics as predictors of
empathy in stUdent teachers of the emotionally disturbed
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1974).
Dissertation Abstracts International, I97h,{2§, 2812A.
(University Microfilms No. 74-25, 276)

Norton, B. E. Effects of human relations training upon teacher
trainee's level of facilitative communication, self-concept
and creativity (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois
University, I972). Dissertation Abstracts International,
I973,‘33, hO9hA. (University Microfilms No. 73-4173)

Payne, P. A., Weiss, S. D., 8 Kapp, R. A. Didactic, experiential
and modeling factors in the learning of empathy. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, I972, 12, h25-h29.

2I8

Peck, R. F., 8 Tucker, J. A. Research on teacher education. In
R. M. W. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973.

Rogers, C. R. The necessary and sufficient conditions of
therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting
Psychology. 1957. _2_l_. 95-103.

Rogers, C. R. 0n becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961.

 

Ryans, D. G. Inventory estimated teacher characteristics as
covariants of observer assessed pupil behavior. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1961, 52, 9l-97.

Shaddock, J. D. Relative effectiveness of two communication
training models on student teacher classroom behavior
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Mississippi, 1972).
Dissertation Abstracts International, I973. 2}; 3308A.
(University Microfilms No. 73-1292)

Soar, R. S. Accountability: assessment problems and possibilities.
Journal of Teacher Education, I973, 23, 205-212.

Stedfeld, R. W. Performance level effectiveness of training
prospective teachers in interpersonal skills (Doctoral disser-
tation, University of Minnesota, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1970. 0. 5329A-5330A. (University Microfilms
No. 70-5607)

Stoffer, D. L. Investigation of positive behavioral change as a
function of genuineness, nonpossessive warmth, and empathic
understanding. Journal of Educational Research, 1970, 61,
225-228.

Thorman, J. H. Relative effectiveness of four methods of training
prospective teachers in interpersonal skills (Doctoral disser-
tation, University of Minnesota, 1968). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1969, 22, 351IA. (University Microfilms No.
69-6859)

Underhill, R. G. The relation of elementary student teacher empathy
(affective sensitivity) change to supervising teacher empathy
and student teaching success (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, I968). Dissertation Abstracts International,
I969, 22, 3511A-3512A. (University Microfilms No. 69-5980)

Waggener, R. R. The effects of a structured group experience on
teachers' empathy, regard, and genuineness in the classroom
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, l97l). Dissertation Abstracts International, I972,
‘32, h363A-h36AA. (University Microfilms No. 72-7099)

219

White, R. Effects of teacher accurate empathy, non-possessive
warmth, and genuineness on achievement of mentally retarded
students (Doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College for
Teachers, I968). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1969,
'22, lh82A-lh83A. (University Microfilms No. 68-16, 337)

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
ll llllllllllllllllll "ll"lllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllll ll
31293000104749