A STUDY OF SELECTED STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES REPORTED BY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SECONDARY SCHOOL CLUSTER PROGRAM AND CONVENTIONAL PROGRAM STUDENT TEACHERS Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LED 8. SUNADA 1977 5 MI I LIBRARY . CHIC re UNIVE ‘8? Y IBR i? IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ! ,. - University This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF SELECTED STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES REPORTED BY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SECONDARY SCHOOL CLUSTER PROGRAM AND CONVENTIONAL PROGRAM STUDENT TEACHERS presented by Leo S. Sunada has been accepted towards fulfillment . of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Teacher Education % 77/276ré Geogg, . Myers Major professor Date JUlY 29, 1977 07639 v. I. 21"”.1‘ .' Mjwfi-fi‘h .} 2 0"} t «I - «Pd ‘4 . A v I in. 9 L ence PrOgr fOCus teach grams Speci ABSTRACT A STUDY OF SELECTED STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES REPORTED BY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SECONDARY SCHOOL CLUSTER PROGRAM AND CONVENTIONAL PROGRAM STUDENT TEACHERS BY Leo S. Sunada PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This study was designed to compare the field experi- ence component of two secondary level student teaching programs at Michigan State University. This examination focused on experiences associated with "cluster" student teaching and secondary "conventional” student teaching pro- grams as perceived by prospective teachers. The following specific purposes were formulated: 1. To determine whether Michigan State University secondary cluster student teaching provided more selected experiences than did secondary conven- tional student teaching. 2. To compare the number of experiences that academic subject matter teachers encountered with the number of experiences met by elective course stu— dent teachers. and sug State U items t they ex be Valu inclusi Leo S. Sunada 3. To determine whether cluster program student teachers experienced and reported a greater variety of activities than did the conventional program student teachers during student teaching. 4. To obtain from the responding student teachers their recommendations regarding which student teaching experiences they would include in future secondary student teaching programs at Michigan State University. MET HOD OLOGY A questionnaire was developed from previous studies and suggestions from the student teaching staff at Michigan State University. The questionnaire had a checklist of 100 items to which student teachers were asked to respond if they experienced the item, if they found the experience to be valuable and if they would recommend the experience for inclusion in future student teaching programs. One hundred fifty-two student teachers were randomly selected to participate in this study. They were divided into two groups: (1) cluster program student teachers and (2) conventional program student teachers. The two groups were subdivided into two more groups: (1) academic subject matter and (2) elective course student teachers. There was a 79 percent return of 120 usable responses. Sixty-six of these were from cluster student teachers and fifty-four conventional student teachers. transf Michig Repeat to tat inform cluste: Leo S. Sunada The information provided by the 120 respondents was transferred to IBM computer cards for programming at the Michigan State University computer center. A basic program, Repeated Measures, Factorial Analysis of Variance was used to tabulate the data and test the hypotheses. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY The analysis of the data provided the following information: 1. The student teachers in the secondary cluster program reported a greater number of student teaching experiences than did those participating in the secondary conventional student teaching program. The elective course student teachers reported a lesser number of student teaching experiences than did the academic course student teachers. The secondary cluster program student teachers reported a greater variety of student teaching experiences than did the secondary conventional program student teachers. The secondary cluster program student teachers did not recommend a greater number of experiences than did the secondary conventional program student teacher. The investigation indicated that the secondary cluster student teaching program provides a larger number and - the . anal' appa: prog: elec‘ for I chose spec; nique actit Leo S. Sunada and a greater variety of student teaching experiences than the conventional program. The repeated measures factorial analysis of variance showed that no interactiOn was apparent between groups and measures. Thus, the cluster program was beneficial for both the academic course and elective course student teachers. The data were analyzed for the ten most chosen experiences and the ten least chosen experiences, and the choices showed preference for specific experiences involving classroom skills and tech- niques. Re3pondents reported less interest in community activities. A STUDY OF SELECTED STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES REPORTED BY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SECONDARY SCHOOL CLUSTER PROGRAM AND CONVENTIONAL PROGRAM STUDENT TEACHERS BY Leo S. Sunada A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Division of Student Teaching and Professional Development 1977 an I’. f". (i Mrs. T to see my wif ment, degree ($10 ”7030 DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, Mrs. Toka K. Sunada, who has always inspired her children to seek the highest ideals of American education, and to my wife, Mrs. Carol Ann Sunada, who through her encourage- ment, love and sacrifice has helped complete this doctoral degree program. ii to he Georg supp< doctc commi Charl Shear Shall suPpo stUde. SLUde; Comple and f1 a“(ISL her pe ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to extend his deepest appreciation to his committee chairman and dissertation director, Dr. George R. Myers who gave his greatest gifts: his faith, support, time, and professional commitment throughout the doctoral program. Special recognition is given to the committee members: Dr. Richard L. Featherstone, Dr. Charles L. Jackson, Dr. W. Henry Kennedy and Dr. Troy L. Stearns who each has helped in his own Special way; They shall not be forgotten for their interest, encouragement and support. The writer wishes to show his appreciation to the student teaching staff of Michigan State University and student teachers for their assistance in.making this study complete. Many thanks is given to those faculty members and friends that gave additional professional encouragement and support to continue this endeavor. The writer is grateful to Virginia A. Wiseman for her personal interest and assistance with administrative details of the doctoral degree program. This dissertation has been the most challenging, demanding, and educational requirement of the doctoral iii program. From the initial proposal committee meeting to the final defense, the candidate cannot evaluate the important benefits derived from this type of research and writing style until completion. The writer is grateful for this learning experience and anticipates it will help in professional research. iv LIST LIST Chap TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES O O O O O C O O O O O C O Viii LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY . . . . . . . 1 PURPOSE . . . . . . . . . . . . I NEED FOR THE STUDY. . . . . . . . . 2 SCOPE OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . . . 8 HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . 9 UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . 9 LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 10 DEFINITION OF TERMS . . . . . . . . 11 AN OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . 14 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . 16 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . 16 TRENDS IN STUDENT TEACHING . . . . . . 16 STUDENT TEACHING AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. . . . . . . . . . . 26 STUDIES RELATED TO THE SERL-CLINICAL CLUSTER PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . 33 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . 40 POPULATION . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Chap Chapter Page DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . 41 HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 STATISTICAL PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . 48 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 4. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . 52 PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . 52 COMPOSITION OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . . 54 STATISTICAL PROCEDURES USED. . . . . . . 56 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS . . . . . . . 57 STATEMENT or SIGNIFICANCE . . . . . . . 66 ADDITIONAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS . . . . . 68 THE TEN MOST CHOSEN ACTIVITIES EXPERIENCED BY: 0 C C O O O C O O C O C O O 72 THE TEN LEAST CHOSEN ACTIVITIES EXPERIENCED BY: 0 I O O O O O O O C O C O 0 73 THE TEN MOST VALUABLE ACTIVITIES CHOSEN BY. . 75 THE TEN LEAST VALUABLE ACTIVITIES CHOSEN BY . 77 THE TEN MOST CHOSEN ACTIVITIES RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION IN FUTURE STUDENT TEACHING PRWRAMS BY : O O C O O O O O I I O 7 8 THE TEN LEAST CHOSEN ACTIVITIES RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION IN FUTURE STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAMS BY: . . . . . . . . . . . 80 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 85 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 CONCLUS I CNS 0 C O O O O O O O O O O 8 9 vi Chapt BIBLI APP N Appen A. Chapter Page RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . . 92 REFLECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 93 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 APPENDICES Appendix A. ENROLLMENT OF CLUSTER AND CONVENTIONAL SECONDARY STUDENT TEACHERS, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, WINTER TERM 1972. . . . . . 103 LETTER TO UNIVERSITY COORDINATORS, SELECTED CLUSTER CONSULTANTS AND DIRECTOR OF STUDENT TEACHING AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. . . 104 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO STUDENT TEACHERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE OF THE STUDY . . . . . . 105 SCORES FOR SECONDARY STUDENT TEACHERS OF THE SELECTED STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, WINTER TERM . . 112 SCORES OF SECONDARY STUDENT TEACHERS OF SELECTED STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES BY PAIR, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, WINTER TERM . . 117 SCORES OF CLUSTER AND CONVENTIONAL PROGRAM STUDENT TEACHERS RELATED TO SELECTED STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES. . . . . . 120 vii Tablt 4-1. 4-2. 4-3. 4-5. Table 3-1. 4-1. 4-30 4-4. 4-7. 4-8. 4-9. LIST OF TABLES Summary of Questionnaires Mailed and Responses Received, by Numbers and Percentages . . . Number of Respondents From Cluster and Con- ventional Secondary Student Teachers, Michigan State University. . . . . . . Analysis of Variance Table for the Cluster and Conventional Programs and Academic and Elective Course Student Teacher Experiences Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . Cell Mean Values for the Cluster and Conventional Program and Academic and Elective Course Student Teachers Experiences Reported. . . Analysis of Variance Values for Transformed Measures of Experiences Reported by Cluster and Conventional Student Teachers . . . . Analysis of the Variety of Activities of Cluster and Conventional Program Student TeaChers O O 0 O O O 0 O O O O 0 Percentage of Student Teachers Experiencing Items and Cumulative Total of Items Experienced O O O O O O O O O O 0 Analysis of Variance for Secondary Cluster and Conventional Program Student Teachers Recomr mendations for Future Programs . . . . . Cell Mean Values for Secondary Cluster and Conventional Program Student Teachers Recom- mendations for Future Programs . . . . . Analysis of Variance Transformed Measures for Secondary Cluster and Conventional Student Teachers Recommendations for Future Programs viii Page 47 55 58 58 59 61 63 64 65 65 Figur LI ST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Geographic Locations of Michigan State University Student Teaching Centers . . . . 42 ix ence prog. focu: teacl grams Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY PURPOSE This study was designed to compare the field experi- ence component of two secondary level student teacher programs at Michigan State University. This examination focused on experiences associated with "cluster" student teaching and secondary conventional student teaching pro- grams as perceived by prospective teachers. The following specific purposes were considered: To determine whether Michigan State University secondary cluster student teaching provided more selected experiences than did secondary conventional student teaching. To compare the number of experiences that academic subject matter student teachers encountered with the number of experiences met by elective course student teachers. To determine whether cluster program student teachers experienced and reported a greater variety of activities than did the conventional program Student teachers during student teaching. the labo fess: With Partj to th the t 4. To obtain from the responding student teachers their recommendations regarding which student teaching experiences they would recommend for inclu— sion in future secondary student teaching programs at Michigan State University. NEED FOR THE STUDY Much attention has been given in recent years to the importance of student teaching programs and professional laboratory experiences. Curtis and Andrews define pro- fessional laboratory experiences as "all those contacts with children, youth and adults (through observation, participation and teaching) which make a direct contribution 49// to the understanding of individuals and their guidance in the teaching-learning process."1 Smith states, The study of teaching and learning theory requires laboratory experiences which will enable the student to broaden and deepen his understanding of principles and apply them to practical problems of teaching. Laboratory experiences in teacher education serve three major functions: lDwight Curtis and Leonard O. Andrews, Guiding Your Student Teacher (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1§54), p. ix. 2E. Brooks Smith and others, A Guide to Professional Excellence in Clinical Experiences in Teacher Education (washington, D.C.: Association for Student Teaching, 1970), p. 10. Note: The Association for Student Teaching was re- named the Association of Teacher Educators on September 1, 1970. sin it the the Stuc pub} teac is 1 effe Stud indi. P'Or'fnm fin) 1. They illustrate and demonstrate principles of practice. 2. They involve the application and testing of teach- ing and learning theory, and 3. They provide opportunities for developing com- petency in full range of teacher tasks.3 Although these functions are closely related, a single activity may serve more than one purpose. However, it is important to consider the variety of experiences for the total program. Student teaching programs have undergone changes in the past quarter century. One such change involved moving student teachers from the campus laboratory schools to the public schools. Various types and styles of student teaching programs were developed, tested and adapted. There is little research to indicate that one plan is more effective than the other. The Committee on Research in Student Teaching of the Association for Student Teaching indicated that: There is a need to observe experimentally the effects of different types of student teaching programs or experiences in lieu of student teaching relative to prospective teachers: (1) knowledge of good edu- cational practices: (2) personality traits and changes in personality traits; (3) skill in using classroom activities; (4) attitudes towards teaching; (5) ability to recognize his pupils' programs; (6) ability to 31bid., p. 10. WC ti“. fc recognize his subject matter content and resource materials; and 17) knowledge of teaching field of speCIalization. The Michigan Council of State College Presidents worked through the Deans and Directors of Teacher Education Programs to develop a new program model that would enhance the learning experiences of their student teachers. The following characteristics were suggested as guidelines: 1. A highly individualized and flexible student teaching experience. 2. Contact with several different teachers in a school building instead of just one as under the tradi— tional program. 3. Contact with a variety of activities in the school and community in addition to classroom teaching. 4. A close relationship between the student teaching program and the public school building staff, thus involving the professional teacher more directly in teacher education.5 As its means of these quidelines, Michigan State University developed the ”cluster" student teaching program. This program utilizes a public school teacher to coordinate the group or cluster of ten to twelve student teachers 4Association for Student Teaching, Research on Student Teaching, Bulletin No. 5 (Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Co., 1965), p. 27. 5Student Teaching Office, "Student Teaching Year End Report," 1967-68 East Lansing, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1968 (mimeographed). assig envis stude expel Stude thems of ir for c evalu effor with small teach assigned to a school building. This cluster program envisions a planned series of experiences exposing the student to several teaching models, a highly individualized experience and a variety of school-community activities. Student teachers in the cluster may group and re-group themselves for greater interaction as they identify problems of instruction and learning. They are able to develop plans for organizing and managing instruction, and to devise evaluation techniques to determine the success of their efforts. In the process, they examine and gain practice with different methods of organizing instruction such as small groups, large groups, individualized tutoring and team teaching.6 In the conventional student teaching program, the student teacher, supervising teacher and college coordinator cooperate as a triad in the laboratory experience. The supervising teacher and the college coordinator share responsibilities for observation, evaluation and feedback, and in continuing conferences with the student teacher pro- vide as many experiences as the structure permits. The college coordinator usually meets in a group seminar each week with the students in his charge, discussing items such 6Donald J. Chase, "A Comparative Study of the Cooperative Michigan State University-Lansing SERL Project and the Conventional Program of Student Teaching with Reference to Openness and Attitude Formation” (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1971), pp. 3, 4. prc pat pri stud as planning, discipline, feedback procedures and any other topics of interest to the student teacher.7 If student teaching is to provide maximum help to prospective teacher, Wilhelms contended that broad, varied patterns of experiences should be "selected and evaluated primarily for other than practice or skill building."8 Stratemeyer and Lindsey indicated that in initiating the transition from student to teacher the student teacher should be provided experiences in the grades above and below the one to which the student teacher was assigned or with other teachers in the secondary schools.9 Johnson recommended the following to improve student teaching experiences: 1. Provide more opportunity for observing a master teacher before and after student teaching assign- ment. 2. Include experiences in various teaching situations at different grade levels, with at least some experiences in a situation where less than ideal conditions exist. 7Ibid., p. 2. 8Fred T. Wilhelms, "Realignment for Teacher Edu- cation," Teacher Education: Future Directions (Washington, D. C.: NationaITEducation Association, 197OT, p. 11. 9Florence Stratemeyer and Margaret Lindsey, Working With Student Teachers (New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1958), p. 330. shoul from on Va these and e: 0f fut 3. Include team teaching experiences with a master teacher. 4. Arrange more opportunity for informal discussions between student teachers, their supervisors and cooperating teachers. 5. Provide more opportunities for working with cul- turally disadvantaged and the exceptional child. 6. InClude student teaching experiences in student's minor as well as in his major field. 7. Plan more opportunities for experiences with case studies, audio-visual materials and other teaching materials.10 These writers agreed in saying that student teaching should be planned so that prospective teachers could benefit from a variety of teaching experiences. With this emphasis on varied activities and experiences, it is important that these factors be incorporated into student teaching programs and examined for the improvement of the learning experiences of future teachers. The College of Education at Michigan State Univer- sity prepared in 1976-1977 school year, approximately 800 pre-service secondary teachers which make up 66 percent of of the total pre-service teachers graduated. Thus, it is important that meaningful activities be innovated and 10Edward G. Johnson, Improving the Student Teaching Experience, Improving College and University Teaching, Vol. XIX, No. 2 (Spring 1971), p. 167. eve fee The by MicI tota each nair Shut nairi was 1 feSS: diSCL in Ck evaluated in order to provide the most effective pro- fessional laboratory experiences for prospective teachers. The importance of these activities was properly emphasized by Haberman when he wrote, Educators responsible for planning programs of teacher education must decide in which experiences students will truly be free to learn and at what point they must demonstrate the minimum competencies required of a beginning teacher. Unless this is done, there can be no conscious planning regarding the areas in which the student is permitted to explore, to fail, to reflect and to try again.1 SCOPE OF THE STUDY The population of this study was composed of Michigan State University secondary student teachers. A total sample of 152 students with seventy-six students in each program (cluster and conventional) were sent question- naires. The original questionnaire was developed by Irvin J. Shutsy and modified by Charles L. Jackson. The question- naire for this study was based upon their instrument which was modified by the writer from suggestions of the pro- fessional staff at Michigan State University. A detailed discussion of the procedures and instrumentation is included in Chapter 3. 11Martin Haberman, ”Relating the Study of Teaching to Other Dimensions of Teacher Education," The Study of Teachin , ed. Dean Corrigan (Washington, D.C.: The Associ- ation for Student Teaching, 1967), p. 21. hypoth I . HYPOTHESES In order to carry out this study the following hypotheses were developed: 1. There will be a greater number of student teaching experiences reported by those participating in the secondary cluster student teaching program than those participating in the secondary conventional student teaching program. Among those replying. there will be a greater number of experiences reported by those secondary elective course student teachers than the secondary academic course student teachers. The participating secondary cluster program student teachers will experience a greater variety of activities than the participating secondary conventional program student teachers. Among those individuals surveyed, the secondary cluster program student teachers will recommend a greater number of experiences for inclusion in future student teaching programs than will the secondary conventional program student teachers. UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions were made in the formu- lation and conduct of this study: 1. That student teaching is an important aspect of the preservice education of teachers. fOllr K) 10 That an adequate teaching-learning experience is likely to result for conventional program student teachers as well as for cluster program student teachers in the secondary schools. That student teachers could remember the experi- ences encountered during their student teaching period in order to complete the questionnaire. That the students who responded could understand the experiences they considered valuable and would recommend for inclusion for future teaching pro- grams. LIMITATIONS Since an exploratory study of this nature cannot be all encompassing, limitations of the study were set as follows: 1. This study was limited to those Michigan State University students who completed their student teaching in Winter Term, 1972. The study was limited to the secondary cluster and conventional student teaching programs at Michigan State University. The sources for questionnaire development were limited to clinical consultants and college coor- dinators at Michigan State University, in addition to literature in the field of teacher education. fie ing ter Stuc assu of a tiVe teach Superw ll 4. This study was limited to the student teaching phase of the teacher education program. 5. This study was a normative survey with partici- pants selected within the normal limitations of the questionnaire technique. DEFINITION OF TERMS The terminology used in student teaching and other fields of education has not been standardized. The follow- ing explanation of terms gives the meaning applied to each term as it has been used in this study. Student Teaching A period of guided teaching when a college student assumes increasing responsibility for directing the learning of a group or groups of learners over a period of consecu- tiveweeks.12 Student Teacher A prospective teacher who is acquiring practical teaching experience and skill under the guidance of a supervising teacher or other qualified persons.13 1zLeonard O. Andrews, Student Teaching (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1964), pp. 8-12. 13Carter V. Good, Dictionary of Education (New York: MCGraW“Hillp 1959): p0 530- 12 Academic Course Student Teacher A student teacher having a teaching assignment in the areas of English, Mathematics, Social Sciences and Science, in grades seven through twelve. Elective Course Student Teacher A student teacher having a teaching assignment in the areas of Art, Business, Human Ecology, Industrial Arts, Music and Physical Education. These courses are not nor- mally required for graduation from a secondary high school. Supervising Teacher A teacher of school pupils who also directs the work of a student teacher with these same pupils in a public school setting. This teacher is also referred to as a cooperating teacher. COOperating School District A school system which provides facilities for student teaching but is neither controlled nor supported by the college. University College Coordinator This person is a regular University staff member who has as part or all of his assignment the supervision tall-'- 13 of the activities, relationships and conditions under which student teachers carry on their work.14 Cluster Consultant A member of the cooperating school staff who is employed for a portion of the school day as a building consultant to the student teachers and cooperating teachers assigned to work with student teachers. The college, in some instances, reimburses the school district for the time the cluster consultant spends on his student teaching duties. The cluster consultant shares with the college coordinator, supervising teacher and school principal the responsibility of the experiences and activities in the school community. Conventignal Program of Student Teaching A program in which student teachers are placed individually with one supervising teacher and spend a sub- stantial part of the experience with that particular teacher. The college coordinator may meet with student teachers approximately one-half day during the week and makes frequent visits to the classroom to help plan, pro- vide instruction and evaluate the work of the student teachers.15 l4Andrews, op. cit., pp. 8-12. 15W. Henry Kennedy, "Policies," Towards Excellence in Student Teaching, ed. Hugo David (Dubuque, Iowa: Kendail/ Hunt Publishing Co., 1973), p. l. e: in sei irt bu: stt anc Ulll prc stu PUI def Dre lit. Stuc Star rela 14 Cluster Program of Student Teaching A program which provides for placing of eight to twelve student teachers in a single building for an indi- vidualized and flexibly planned experience with a variety of teachers in that building and other educational resources in the district and community. A clinical consultant is selected from the building staff for his special competency in teaching and working with student teachers in the building. He helps to plan the individual schedules for student teachers, provides for them necessary instruction and helps evaluate their performance. In this program, the university faculty member (college coordinator) has the responsibility for training the clinical consultant and for providing any other specialized services or assistance to student teachers or building faculty as may be needed.16 AN OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY The first chapter of the study has presented the purpose, need, hypotheses, assumptions, limitations and definitions of terms used. The remainder of the study is presented in four chapters. Chapter 2 contains a review of literature regarding the trends to change the conventional student teaching program, the Michigan State University student teaching programs and selected research studies related to the clinical cluster program. Chapter 3 16Kennedy, 0p. cit., p. 1 D. It 15 describes the design of the study, Chapter 4 consists of the analysis of the study and Chapter 5 presents a summary of the study, with implications, recommendations and reflections for further study. Chapter 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE INTRODUCTION Student teaching programs today are activity- centered experiences for the preservice teacher. To advance this trend, Michigan State University has developed a ”clinical cluster" program to meet the individual needs of student teachers. This review of literature focuses upon three areas: (1) changing trends in student teaching programs, (2) student teaching programs at Michigan State University, and (3) research studies related to the ”clinical cluster" program. This survey of literature is intended to supply background information as well as to maintain perspective for this study.* TRENDS IN STUDENT TEACHING Student teaching has been considered by many pro- fessionals to be the most important aspect in the teacher Note: An ERIC search for literature was computer programmed through Michigan State University Library to the System Development Corporation of Santa Monica, California to aid the writer. 16 Ame can of in- cipj gray JOuz \ 17 education program. Cogan found 16-21 percent of college course work is devoted to professional courses. Approxi- mately 30 percent of the professional course work consisted of student teaching.1 Curtis and Andrews,2 Johnson and Anderson,3 and Oestreich4 all supported the importance of student teaching laboratory experiences. Flowers and the subcommittee of the Standards and Survey Committee of the American Association of Teachers Colleges stated, "There can be no question as to the recognition of the importance of student teaching as a professional laboratory experience in the total program.“5 The Flowers Committee selected three basic prin- ciples important in student teaching experiences: 1M. L. Cogan, "Professional Requirements in Pro- grams for the Preparation of High School Teachers," Journal of Teacher Education IX (September 1958), 274. 2Dwight K. Curtis and Leonard O. Andrews, Guidin Your Student Teacher (New York: Prentice-Hall Co., 1954), p. l. 3James A. Johnson and Roger C. Anderson, Secondary Student Teaching: Readings (Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1971), p. 4. I 4Arthur H. Oestreich, "The Professional Growth of the Student Teacher," Phi Delta Kappan 55 (January 1974), 335. 5John Flowers and others, School and Community Laboratory Experience in TeachgrfiEducation (Onconta, New York: American Association of Teachers Colleges, 1948), p. 146. teac. stat. and : as ti iden- SUCCI that diet. r—3 :J‘ /. n1 18 l. The nature and extent of professional laboratory experience should be planned in terms of the abilities and needs of the student. 2. Professional laboratory experiences should be c00peratively developed by the student and his advisors. 3. The professional program should be so designed as to afford opportunity for responsibility partici- pation in all the important phases of the teachers' activity, both in and out of school.6 Much has been written and reported about student teaching and the types of programs to be utilized. Robbins stated, "the mounting body of findings from experimentation and research identify the supervised classroom experience as the primary component in the preparation of teachers."7 The literature reveals a continuing concern for the identification of methods which increase the likelihood of success in student teaching. For example, Gray reported that "it appears that no one method is adequate for pre- dicting success, in student teaching. A combination of 61bid., pp. 164-165. 7Glaydon D. Robbins, "New Preparation for Teachers," The Educational Forum XXXVI(1) (November 1971), 99-102. teac tior has subs It s duri bein been l9 methods, both subjective and objective in nature, probably should be used."8 Many teacher educators feel that the supervising teacher is the most influential participant in the prepara- tion of future teachers. The study by Seperson and Joyce has supported the contention that the cooperating teacher substantially influences the behavior of the student teacher. It showed the influence of the cooperating teacher was felt during the very early weeks of student teaching rather than being the result of the slow and cumulative impact.9 The conventional program of student teaching has been characterized by the assignment of a student teacher to one supervising teacher for a specified time. The college student has usually observed the supervising teacher for a short period; then he gradually accepts the respon- sibilities of teacher. The supervising teacher is largely responsible for the experiences and activities of the student teacher. The college coordinator has the respon- sibility of insuring that the experience is well-coordinated and he acts as a liaison between the university and the public school. 8Maxine Gray, "The Use of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory in Selection, Counseling and Placement of Student Teachers" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1956), p. 98. Zi/gMarvin A. Seperson, and Bruce R. Joyce, "Teaching Styles of Student Teachers as Related to Those of Their Cooperating Teachers," Educational Leadership Vol. 31 (November 1973), 150. e) ca er rc dc PE SIJ Vi 20 In commenting on the supervising teacher-student teacher conventional program, Oestreich stated, Somehow, if the student teacher is exposed to what purports to be effective teaching, the osmosis process automatically will enable him to absorb from the supervising teacher an approach or style that is effective. At the same time, it is assumed that the process automatically filters out any approach or style that is not effective. Thus the student teacher is left only with the best practices as he eventually strikes out on his own.1 It is most important that a student teacher is exposed to more than one supervisor. The student teacher can then examine and select those practices which he experi- ences that are best suited for his successes in the class- room. The typical conventional student teaching program does not allow for association with other teaching models. Few prospective teachers can utilize practices and techni— ques of the supervising teacher and have the same degree of success. ‘Dickhart wrote that student teachers need indi- vidualized programs: All student teachers do not require the same length of time in one classroom and . . . programs should be made flexible and adaptable to meet a variety of needs and circumstances. Merrill added to this trend by stating: Experiences although they can be talked about and thus shared to some extent, are actually very personal, very individualized phenomena. Even when several peOple 10Oestreich, op. cit., p. 335. 11Audrey Dickhart, "Student Teachers are People," Journal of Teacher Education XII (September 1961), 302-309. 21 are involved in the same event, each person feels, sees and interprets the incident somewhat differently. Experience, then is more than what happens to the individual. It is the way he views these happenings, the meaning he places on them and his attitude about them. The characteristics of professional student teaching programs have meaning only as they provide or insure desirable experiences. The Committee on Research in Student Teaching of the Association for Student Teaching indicated that: . . . there is a need to observe experimentally the effects of different types of student teaching programs, or experiences in lieu of the student teaching relative to the prospective teacher's: (1) knowledge of good educational practices, (2) personality traits and changes in personality traits, (3) skill in using classroom activities, (4) attitudes towards teaching, (5) ability to recognize his pupils' problems, (6) abil- ity to recognize his subject matter content and resource materials, and (7) knowledge of teaching field of specialization.13 Thus programs have been developed to allow student teachers individualized programs and to be exposed to more than one supervising teacher. 'Wilhelms warned teacher educators that placing a novice teacher in the hands of one or two supervisors is not only unsound but potentially damaging. He concluded by supporting the programs that provided a varied pattern 12Edward C. Merrill Jr., Professional Student Teaching Pro rams, A Handbook foritfie Student TeaCher, Cooperating SC 001 Personnelagd College and UniverSIty S onsors TDanville, Illinois: Interstate Printers & P 18 ers, 1967), p. 71. 13Association for Student Teaching, Research on Student Teaching, Bulletin No. 5 (Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown,’1965), p. 27. S'tl bas eduC "Stu helm and - SPEC. 10c Trend. tati0] 22 of experiences where the student teacher would come into contact with several models.14 To further the feelings against the one-to-one supervisor student teacher ratio, Oestreich stated that: Rather than encourage or develop styles appropriate for the individual teacher, the student teacher, work- ing under pressure of the expected rating, has little choice but to teach as the supervising teacher does, even though he may consciously know that the particular approach or style is inappropriate for him. Student teaching is thus going through a change of basic orientation as expressed by Rucker: Student teaching is no longer considered . . . as an examination period or a period in which a student is supposed to demonstrate what he has learned, in theory courses; it is a learning period . . . facili- tated by continuous evaluation cooperatively arrived at by the student and the supervisors.1 Hess surveyed the fifty state departments of teacher education and found a trend towards greater use of the "student teaching center." Hess describes this "center" as being staffed cooperatively by state, local school system, and teacher education institution personnel. The five specific objectives of the "center" as defined by Hess are: 1. To provide wide and varied direct experiences fo the student teacher. 2. To develop a program of both preservice and in- service education for teachers. l4 loc. cit. Wilhelms, "Realignment for Teacher Education," 15Oestreich, 0p. cit., pp. 335-336. 16William C. Rucker, "A Critical Analysis of Current Trends in Student Teaching" (unpublished Doctoral disser- tation, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 1951). p. 192. are the tea the EXt ins pro en bacj ins teac 23 3. To develop the role of the education center, coordinator, representative of the state, the college, and the school systems. 4. To clarify the roles of all other center personnel. 5. To explore state department involvement in the education center. Broad and varied experiences in student teaching are provided for students in this "center" concept. Unlike the traditional student teaching assignments, a student teacher is not assigned to a supervising teacher but to the center, thus providing him with a broader and more extensive field of experience.18 Harvey D. Stearns reported that teacher education institutions are participating in team teaching intern programs with high success. The teachers and students are "enthusiastic" and “. . . teachers are not content to go ”19 back to their previous form of teaching. The various institutions report a number of advantages of teaming in teacher education programs. 1. It provides a student teacher with an opportunity to receive feedback from his peers and supervisors regarding his teaching performance. 2. It provides the student teacher with opportunities to assume a variety of institutional roles: teacher aide, tutor, small-group instructor, large-group instructor, teacher assistant, and associate teacher. 17Mary B. Hess, "The Student Teaching Center: Filling the New Order in Student Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education XXII (Fall 1971), 299-302. lsIbid., p. 299. 19Harvey N. Stearns, "Team Teaching in Teacher Education Programs," Journal of Teacher Education XXIII (Fall 1972), 321. Assc l97] the 24 3. It reduces the pupil-teacher ratio and provides time for student teachers to develOp techniques for guiding individuals and small groups, which should result in improved student achievement and adjustment. 4. It enables student teachers to gain experience in leadership as well as supportive roles. 5. It leads to independent study, self-pacing by students, student-faculty planning, flexible scheduling, flexible grouping and nongradedness. 6. It enables student teachers to gain experiences with a variety of resources and to develop com- petence in all areas of the curriculum. 7. It encourages greater interinstitutional cooperation and improved coordination between university and public school personnel. Anne R. Gayles reported that at the annual National Association for Student Teaching conferences from 1956 to 1971 one of the most recurring recommendations for improving the student teaching program was: The supervising teacher should provide the student teacher with experiences in all the activities of a teacher. If possible, the student teacher's profes- sional laboratory experiences should include curricular activities with more than one age level, grade, subject and supervising teacher.21 Lillian Dimitroff recommended that A variety of patterns should be available: a mul- tiple approach to accommodate individual differences and special needs should be provided. In student teaching . . . the student should be involved in simu- lation and do much teaching at various grades and various subjects for breadth of experience.22 20Ibid., p. 321. 21Anne Richardson Gayles, "Improving a Secondary Student Teaching Program," Improving_Coll§ge and University Teaching XX (Spring 1972), 119} «22’ Lillian Dimitroff, "A Model Program in Teacher Education," Improving College and University Teaching XX (Spring 1972), 140. var: Eye] 25 In view of the recent research and recommendations of teacher educators, student teaching programs should be developed to allow the college student to benefit from a variety of teaching experiences. In summary, as stated by Myers and Walsh, The preparations and arrangements involved in implementing professional laboratory experiences are diverse and demand time, effort and c00peration. They seek not only to provide the framework for the develop- ment of the aspiring teacher but also to recognize the value and need for interaction and supplementation of the total process if the individual is to benefit from the experience. The specifics of individual programs will vary between schools and communities. In some instances, the depth of the experience is lost because of the immaturity of the individual or his lack of readiness. Keeping up with the needs of teachers demands flexibility in providing suitable experiences. However, in all segments, the growth and professional sensitivity of the emerging teacher provide a desirable reward to all who share the responsibility and partici- pate in meeting the demands of tomorrow's secondary teachers. This section has presented an overview of the trends and changing programs in student teaching. The emerging concept of the teacher center with its emphasis on flexibi- lity and varied experiences geared to individualized needs has been examined. The next section will report how Michigan State University has met this change and developed the clinical cluster program. 23George R. Myers and William J. Walsh, Student Teaching and Internship in Todgy's Secondary Schools, ed. Kimball Wiles, Merrill's InternatiOnal EducatIOn Series (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, 1964), p. 23. for tra: Agr; Dr. stu< Thi: Mid< Stu< tau: bins pror the ment 1954 Mars Kel] Stat bECC Univ (Imp sity 26 STUDENT TEACHING AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Student teaching was first established in 1917, for vocational agricultural and home economics teachers in training at the University which was then named Michigan Agricultural College. In 1937 under the direction of Dr. Guy Hill, Director of Student Teaching, full time student teaching began in science and arts in Barry County. This project was made up of the Woodland, Freeport, Hastings, Middleville, Delton and Hickory Corners school systems.24 Students did not take additional courses on campus but were taught by Dr. Hill. He taught six hours a week to a com- bined group of student teachers.25 An experimental full-time resident student teaching program was established in the Marshall school system under the direction of Dr. Troy Stearns. This program for ele- mentary school majors had operated eachwfall term in 1946- 26 This 1954 school years with the exception of 1948. Marshall Program was a cooperative venture of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, the community of Marshall and Michigan State University. This program helped prospective teachers become aware of how the community functions in day to day 24Paul N. Clem, "A Study of the Michigan State University Full-time Resident Student Teaching Program" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1958), p. 10. 25 26 Ibido ' p. 11. Ibido 27 activities, how it plans for the future and how the com- munity and its social work cooperatively together.27 The present full-time resident student teaching program for both elementary and secondary student teachers began in the academic year of 1955-56. The enrollment of students increased requiring continued growth in the number of off-campus centers. In 1971, the Director of Student Teaching, Dr. Henry Kennedy reported to the National Council for Acceditation of Teacher Education that: In an effort to provide more realistic experiences in the preparation of teachers, MSU has been a leader in establishing full-time student teaching for all candidates. Since 1955, more than 130 Michigan school systems and 16 resident centers operated cooperatively and have served some 3,000 teacher candidates annually. Some 57 full and parg time faculty members are stationed in resident centers. 8 This establishment of resident student teaching gave the College of Education the opportunity to innovate and continue searching for new programs of student teach- ing. During the period of 1966 to 1970, Michigan State University and Lansing School District developed the "cluster program" in student teaching. Dr. Kennedy stated in the report to the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education that: 27Ibid., p. 14. 28Report to the National Council for Acceditation of Teacher Education, College of Education (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1970), p. 44. tiv Lan of pro Thi. SCh< ti O) for ing Coll Cit. to III”. MiChi 28 The school itself and the community it serves are considered a composite learning laboratory in which the student teacher studies the problems of teaching and gains experience in solving these problems. Out- standing teachers in each school's instructional staff are selected by the faculty, school administrator, and the University; and released half time to serve as a "clinical consultant," in planning Optimum utilization of the school for development of the individualized professional experience program for each student teacher, based on particular strengths and weaknesses.29 The SERL (Secondary Education Residency Lansing) project was designed by the joint committee of representa- tives from the Department of Secondary Education of the Lansing School District and the School of Teacher Education of Michigan State University in 1966. The purpose of this project was to . . . identify and develOp methods of preparing teachers who can organize and manage instruction with emphasis on unique learning needs of the wide variety of young- sters in the typical junior high school classroom.3 This project was established at Dwight Rich Junior High School because of its teaching personnel, geographic loca- tion and physical facilities allowed the flexibility needed for such a pilot project. Student teachers in the SERL project were assigned in groups of ten to twelve in each school building. The college coordinator, the clinical consultant, the 29Report to National Council for Accredition, Op. Cite, p. 460 30Lansing School District and Michigan State Uni- versity Student Teaching Officer, SERL Project: A Project to Improve the Preparation of Teachers, Brochure, Lansing, Michigan: sup! tivt Stu ass in cli Mich diff: in La Lansi Prc disse COOpe and 12 Re fer DOth Lansi 29 supervising teacher and the student teacher worked coopera- tively to fulfill the purposes and objectives of the project. Student teachers in the SERL project were given teaching assignments on a more flexible basis than were assignments in the typical student teaching program. Each student teacher was assigned three classes, a lunch and planning period and a two hour block of time to explore the total educational program and supportive services offered by the school district. In addition, to their in-school experiences, these student teachers worked with social and community agencies.31 Chase stated that: the students could group and regroup themselves for particular purposes as they identified problems of instruction and problems of learning; analyze these problems and begin to develOp hypotheses about solving them; develop plans for organizing and managing instruc- tion to solve the identified problems; and develop evaluation techniques to determine the successes of their efforts. In the process, they examined and gained practice with different methods of organizing instruction, such as small groups, large groups, individualized tutoring and team teaching.3 The SERL project has served as a model for the "clinical cluster program" that has been developed at Michigan State University. The clinical cluster program differs from the conventional teacher education program 31Calvin C. Anderson, "Secondary Education Residency in Lansing, A Model Project Developed COOperatively by the Lansing School District and Michigan State University to Improve the Preparation of Teachers” (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, East Lansing, 1972), p. 22. 32Donald J. Chase, "A Comparative Study of the COOperative Michigan State University Lansing, SERL Project and the Conventional Program of Student Teaching with Reference to Openness and Attitude Formation" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1971): pp. 3, 4. :ha rem tea iti. conu of CusI per: lOCa dire dist teac inSu eXpe COnt Sibi 30 in that students are assigned to the school buildings rather than to an individual supervising teacher. A group of ten to twelve student teachers is under the direction of a local public school teacher (called a "cluster consultant") who supervises and coordinates the student teachers' experi- ences and activities. Normally, the student teacher is scheduled to teach three classes and then utilize the remainder of the day to learn about the many facets of the teacher's job outside the formal classroom. These activ- ities may include visiting homes of students, visiting community agencies, and learning about the administration of the school, as well as learning about the work of custodians, nurses, guidance counselors and transportation personnel. The cluster consultant is selected jointly by the local school district and Michigan State University center director. This teacher is released part-time by the school district to serve as the clinical consultant for the student teachers assigned to his building. His prime purpose is to insure that the student teachers are provided a variety of experiences and that the student teacher makes a positive contribution to the school program. He has shared respon- sibilities with the university center director. The clinical consultant has the following specific re5ponsibilities: 31 a. Providing leadership to, and working with, the student teachers and the building staff in develop- ing individual participatory schedules based on the diagnosed needs of the student teachers in the building. This will include arranging with teachers in the building for classroom teaching experiences for student teachers on a block-time basis or for extended periods for part of the school day. b. Providing classroom supervision of student teachers in the building in cooperation with the regular classroom teachers. c. Providing instruction to student teachers in the building on such matters as lesson planning, dis- cipline, and relationships, which are called for by the course objectives. This instruction may be provided in conference group sessions in which all the student teachers in the building are involved. d. Providing leadership in the counseling and evalu- ation of student teachers as they progress through the experience and providing to them the results of evaluation conferences. e. Identifying those problems or questions in which the building staff might be involved with the University through its student teaching coordinator, and for arranging sessions in which these questions can be dealt with on a formal basis. f. Assisting student teachers in identifying social and philosophical issues in the community as the basis for considering these topics in ED 450. 9. Providing for faculty involvement in the evaluation of the program. This position is described in detail because it is one position that is in the cluster student teaching program and not in the conventional student teaching program. Thus, the pilot project of SERL has matured into the clinical cluster program at Michigan State University. As stated by Leland Dean, Director of the School of Teacher Education: 33Michigan State University Student Teaching Office, Supplement to Agreement with Schools for Clinical Clusters (East Lansing, 1970), pp. 1-2. the brir fol] Beca With the stOr LO i] teac] 32 The student teaching cluster program is now reaching its potential because teacher educators at Michigan State University are really looking upon the entire school and community in which it operates as a labora- tory for learning. Teacher educators are utilizing the vast resources available within the-school and within the community to build a program for each individual student teacher in the cluster program. Recognizing that each brings unique strengths and weaknesses, the teacher educators are building a program that is tailor-made for each individual student. Teacher educators at Michigan State University and the c00perating public school personnel are attempting to bring into practice the goal which Zahovik stated as follows: To find a better way to teach, one that is more effective and efficient or one that contains other valued attributes has been a major concern of the educators.35 Because of these aspirations expressed by many persons within the field of teacher preparation, it is hoped that the information gathered in this study will add to the store of basic data which is available for those who seek to improve student teaching and the total curriculum of teacher education. 34Leland W. Dean, Excerpt from Speech presented at the Intern and Clinical Consultant Conference (School of Teacher Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, May 25, 1972), p. 3. 35John A. Zahovik, "The Myopia of Methods," Clearing House (Fairleigh Dickinson University, Vol. 48, November 1973), p. 142. SUI for COlT Uni tea usi to. 33 STUDIES RELATED TO THE SERL- CLINICAL CLUSTER PROGRAM In this section, research studies that examined the SERL-Clinical Cluster Student Teaching program will be surveyed for background information to maintain perspective for this study. The first study involving the SERL Project was completed by Chase in 1971. Chase compared Michigan State University-Lansing School District SERL Project student teachers with the conventional program student teachers, using openness and attitude formation as dependent variables to answer two important questions: 1. Are the SERL participants more open to experience as a result Of the atmosphere and situations pro- vided by the program? 2. DO the SERL participants have more positive attitude toward children as pupils and teaching as a pro- fession as a result of the program? Chase found that teachers in the SERL Project: showed very positive gains in both attitude and Open- ness as a result of their exposure tO the activities of the project and in the SERL Project finished at a higher level Of Openness and attitude than the con- ventional student teachers. As a result Of their group activities, interaction with pupils, parents and individuals from the community service organizations, the SERL student teachers should be better prepared to meet their obligations as first year teachers. 5 36Chase, Op. cit., p. 96. 34 In summary, Chase found that the cluster wide variety Of available experiences make the SERL project an effective pattern for student teaching. The second study to be described is the research done by Jackson titled, "A Study of Selected Student Teaching Experiences Reported by Michigan State University Cluster Program and Conventional Program Student Teachers."37 Jackson compared the two types Of student teacher programs to determine: 1. whether the cluster program provided more of the selected student teaching experiences than did the conventional program Of student teaching, 2. to ascertain whether those student teachers involved evaluated their student teaching experiences as being valuable or not, and 3. to determine whether the cluster student teachers will recommend a greater number of the selected student teaching experiences for inclusion in future student programs than will the conventional 38 program student teachers. Jackson concluded that: 37Charles L. Jackson, ”A Study of Selected Student Teaching Experiences Reported by Michigan State University Cluster Program and Conventional Program Student Teachers” (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Univer- sity, East Lansing, 1971). 381bid., p. 11. 35 l. The cluster program student teachers reported having engaged in more of the selected student teacher experiences than did the conventional program participants. 2. Of those experiences reported by the respondents more were reported valuable by the cluster program student teachers than by the conventional program student teachers. 3. Cluster program participants recommended that more of the selected student teaching experiences be included in future student teaching programs than did the conventional program participants.39 Jackson reported the following experiences were encountered from a high Of 100 percent to a low of 0.8 per- cent Of the respondents. The experiences at the two extremes were: an Opportunity to develOp their own daily lesson plans and the low extreme was the experience of joining a professional organization. The student teachers had highly valued and recommended to be included in future teaching programs the experience: handling discipline problems without the supervising teacher. The lowest valued and recommended experience by the student teachers was the experience Of joining a professional teachers organization.4o 39 40 Ibid., p. 62. Ibid., p. 58. 36 Daunt studied the Michigan State University-Lansing School District SERL Project and the conventional program Of student teaching in the Lansing public schools with com- parisons of teacher attitudes, ratings, and career progress. The questions investigated with reference to the SERL student teachers were: 1. DO they have a more positive attitude towards children and teaching? 2. Are they considered to be more effective teachers? 3. DO they achieve more satiSfying and successful career positions? 4. DO they meet the individual needs Of their pupils more effectively? 5. DO they report greater satisfaction with their student teaching experience?4 Daunt collected data from former Michigan State University students who had student taught at the junior high level in the Lansing School District during the time Of September 1966 and June 1968. In this study, Daunt found only minor differences in the performance Of past participants Of the two student teaching programs. Though there were no sig— nificant differences between the SERL and conventional subjects studied, the majority Of the minor differences found tended to support the SERL Project. The SERL Project appeared to be a slightly superior program for student 41Patrick D. Daunt, "A Follow-Up Study of the Michigan State University-Lansing School Disrict SERL Project and the Conventional Program Of Student Teaching in the Lansing Public Schools with Comparisons of Teacher Attitudes, Ratings, and Career Progress" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1972), pp. 12-13. teal f as Mod Sch the post COO] wen Admi Stud Lans had . 37 teaching with reference to attitudes, professional satis- faction and teaching success.42 The final study reviewed is that by Anderson, who examined the Secondary Education Residency in Lansing--A Model Project, developed cooperatively by the Lansing School District and Michigan State University to improve the preparation of junior high school teachers. The pur- pose of this study was to trace the development of the cooperatively developed program. Five basic questions .were studied: 1. Is it desirable for a public school and a university to establish a cooperative venture to improve that phase of teacher education that deals with student teaching? 2. Is it desirable to provide nonclassroom experience as an integral part of student teaching? 3. Is it desirable for a student teacher to work with more than one supervising teacher? 4. DO students benefit from frequent contact with other student teachers? 5. What benefits accrue to the project having a local public 359001 faculty member serve as cluster con- sultant. Anderson administered an Opinionnaire to those administrations, cluster consultants, supervising teachers, student teachers and university coordinators from the Lansing School District and Michigan State University who had been involved in the project. Anderson concluded that: Those who responded strongly endorsed the idea that the public school and unversity should partici- pate in a cooperative venture to improve student 4211616.. pp. 123-128. 43C. Anderson, Op. cit., p. 4. 38 teaching. Most believed that certain nonclassroom experiences are beneficial and should be an integral part Of student teaching. The evidence leaned towards the desirability of student teachers working with more than one supervising teacher. Strong support was given to the ideal of frequent contacts between student teachers. Most Of the respondents indicated that there are benefits that occur by having a local faculty member serve as a cluster consultant to the project.44 This review Of recent studies regarding the Michigan State University clinical cluster program indicated that there are many advantages for this program. As Price stated: Perhaps most crucial is the fact that student teachers might now feel better about themselves and their student teaching situation as a result of an increased Opportunity to share common concerns with many teachers and to share with each other their prob- lems, their experiences are broader, more interesting, flexible and highly individualized. They are not made to feel that they are the personal possession of any one person, nor are they looked into the confinement of one classroom for their entire program. In short, their student teaching may no longer be looked upon as a period Of indenture but rather be viewed with enthusi- astic interest, and the rewarding feelings that come from participating in a cooperative venture. SUMMARY This review of literature has focused upon three areas: 1. Changing trends in student teaching programs. 2. Student teaching programs at Michigan State University. 44Ibia., pp. 153-154. 45William J. Price, "The Student Teacher as an Indentured Servant," Journal of Teacher Education XXIII (Fall 1972), 354. 39 3. Research studies related to the "cluster" pro- gram. These reviews have shown strong indication of the beneficial aspects for student teachers with respect to the clinical cluster student teaching program. Chase found support for improved Openness and attitudes of student teachers. Jackson reported that the cluster student teachers experi- enced, valued and recommended more laboratory experiences than did conventional student teachers. Daunt and Anderson indicated strong support of the SERL Project as a means of improving the experience Of the preservice teacher and strengthening the student teaching program when the Lansing Public Schools and Michigan State University COOperatively planned and carried out such a program. In Chapter 3 the research procedures, instruments and techniques used to collect the data to test the hypoth- eses will be discussed. Chapter 3 DESIGN OF THE STUDY Chapter 3 includes: (1) a description of the popu- lation, (2) a discussion of the development Of the question- naire, (3) a statement of the hypotheses, (4) a discussion of the statistical procedures, and (5) a summary. POPULATION The pOpulation of this study consisted of the secondary student teachers enrolled at Michigan State Uni— versity during Winter Term, 1972. There were 377 secondary cluster program student teachers and 201 secondary con- ventional program student teachers placed in eighteen Michigan State University teaching centers and two overseas centers in Europe. In the randomly selected samples, there were seventy-six cluster student teachers and seventy-six conventional student teachers. In each cluster, the writer selected one student teacher of academic courses and one student teacher of elective courses. There were thirty- eight secondary clusters and therefore the total number of selected cluster students was calculated by multiplying thirty-eight times two equaling seventy-six participants. 40 41 This sample was matched by random selection of seventy-six conventional program student teachers, giving a sample total of 152 student teachers. NO efforts were made to match the participants as to age, grade level or grade point average. The names of the students selected to participate in this study were Obtained from the "Report Of Student Teachers Placed, Winter Term 1972."1 Permission to use this report was obtained from Dr. W. Henry Kennedy, Director of Student Teaching. This report lists the names of all the student teachers assigned to the public school buildings and teaching centers and the names Of the cluster consultant or supervising teacher. Appendix A includes a summary of the Student Teaching Office report on winter term enrollment of cluster and conventional secondary student teachers. Figure 1 Shows the geographic location of the various Michigan State University teaching centers. DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE To study the activities and experiences of the Michigan State University student teachers, a questionnaire was designed from an instrument developed by Irwin J. Shutsy and later modified by Charles L. Jackson. The questionnaire for this study was based upon their 1"Report of the Student Teachers Placed, Winter Term," East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1972 (mimeo- graphed). - L 8!". 2‘33 110E 8 42 /'ruurr . / rHanvom Centers Overseas ( \ ‘ persour Rome and The Hague . mu JHARLEVOIX ” ' msrm» HoumonrNéV ALPrNA : I. H I . 5 . I I’IEEIANAII’I",'§ ’ I III ,‘LLfK'ALKAsm anwrono ‘oscoo‘A"'"‘“’KT?6N—I P4,) '1 GRAND weave .E Traverse - ,EJ-EY wexrono msswurr ROSCOMMON OGEMAW Iosm 30" ~ Iii-Em *-V-_~O§C_E—OLA CLARE GLinwm AOENAC ' WWMGD urcosu ISABELLA MIDLAND ruscou “USKEGf‘W-fi MONICAIM GRATIO‘ SAG'NA‘" \\ . *u~r Saginaw I GENESEE ”m" rand sum CLAIR muvu pids IONIA (.I mron SHIAW‘SSEE , Fligt ‘. prsso OAKLAND “C0“ ' i .!:T N AILFGAN mum EATON INGHAM- L'V'Nc ° walled CO . l 0 Lake Charlotte * . . O O Lansing ontiac ave: VAN mmm [KALAMMOO FALHOUN JACKSON WASHTENAW W . . I g avoni attle Jaclgso t ° n De ro Creek - _ _ _4 _ k, ' - ““6 9mm" (Ass ISAINr uostpu nnmcu musmu LENAVHF ”9" 0‘ I Figure 1. Geographic Locations of Michigan state University Student Teaching Centers. h‘ C. Sr ac t1 St Tl 43 instruments and was modified by the writer from suggestions Of the professional staff at Michigan State University. Shutsy, as Director Of Student Teaching at Cali- fornia State College, California, Pennsylvania, developed a questionnaire of ninety-seven selected teaching experiences by requesting all Directors of Student Teaching in Pennsulvania's fourteen state colleges to send him a list Of teaching experiences their student teachers had Obtained. More experiences were developed and selected from publi- cations. This compiled list was submitted to college per- sonnel, who were working with student teachers, for their additional suggestions. The questionnaire was submitted to the research committee of the Board of Presidents of the State Colleges of Pennsylvania for analysis and review. This questionnaire was used in a survey of 777 respondents (student teachers and beginning teachers) from the fourteen state colleges of Pennsylvania.2 In connection with his doctoral research, Samuel J. Guello used the Shutsy instrument in a study of student teaching experiences of graduates from nine Wisconsin State 3 ICOlleges. Charles L. Jackson then modified the instrument 2Irvin J. Shutsy, "An Evaluation by First-Year and Second—Year Teachers of Their Student Teaching Experiences as Provided by the Fourteen State Teachers Colleges of Pennsylvania" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Univer- sity Of North Dakota, 1960). 3Samuel J. Guello, "An Evaluation of Ninety-seven 53tudent Teaching Experiences by First-Year Teachers and Eiupervising Teachers" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, (Iniversity Of North Dakota, 1965). for h teach stid 44 for his doctoral study with elementary school student teachers enrolled at Michigan State University.4 The questionnaire used in this study of secondary student teachers was pre-tested by submission to all Michigan State University center directors, selected cluster consultants and the Director Of Student Teaching. These persons were asked to examine the questionnaire for ambiguities, redundancies and for student teaching experi- ences not included in the instrument. Their suggestions were considered for inclusion in the questionnaire. Appendix B contains a copy of the letter sent to the center directors, cluster consultants and Director of Student Teaching. The questionnaire used in this study asked the responding student teachers: (1) the location of the student teaching center they were assigned, (2) whether the students were involved with a cluster program, and (3) what subject matter area they taught during student teaching. The checklist provided one hundred student teaching experiences. The students were asked if they experienced the activity, considered it valuable and if they would recommend it for inclusion in future student teaching programs. 4Charles L. Jackson, "A Study of Selected Student Teaching Experiences Reported by Michigan State University Cluster Program and Conventional Program Student Teachers" (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Univer- sity, East Lansing, 1971). WEI stu SIZE twr 45 A letter of transmittal, the questionnaire and a stamped self-addressed envelope were mailed to each of the 152 selected secondary student teachers during spring term. Appendix C contains copies of the letter of transmittal and the questionnaire. The 152 randomly selected secondary student teachers were divided into two groups: (1) secondary cluster program student teachers and (2) secondary conventional program student teachers. The two groups were divided further into two more groups: (1) academic course student teachers and (2) elective course student teachers. There were seventy- six student teachers selected from the secondary cluster program and seventy-six conventional program student teachers giving a total sample of 152 student teachers. A random table of numbers from the text, Diamond, Information and Error, An Introduction to Statistical Analysis was used to guide the random selection of the student teachers.5 The students' addresses were obtained from the Michigan State University Student Directory and verified with the students' records in the Student Teaching Office, Collegeof Education. Permission to utilize the students' records were granted by Dr. W. Henry Kennedy, Director of Student Teaching, Michigan State University. The COpies 5Solomon Diamond, Information and Error, An Intro- duction to Stgtistical Analysis (New York: Basic Books, 1959). pp. 287-289. 46 of the transmittal letter and questionnaire are in Appendix C. This questionnaire was sent to the student teachers after they had completed their student teaching assignment because they: 1. were no longer being supervised and evaluated as student teachers, 2. were in a position to be more objective and less subjective than during the student teaching experi- ence, 3. were in a better position to reflect upon their experiences since there was no longer so much emotional involvement, 4. were assumed to be interested in the improvement of the student teaching experience.6 The questionnaires were mailed to the selected 152 secondary level student teachers. Seven questionnaires were returned as nondeliverable. A total of 120 completed questionnaires were returned by the participants of this study. Table 1 shows the population distribution and responses received. HYPOTHESES Four hypotheses were developed and tested in this study. 6Compare with Charles Jackson, Op. cit., p. 43. 47 Table 3-l.--Summary Of Questionnaires Mailed and Responses Received, by Numbers and Percentages. Number Percent 1. Number of questionnaires mailed 152 2. Number of questionnaires non- deliverable 7 3. Total number of questionnaires returned 120 4. Total percentage of questionnaires returned 78.9 5. Number of questionnaires returned by cluster program student teachers 66 6. Percentage of questionnaires returned by cluster program student teachers 86.8. 7. Number of questionnaires returned by conventional program student teachers 54 8. Percentage of questionnaires returned by conventional program student teachers 71.0 48 1. There will be a greater number of student teaching experiences reported by those participating in the secondary cluster student teaching program than by those participating in the secondary conventional student teaching program. 2. Among those replying, there will be a greater number of experiences reported by those secondary elective course student teachers than the secondary academic course student teachers. 3. The participating secondary cluster program student teachers will experience a greater variety Of activities than the participating secondary conventional program student teachers. 4. Among those individuals surveyed, the secondary cluster program student teachers will recommend a greater number of experiences for inclusion in future student teaching programs than will the secondary conventional program student teachers. STATISTICAL PROCEDURES The information provided by the 120 respondents was transferred to IBM cards. The analyses Of data were pro- grammed and tabulated through the Control Data Corporation 6500 computer at the Michigan State University computer Cewrter. Three separate computer programs were designed to taliulate and analyze the infonmation. The three programs welren 49 Program Total was the program.which tabulated the raw data obtained in the individual reSpOnses and made a summation Of the students' experiences and recommendations for future student teaching pro- grams. A summary of the information by each student teacher is reported in Appendix D. This tabulation was necessary for processing program 2. Program Profile Analysis was the program which was also known as Repeated Measures or Split-Plot Factoral Analysis of Variance. It was designed to analyze problems with a two-way factor analysis. The two factors in this study were: (1) type of programs and (2) type of courses. The two levels within the types of program were: (1) cluster program student teachers and (2) conventional program student teachers. The two levels within the types Of courses were (1) academic course student teacher and (2) elective course student teacher. This program was used to test the first, second and fourth hypotheses. Program Variety was the program designed to test the third hypothesis which dealt with the variety of the experiences that the students were exposed tO during the student teaching period. A summary of the information provided by each experience cate- gory is reported in Appendix E. 50 These statistical programs provided the information for testing the hypotheses of this study. The Research Consultation Services of the College of Education were most helpful in providing advice in the statistical pro- cedures. SUMMARY This chapter included the description Of the popu- lation, a discussion of the development Of the question- naire, a statement of the hypotheses, and a discussion of the statistical procedures used to interpret the data. Questionnaires were mailed to 152 secondary student teachers, with 120 students responding. All data Obtained were transferred to IBM computer cards. The data were processed, tabulated, and analyzed by means of the Control Data Corporation 6500 computer at the Michigan State Univer- sity Computer Center. These data were analyzed by the Repeated Measures or Split-Plot Factorial Analysis of Variance. The inde- pendent variables were: 1. Program (cluster, noncluster) 2. Pair (academic, elective course students) 3. Course (academic and elective courses) The dependent variables were: 1. Experience 2. Include (or recommend) 51 The data were analyzed by use of percentages of the responses. The level Of significance for this study was established at .05. Further discussion Of the types of calculations, statistical procedures and analysis Of the gathered data are included in Chapter 4. Chapter 4 ANALYSIS OF DATA The purpose of Chapter 4 was to present and analyze the data gathered to test the hypotheses of the study. This chapter was divided into the following sections: (1) purpose and hypotheses, (2) composition of the study, (3) statisti- cal procedures used, (4) interpretation of results, (5) statements of significance, and (6) summary. PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESES This study was designed to compare the field experi- ence component of two secondary level student teaching pro- grams at Michigan State University. The investigation focused on experiences associated with cluster student teaching and secondary conventional student teaching pro- grams as perceived by prospective teachers. The following purposes were formulated: 1. To determine whether Michigan State University secondary cluster student teaching provided more selected experiences than did secondary conventional student teaching. 2. To compare the number of experiences that academic subject matter student teachers encountered with 52 53 the number of experiences met by elective course student teachers. TO determine whether cluster program student teach- ers experienced and reported a greater variety Of activities than did the conventional program stu- dent teachers during student teaching. To obtain from the responding student teachers their recommendations regarding which student teaching experiences they would include in future secondary student teaching programs at Michigan State University. In order to carry out this study, the following hypotheses were developed: 1. There will be a greater number Of student teaching experiences reported by those participating in the secondary cluster student teaching program than those participating in the secondary conventional student teaching program. Among those replying, there will be a greater number of experiences reported by those secondary elective course student teachers than the secondary academic course student teachers. Those participating secondary cluster program student teachers will experience a greater variety of activities than the participating secondary con- ventional program student teachers. we we st St a: 54 4. Among those individuals surveyed, the secondary ‘ cluster program student teachers-will recommend a greater number Of experiences for inclusion in future student teaching programs than will the secondary conventional program student teachers. COMPOSITION OF THE STUDY One hundred fifty-two secondary student teachers were randomly selected to participate in this study. They were divided into two groups: (1) secondary cluster program student teachers and (2) secondary conventional program student teachers. The two groups were subdivided into two more groups: (1) academic subject matter student teachers and (2) elective course student teachers. One hundred twenty usable responses were returned. The respondents were separated into the following categories: (1) sixty-six secondary cluster student teachers and (2) fifty-four secondary conventional program student teachers. The student questionnaires were placed in random pairs by use of the table of random numbers, with one academic subject matter student teacher matched with one elective course student teacher. This combination of students made thirty-three pairs of cluster student teachers and twenty-seven pairs of conventional student teachers. Table 4.1 shows the number Of respondents from each teaching center of Michigan State University. J a La La Li Na Ow Po: Sag Tre Na] Ron The Table 4.l.--Number of ReSpondents From Cluster and Con- 55 ventional Secondary Student Teachers, Michigan State University. -—- Teaching Center Cluster Conventional Total Battle Creek 2 3 5 Benton Harbor 6 2 8 Detroit 16 16 Flint 2 2 Grand Rapids 5 5 Jackson 3 3 Lansing Suburban 11 l 12 Lansing/E. Lansing 21 7 28 Livonia 2 2 Macomb l 6 7 Owosso 2 l 3 Pontiac 5 3 8 Saginaw 7 2 9 Traverse City 1 1 Walled Lake 4 2 6 Rome 3 3 The Hague 2 2 Total 66 54 120 the sep aha 56 STATISTICAL PROCEDURES USED The information provided by the 120 reSpondents Of the study were transferred to IBM computer cards. Three separate computer programs were designed to tabulate and analyze the infonmation. These three programs were: 1. Program Total was the program which tabulated the raw data obtained in the individual responses and made a summation Of the students experiences and recommendations for future student teaching programs. See page 49 for full description. Program Profile Analysis was the program which was also known as Repeated Measures or Split-Plot Factorial Analysis of Variance. It was designed as to analyze the problems with a two-way factor analysis. For complete description, see page 49. Program Variety was the program designed to test the third hypotheses which dealt with the variety Of the experiences that the student teachers were exposed to during the student teaching period. A summary of the information provided by each experi- enced, valued, and recommended activity is reported in Appendix E. Further data is provided in the three categories of experienced, valued and recom- mended by the ten most chosen and the ten least chosen student teaching activity. ex of da‘ ex; arj Fa‘ pr in as ac Me th Dr C] Cc 16 CC be 57 INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS In this section each of the four hypotheses was examined in relation to the data obtained. The restatement of each hypothesis is followed by a presentation of the data and a probability statement. Hypothesis One There will be a greater number of student teaching experiences reported by those participating in the second- ary cluster student teaching program than those partici- pating in the secondary conventional student teaching program. One hundred student teaching experiences were incorporated in the questionnaire and the respondents were asked to check the activity if they had experienced the activity during student teaching. The program, Repeated Measures Factorial Analysis of Variance was used to measure this hypothesis. The analysis of variance Table 4-2 presents a summary Of the findings. Table 4-3 presents the cell mean values for the Cluster and Conventional Program and Academic and Elective Course Student Teachers Experiences Reported. In the procedure for Repeated Measures, the two levels, (1) academic course student teacher and (2) elective course student teacher values may be set equal. This assumption is to intercorrelate all levels or measures to be equal. Another assumption to be taken in this procedure Tai Tal 58 Table 4-2.--Analysis Of Variance Table for the Cluster and Conventional Programs and Academic and Elective Course Student Teacher Experiences Reported. Degree of Sums of Mean Source Freedom Squares Squares F Groups 1. 2040.89 2040.89 10.121* Subj-G 58. 11695.98 201.65 Rep. Meas. 1 28.03 28.03 .220 RM-G 1 26.58 26.58 .209 RM-S- 58. 7388.38 127.38 Total 119 21179.87 *p<.05. Table 4-3--Cell Mean Values for the Cluster and Conventional Program and Academic and Elective Course Student Teachers Experiences Reported. Measures Group Academic Course Elective Course Cluster Program i = 55.606 i = 53.788 54.7 (66 students) Sd = (13,342) Sd = (12.121) Conventional i = 46.370 i = 46.444 46.4 Program (54 students) Sd = (10.965) Sd = (14.624) 51.45 50.48 (12.33) (13.02) me St fc H) VE LT 83' tl’ re e) te Te 59 is that variance from one pooled measure to the next pooled measure must be equal. TO set these variances equal, the standard deviation is reciprocated and then linear trans- formations are supplied. After transformation the data for Hypothesis One is presented in Table 4-4 The critical F value at .95 confidence level is = 4.01. Therefore since the F value for Hypothesis One is 10.24, it can be con- sidered significant. Hypothesis One is accepted to verify that secondary cluster program student teachers have reported a greater number of selected student teaching experiences than the secondary conventional program student teachers. Table 4e4.--Analysis of Variance Values for Transformed Measures of Experiences Reported by Cluster and Conventional Student Teachers. Degrees Sums of of Mean F Source Freedom Squares Squares Values Groups 1. 12.57 12.57 10.24* Subj-G 58. 71.12 1.22 Rep. Measures 1. 4.24 4.24 5.489* RM-G 1. .28 .28 .372 RMrS-G 58. 44.87 .773 Total 119. 133.09 *p < .05. 6O Hypothesis Two Among those replying there will be a greater number of experiences reported by those secondary elective course student teachers than the secondary academic course student teachers. The program, Repeated Measured Factorial Analysis of Variance was used to measure this hypothesis. The analysis of variance, Table 442, page 58, showed the summary of findings. The repeated measures procedure was repeated with these data and the variables are assumed to have identical variances which were set equal to zero. This repeated process reported the information summarized in Table 4-4 The critical F 1.58 value at the .95 level of confidence is equal to 4.01 Because the F value for Hypothesis Two is 5.48, this hypothesis is not supported. The data have shown that the academic course student teachers reported a greater number Of experiences than the elective course student teachers. This is in direct Opposition to Hypothesis Two which stated: Among those replying, there will be a greater number of experiences reported by those secondary elective course student teachers than the secondary academic course student teachers. 61 Hypothesis Three Among those students reporting, the secondary cluster program student teachers reported a greater variety of activities than did the secondary conventional student teachers. Hypothesis Three was programmed separately in order tO analyze the variety of the activities between the sec- ondary cluster student teachers and the secondary con- ventional student teachers. This program tabulated the individual student scores and total scores of the secondary cluster and conventional student teachers. Table 4—5 presents the data reported by the student teachers of the secondary cluster and conventional student teaching programs. Table 4-5.--Analysis of the Variety of Activities of Cluster and Conventional Program Student Teachers. Total _ Group NO. of Number of x means Students Activities Cluster Program 66 3,610 54.69 Conventional Program 54 2,506 46.40 62 These data indicate that Hypothesis Three did hold true. The mean score Of 54.69 for the cluster student teachers was greater than was the mean score of 46.40 for the conventional student teachers. This result is similar to the findings of Hypothesis One as the data indicated acceptance Of the F value Of 10.24 as being significant. Further investigation of this hypothesis was done by tabulation of the experiences by the degree of partici- pation from the respondents. The relative frequencies with which the experiences were encountered is shown in Table 4-6. Table 4-6 shows that cluster program student teachers reported more experiences at each decile level than did the conventional student teachers. At most levels, the cluster student teachers had experienced approximately nine more activities than did the conventional student teachers. A complete analysis of the experiences reported is found in Appendix F. Hypothesis Four Among those individuals surveyed, the secondary cluster program student teachers will recommend a greater number of experiences for inclusion in future student teaching programs than will the secondary conventional program student teachers. The program Repeated Measures Factorial Analysis of Variance was used to test Hypothesis Four. This program is the same one that tested Hypotheses One and Two Of this study. IT. HUUOF U>ADO~DESU UGO mEUUH DCHUCUHHUQXW thzbwmh USU ”sum. MO mwmmucmhvhmvmllomuv UHQQ.H 63 OOH m oHIo OOH N OHIO mm «H ONLOH mm oH omIoH om «H omnow mm m onion we 0H ovnom mm AH carom mm b omlov we 0H omlov me NH omnom mm m omuom hm NH ounce Av HH ounce mm mH canon on pH canon NH w omnom on HH omnom o m oOHnom a m OOHiom OOOOOHHOOxm OOOSOHuOoxm msouH OOOSOHHomxm OOOOOHMOQKM meuH mEOuH mcHom mcHocmHuomxm nsouH mcHOm OCHOOOHuomxm Lo Hobos msmuH mo mucmpsum no mo Hmuoe manna mo mucwpsum mo O>HOOHDEOU .oz Hmuoe omnucoonmm O>HucHsst .Oz Hmuos ommucoouom Ecumoud HocOHuco>cou amumoum noumsHo .OoocmHummxm msouH mo Hobos O>HumHssso pom nswuH mcHOSOHudem muonomoa acousum mo ommucoouomnu.m.v OHoma 64 Table 4-7 deals with recommended experiences by the secondary cluster program and the secondary conventional program student teachers for future student teaching pro- grams. Table 4-7.--Analysis Of Variance for Secondary Cluster and Conventional Program Student Teachers Recommenda- tions for Future Programs. -—-_—-.__.—_—_ _-.._.._‘-..‘_. Degree Sums Of of Mean F Source Freedom Squares Squares Value Groups 1. 2230.79 2230.79 3.35 Subj-G 58. 38600.66 665.52 Rep. Measures 1. 258.13 258.13 .761 RM-G 1. 405.93 405.93 1.19 RM-S-G 58. 19681.93 339.34 Total 119. 61177.46 Table 4-8 presents the cell mean values for the secondary cluster and Conventional Program Student Teacher Recommendations for future student teaching programs. Again the repeated measures procedure was repeated with these data. The variables are assumed to have identi- cal variances which were set equal tO zero. This repeated process reported the following transformed measures sum- marized in Table 4-9. The F value Of 3.20 is below the critical F value (.95) = 4.01 and therefore Hypothesis Four is not Tab Clu I66 Con (54 Sc GIC Su‘r A, Re; ——_— RM~ Tog 65 Table 4-8.--Cell Mean Values for Secondary Cluster and Conventional Program Student Teachers Recom— mendations for Future Programs. Measures Group Academic Course Elective Course Cluster Program 64.4 64.0 64.2 (66 Students) Conventional Program 52.0 59.0 55.5 (54 Students) 58.8 61.7 Table 4-9.--Analysis of Variance Transformed Measured for Secondary Cluster and Conventional Student Teachers Recommendations for Future Programs. Degree Sums of of Mean F Source Freedom Squares Squares Values Groups 1. 4.25 4.25 3.20 Subj-6 58. 76.96 1.32 Rep. Measures 1. 6.65 6.65 9.88 RM-G lo 059 059 .88 RM-S-G 58. 39.02 .67 Total 119. 127.49 In In 66 significant and is not supported. The secondary cluster student teachers had a mean value of 64.2 recommended experiences, and 55.5 experiences were recommended by the secondary conventional student teachers. Although the direction of the number of recommendations is toward the cluster student teachers, this is not large enough to support Hypothesis Four. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Hypothesis One There will be a greater number of student teaching experiences reported by those participating in the secondary cluster student teaching program than those participating in the secondary conventional student teaching program. This Hypothesis is accepted at the .05 level Of significance and verifies that the secondary cluster pro- gram student teachers reported a greater number of student teaching experiences than did the secondary conventional program student teachers. Hypothesis Two Among those replying, there will be a greater number of experiences reported by those secondary elective course student teachers than the secondary academic course student teachers. This Hypothesis is not supported at the .05 level of confidence and indicates that a greater number of 67 experiences was not reported by the elective course student teachers. Although there was a small difference in the number of experiences reported, the academic course student * teachers did report a larger number Of student teaching activities. Hypothesis Three Those participating secondary cluster program student teachers will experience a greater variety of activities than the participating secondary conventional program student teachers. This Hypothesis is accepted at the .05 level of significance and verifies that secondary cluster program student teachers gig experience a greater variety of activities than did the secondary conventional program student teachers. Hypothesis Four Among the individuals surveyed, the secondary cluster program student teachers will recommend a greater number Of experiences for inclusion in future student teaching programs than will the secondary conventional program student teachers. This Hypothesis is not accepted at the .05 level of significance. The cluster student teachers did not recommend a greater number of experiences than did the conventional program student teachers. There was a difference of 8.7 in the mean value Of the number of 68 experiences reported, but this was not sufficient to be significant. ADDITIONAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS There were additional significant findings as a result Of the analysis Of the data. These related figures are presented to further the information provided by this study. From Table 4-4 there was no "group and measure interaction" in this analysis. An F value of .372, which is below the critical F value of 4.01, indicates that there was no interaction between the secondary cluster and con- ventional student teacher groups and the measures Of academic and elective course student teachers. This inter- action test is a positive factor for this analysis and is indicative that the Profile Analysis Factorial Analysis Of Variance was an excellent program for testing the hypothe- ses. In analyzing Hypothesis Four the elective course student teachers gig recommend more Of the selected student teaching experiences than gig the academic course student teachers. There was an F value of 9.88 for this measure which is greater than the critical F value of 4.01 esta- blished for this analysis. This has added to the dimension that although in Hypothesis Two, the academic course student teachers experienced more activities, the elective course 69 student teachers recommended more of the selected student teaching experiences for future student teaching programs. Also, this test of Hypothesis Four indicated an F value of .88 in Table 4-9 that no interaction occurred between ggggp and measures. This means that the cluster program can be assumed to provide more experiences for 993g academic and elective course student teachers. The cluster program is not better for just the academic course or the elective course student teacher. The analysis of the data was further investigated by examination of the experiences receiving a degree of participation by the respondents. The relative frequency of experiences encountered ranged from 97 percent to 0 per- cent. The two experiences reported by the two groups were as follows. Cluster program participants experienced the following items: 97% high No. 1. Developing Own daily lesson plans. 3% low NO. 64. Participate in a school research project. Conventional program participants experienced the following items: 96.3% high No. l. DevelOping own daily lesson plans. 0.0% low No. 87. Having opportunity to teach adult education class. This comparison showed both cluster and conventional program student teachers had experienced develOping daily 70 lesson plans most Often. The low percent activities were interchanged as least and next to least. The analysis Of data were investigated to identify those student teaching experiences that both groups had envisioned as being valuable experiences. The percent rating was from a high of 96.3 percent to a low of 9.3 per- cent. Both cluster and conventional program student teachers had selected NO. 70--”Handling discipline problems Of class without the supervising teacher"--as the most valuable experience. The cluster program participants selected the following: 93.9% high NO. 70. Handling discipline problems of class without supervising teacher. ' 10.6% low NO. 64. Participating in a school research project. The conventional program participants selected the following: 96.3% high No. 70. Handling discipline problems of class without supervising teacher. 9.3% low NO. 10. Giving classroom evaluative tests for assigning students to another level, group or class. The data were investigated for those items that the student teachers had recommended for inclusion in future student teaching programs. The data which follow show the most and least recommended experiences identified by cluster program student teachers. 71 93.9% high No. 3. Organizing and teaching a unit Of instruction. and No. 70. Handling discipline problems of class without supervising teacher. 22.7% low No. 64. Participate in a school research project. and No. 96. Joining a professional organization. The conventional program student teachers selected the following activities for inclusion in future student teaching programs. 92.6% high NO. 1. Developing own daily lesson plans. and NO. 3. Organizing and teaching a unit of instruction. 14.6% low NO. 75. Visiting the homes of pupils. A complete tabulation Of the student teaching activities is categorized into experienced, valued and recommended in Appendix F. This tabulation indicates the item number, frequency of the item and percentage of the item in each category. The data were tabulated into the groups Of the ten most chosen and the ten least chosen experiences in the three categories Of this study: experienced, found valuable and recommended for future student teaching programs. The following pages will include those items of the ten most chosen and ten least chosen experiences in the three categories: experienced, valued and recommended. These activities may be studied and analyzed by those 72 working with student teachers to improve the student teach- ing programs. THE TEN MOST CHOSEN ACTIVITIES EXPERIENCED BY: Cluster Program Student Teachers ( l) 1. (93) 2. (70) 3. (39) 4. ( 3) 5. (100) 6. (40) 7. (36) 8. ( 4) 9. (23) 10. Developing own daily lesson plans. Attending student teacher seminars conducted by University coordinator or cluster consultant. Handling discipline problems of class without supervising teacher. Maintaining student records of tests, assign- ments and grades. Organizing and teaching a unit of instruction. Feeling you were welcome in a school as a student teacher. Learning about and maintaining class attendance records. Constructing and administering tests over material you taught. Selecting content material for a subject taught. Assuming total responsibility for starting activ- ities of classroom. Conventional Program §§u ent Teachers ( 1) l. Developing own daily lesson plans. (70) 2. (69) 3. (40) 4. ( 3) 5. (93) 6. (100) 7. (39) 8. (36) 9. (23) 10. 73 Handling discipline problems Of class without supervising teacher. Preparing stencils or dittos for either your own lesson plans or for your supervising teacher. Learning about and maintaining class attendance records. Organizing and teaching a unit of instruction. Attending student teacher seminars conducted by University coordinator or cluster consultant. Feeling you were welcome in a school as a student teacher. Maintaining student records of tests, assignments and grades. Constructing and administering tests over material you taught. Assuming total responsibility for starting activities of classroom. THE TEN LEAST CHOSEN ACTIVITIES EXPERIENCED BY: Cluster Program Student Participate in a school research project. Have Opportunity to teach in an adult education Attending Parent Teacher Association, or other Teachers (64) l. (87) 2. class. (97) 3. parent group meeting. (75) 4. Visiting the homes of pupils. (59) 5. (58) 6. (42) 7. (96) 8. (81) 9. (71) 10. (66) 10. 74 Assuming school bus supervision, hall patrol, or lunch room duty part of time when assigned by school. Assuming school bus supervision, hall patrol, or lunch duty for at least one week. Recording data in cumulative records of pupils with coordination of school counselor. Joining a professional organization. Using micro—teaching during student teaching for self-evaluation. Making a case study of a pupil. Attending a student council meeting. Conventional Program Student Teachers (87) (64) (68) (75) (10) (98) (81) (66) 1. Have Opportunity to teach in an adult education class. Participate in a school research project. Participating in community activities while student teaching. Visiting the homes of pupils. Giving classroom evaluative tests for assigning students to another level, group or class. Visiting Board of Education meetings. Using micro-teaching during student teaching for self-evaluation. Attending a student council meeting. (99) 9. (59) 10. (71) 10. (82) 10. 75 Visit to community service agencies or govern- mental agencies. Assuming school bus supervision, hall patrol, Or lunch room duty part Of time when assigned by school. Making a case study of a pupil. Evaluating yourself on videotape while student teaching. THE TEN MOST VALUABLE ACTIVITIES CHOSEN BY: Cluster Program Student Teachers (70) l. (100) 2. ( 3) 3. ( 1) 4. (36) 5. (39) 6. (56) 7. (37) 8. (27) 9. ( 4) 10. Handling discipline problems of class without supervising teacher. Feeling you were welcome in the school as a student teacher. Organizing and teaching a unit of instruction. Developing own daily lesson plans. Constructing and administering tests over material you taught. Maintaining student records of tests, assign- ments and grades. Teaching heterogeneous (sex) groups. Determining grades or evaluation for report cards. Developing own teaching aids for a class presen- tation. Selecting content material for a subject taught. 76 Conventional Program Student Teachers (70) ( 3) ( 1) (100) (69) (39) ( 7) (36) ( 4) (23) (37) (40) (61) 1. 9. 10. 10. 10. 10. Handling discipline problems of class without supervising teacher. Organizing and teaching a unit of instruction. Developing own daily lesson plans. Feeling you were welcome in the school as a student teacher. Preparing stencils or dittos for either your own lesson plans or for your supervising teacher. Maintaining student records Of tests, assign- ments and grades. Developing material to enrich lesson you taught. Constructing and administering tests over material you taught. Selecting content material for a subject taught. Assuming total responsibility for starting activ- ities of classroom. Determining grades or evaluation for report cards. Learning about and maintaining class attendance records. Assuming responsibility for the teaching program of at least one subject for a period of three weeks or more. (62) 10. (83) 10. 77 Assuming responsibility for the total teaching program of supervision, as able to take over for four or more weeks. Evaluating your goals as a student teacher. THE TEN LEAST VALUABLE ACTIVITIES CHOSEN BY: Cluster Program Student Participate in a school research project. Visiting the homes of pupils. Assuming school bus supervision, hall patrol or lunch room duty part of time when assigned by Assuming school bus supervision, hall patrol, or lunch duty for at least one week. Have opportunity to teach in an adult education Teaching under only one supervising teacher Recording data in cumulative records of pupils with coordination of school counselor. Administering commercial testing material in Joining a professional organization. Teaéhers (64) l. (75) 2. (59) 3. school. (58) 4. (87) 5. class. (44) 6. for the term. (42) 7. (41) 8. class. (96) 9. (81) 10. Using micro-teaching during student teaching for self-evaluation. 78 Conventional Program Student Teachers (10) 1. (96) 2. (87) 3. (75) 4. (59) 5. (97) 6. (81) 7. (64) 8. (58) 9. (98) 10. Giving classroom evaluative tests for assigning students to another level, group or class. Joining a professional organization. Have Opportunity to teach in an adult education class. Visiting the homes of pupils. Assuming school bus supervision, hall patrol or lunch room duty part of time when assigned by school. Attending Parent Teacher Association or other parent group meeting. Using micro-teaching during student teaching for self—evaluation. Participate in a school research project. Assuming school bus supervision, hall patrol or lunch room duty for at least one week. Visiting Board of Education meetings. THE TEN MOST CHOSEN ACTIVITIES RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION IN FUTURE STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAMS BY: Cluster Program Student Handling discipline problems of class without Teachers (70) 1. supervising teacher. ( 3) 2. Organizing and teaching a unit of instruction. ( 1) 3. (100) 4. ( 4) 5. (39) 6. ( 7) 7. (56) 8. (52) 9. (21) 10. (27) 10. (36) 10. 79 Developing own daily lesson plans. Feeling you were welcome in the school as a student teacher. Selecting content material for subject taught. Maintaining student records of tests, assign- ments and grades. Developing material to enrich lesson you taught. Teaching heterogeneous (sex) groups. Teaching on a small group (two to ten or less) basis. Previewing audio-visual material before using in class. Developing own teaching aids for a class presen- tation. Constructing and administering tests over material you taught. Conventional Program StUdent-Teachers ( 3) ( 1) (70) (100) (69) (39) 1. 2. (A) o Organizing and teaching a unit of instruction. Developing own daily lesson plans. Handling discipline problems of a class. Feeling you were welcome in the school as a student teacher. Preparing stencils or dittos for either your own lesson plans or for your supervising teacher. Maintaining student records of tests, assign- ments and grades. ( 7) 7. ( 4) 8. (40) 9. (36) 10. 80 Developing material to enrich lesson you taught. Selecting content material for subject taught. Learning about and maintaining class attendance records. Constructing and administering tests over materials you taught. THE TEN LEAST CHOSEN ACTIVITIES RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION IN FUTURE STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAMS BY: Cluster Program Student Teachers (96) l. (64) 2. (44) 3. (75) 4. (59) 5. (87) 6. (71) 7. (41) 8. Joining a professional organization. Substituting without pay for your supervising teacher when he/she was absent for illness or participating in an inservice workshop. Teaching under only one supervising teacher for the term. Visiting the homes of pupils. Assuming school bus supervision, hall patrol or lunch room duty part Of time when assigned by school. Have opportunity to teach in an adult education class. Making a case study of a pupil. Administering commercial testing material in class. (58) 9. (68) 10. (91) 10. 81 Assuming school bus supervision, hall patrol or lunchroom duty for at least a week. Participating in community activities while student teaching. Participating in the development Of curriculum committees for the school. Conventional Program Student Teachers (75) 1. (96) 2. (99) 3. (68) 4. (64) 5. (59) 6. (81) 7. (71) 8. (87) 9. (57) 10. Visiting the homes of pupils. Joining a professional organization. Visit to community service agencies or govern- mental agencies. Participating in the community activities while student teaching. Substituting without pay for your supervising teacher when he/she was absent for illness or participating in an inservice workshop. Assuming school bus supervision, hall patrol or lunch room duty part of the time when assigned by school. Using micro-teaching during student teaching for self-evaluation. Making a case study of a pupil. Have an Opportunity to teach in an adult edu- cation class. Teaching homogeneous (sex) groups. 82 (58) 10. Assuming school bus supervision, hall patrol or lunch room duty for at least a week. SUMMARY In this chapter, the analysis of the data was pre- sented. The data were collected by the questionnaire method from Michigan State University secondary student teachers. A questionnaire was developed for this study of 100 selected student teaching experiences and was mailed to 152 randomly selected student teachers. One hundred twenty students returned their questionnaires, with sixty-six cluster pro- gram student teachers and fifty-four conventional program student teachers in the sample. The data were processed, tabulated and analyzed by the Control Data Corporation 6500 Computer at Michigan State University Computer Center. The data were scheduled in the following programs for analysis: Number One: Program Total--This program recorded and tabulated the raw data into a schematic table necessary for Program Two. Number Two: Program Profile--Repeated Measures or Split Plot Factorial Analysis of Variance. The data were programed in a two way factorial analysis. This program was selected to analyze the two factors. The two factors considered were: (1) Types of programs and (2) Types of courses 83 The two levels in the types of programs were: (1) Cluster program student teachers and (2) Conventional programs student teachers. The two levels in the types of courses were: (1) Academic course student teachers and (2) Elective course student teachers. Number Three: Program Varietyé-This program tabulated the individual student scores and totaled the selected activities experienced by the student teachers. The items were ranked according to percentage to further establish the variety of experiences the students were exposed to during student teaching. Additional data were examined by showing the ten mpg; chosen and the ten igggg_chosen activities as reported by the student teachers in the three categories: experienced, valued and recommended for inclusion in future student teaching programs. The analysis Of data provided the following infor- mation. Hypothesis One--This Hypothesis was found to be sign- nificant and accepted at the .05 level of confidence. There was a greater number of selected student teaching experiences reported by the secondary cluster student teachers than by the secondary conventional program student teachers. 84 Hypothesis Two--This Hypothesis was found to be not significant and cannot be accepted at the .05 level of confidence. The secondary elective course student teachers did not experience a greater number Of selected student teaching experiences than did the secondary academic course student teachers. Hypothesis Three--This Hypothesis was found significant and accepted at the .05 level of confidence. The secondary cluster student teachers gig experience a greater variety of selected student teaching experiences than did the secondary conventional student teacher. Hypothesis Four--This Hypothesis was found not sig- nificant and not accepted at the .05 level of confidence. The secondary cluster student teachers did not significantly recommend a greater number of experiences than did the secondary conventional student teachers. Further analysis of the data shown in the appendices indicates the percentage ranking of the experiences as .reported by the secondary student teachers. The ten most chosen and ten least chosen experiences are reported in the three categories: experienced, valuable and recommended for inclusion in future student teaching programs. In Chapter 5 the summary, conclusions, reflections and recommendations for further study will be presented. Chapter 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY This study was designed to compare the field experi- ence component of two secondary level student teaching programs at Michigan State University. This investigation has focused on the experience associated with cluster student teaching program and secondary conventional student teaching programs as perceived by prospective teachers. The following specific purposes were considered: To determine whether Michigan State University secondary cluster student teaching provided more selected experiences than did secondary conven- tional student teaching. To compare the number of experiences that academic subject matter student teachers encountered with the number of experiences met by elective course student teachers. To determine whether cluster program student teachers experienced and reported a greater variety of activities than did the conventional program student teachers during student teaching. 85 86 4. To Obtain from the responding student teachers their recommendations regarding which student teaching experiences they would include in future secondary student teaching programs at Michigan State University. In this study, the original questionnaire was developed by Shutsy and later modified by Jackson. The questionnaire for this study was based upon these instru- ments and it was modified by the writer in the light of suggestions of the student teaching staff at Michigan State University. A questionnaire of 100 selected student teaching experiences was developed to be completed by the Winter Term secondary student teachers. The questionnaires were mailed to 152 selected secondary level student teachers. Seven questionnaires were returned as nondeliverable. A total of 120 completed questionnaires were returned by the participants representing a 79 percent return. The analyses of data were programmed and tabulated through the Control Data Corporation 6500 computer at Michigan State University computer center. Three separate computer programs were designed to tabulate and analyze the data. The three programs were: 1. Program Total was the program which tabulated the raw data Obtained from the individual responses and made a summation of the students' scores. 2. Program Repeated Measured, Factorial Analysis of Variance. The two factors in this study were: 87 (1) types of programs and (2) types of courses. The two levels in the types Of programs were: (1) cluster program student teacher and (2) con- ventional program student teacher. The two levels in the types of courses were: (1) academic course student teacher and (2) elective course student teacher. This program was used to test the first, second and fourth hypotheses. 3. Program Variety was the program designed to test the third hypothesis which dealt with the variety Of the experiences that the students were exposed to during the student teaching period. The four hypotheses examined in relation to the data Obtained were: Hypothesis One - There will be a greater number of student teaching experiences reported by the secondary cluster student teachers than by the secondary conventional student teacher. The F value for Hypothesis One is 10.24 which is significant at the p < .05 level of significance. Hypoth- esis One has clearly indicated that secondary cluster student teachers have experienced more Of the 100 selected student teaching experiences than the secondary conventional student teachers. Hypothesis Two - Among those replying, there will be a greater number of experiences reported by those 88 secondary elective course student teachers than the secondary academic course student teacher. The program, Repeated Measures Factorial Analysis of Variance was used to test Hypothesis Two. This Hypothe— sis was not supported by the data. The academic course student teachers reported a greater number of experiences than did the elective course student teachers. Hypothesis Three - Among those students reporting, the secondary cluster program student teachers experi- enced a greater variety of activities than the secondary conventional student teachers. Hypothesis Three data clearly indicated that the cluster student teachers had experienced a greater variety of student teaching experiences than the conventional student teachers. The cluster student teachers had a mean score of 54.7 experiences and the conventional program student teachers have reported a mean score of 46.1 experi- ences. The F value of 10.24 was significant. Further analysis of the data indicated that at each.decile level the students encountered the experiences. However, the cluster student teachers averaged nine more student teaching experiences than did the conventional program student teachers. See Table 4-6 on page 63. Hypothesis Four - Among those individuals surveyed, the secondary cluster program student teachers will recommend a greater number of experiences for inclusion in future student teaching programs than 89 will the secondary conventional program student teachers. This hypothesis was not supported at the p < .05 level of confidence. The mean scores for the recommend- ations made by the two groups were: cluster program student teachers 64.2 and conventional program student teachers was 55.5. Although the number Of recommendations made by the cluster student teachers exceeded the conventional student teachers, this number was not significant. CONCLUSIONS Student teaching is a teaching-learning phase of the pre-service teacher. The literature in teacher education supports the generalization that student teaching is an important component of teacher preparation. Many writers have recommended that student teachers should be exposed to a broad range of experiences and activities. It appears from this study that student teachers need to experience a “personalized" program, regardless of the particular pro- gram tO which they are assigned. During this important student teaching period, it would be impossible to expose the student teacher to all the activities of a regular salaried teacher. However, it is important that a suffi- cient number Of activities and experiences are given to the beginning teacher so that he may draw upon them when he is living in the teaching community. 90 The findings in this study have indicated that the secondary cluster student teaching program does provide a larger number and greater variety of the selected experi- ences than the conventional student teaching program. The cluster and conventional program student teachers had similar ratings Of the experiences that they had experienced, valued and would recommend for inclusion in future student teaching programs. The following items were selected by both groups as highlygvaluable and would recommend for inclusion in future student teaching programs: (1) handling discipline problems of class without super- vising teacher, (2) organizing and teaching a unit of instruction, (3) developing own daily lesson plans, (4) feeling you were welcome in the school as a student teacher, (5) selecting content material for subjects taught, (6) maintaining student records of tests, assign— ments and grades, (7) developing material to enrich lessons you taught, (8) learning about and maintaining class attendance records, (9) preparing stencils or dittos for either your own lesson plans or for yOur supervising teacher. This indicates that student teachers value specific c1assroom.teaching techniques. The future teaching programs should include the listed items for the students' benefit. The following items are listed which the student teachers have igggg valued and placed iggg in order of recommending for future student teaching programs: 91 (1) joining a professional organization, (2) visiting the homes of pupils, (3) visit community service agencies or governmental agencies, (4) participating in community activities while student teaching, (5) substituting without pay for your supervising teacher while he/she was absent for illness or participating in an inservice workshop, (6) assuming school bus supervision, hall patrol or lunch room duty part of time when assigned to school, (7) having opportunity to teach adult education class, (8) making a case study of a pupil, (9) using micro-teaching during student teaching. There were small differences in the number of experiences reported by the academic and elective course student teachers. This finding is notable as it indicates that the secondary cluster program is beneficial for the academic and elective course student teachers. The cluster student teaching program has provided a larger number and greater variety by an average of nine teaching experiences at each decile level the student teachers encountered the experiences. As recommended by the teacher educators, this program appears superior to the conventional student teaching program because of the greater variety of experiences. The conclusions and findings of this study cannot hope to include all the complicated processes of student teaching. This writer only hOpes that this study will lead 92 to more investigation to improve the student teaching pro- grams. Perhaps it is as stated by Danzer: Everyone who tried to tap the full potential of student teaching runs headlong into the limitations of the clock and the calendar. Perhaps this is as it should be for student teaching is not a self-contained experience. It should leave the student convinced that his prepa- ration is not yet finished, anxious to continue his activities and pledged to carry over his seeking to his regular assignments. If student teaching can convince him that a lifetime is too short to do every- thing that is necessary for him to reach his full potential as a teacher, it has perhaps achieved its most important goal.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Teacher educators at Michigan State University and other teacher preparation institutions are continuously gathering information, re-examining their objectives and testing improvements to their student teaching programs. The following recommendations are made regarding further research in the field experience component Of teacher preparation: 1. A study should be conducted to determine the proper placement of field experiences in the preparation program. This research would be designed to answer such questions as: Which experiences are most apprOpriate during student teaching? Which activ- ities should be introduced during a first course 1Gerald A. Danzer, ”Student Teaching Activities: The Spectrum of Possibilities," Journal of Teacher Edu- cation XXII (Winter l97l):486. 93 in the professional sequence (perhaps at the fresh- man Or sophomore level)? What field experiences occur best during methods and subject matter courses? Which, if any, field experiences can be placed in courses which follow student teaching? 2. Research should be carried on to ascertain the most effective and appropriate techniques for the orientation of student teachers to the nature and programs of professional teacher organizations and labor unions. It is during the student teaching experience that the pre-service teachers most often come into contact with professional organizations, and they have the Opportunity to Observe the work of such groups. 3. An investigation should be carried on to determine the most effective means for motivating student teachers to participate in the total community. The present study has shown that student teachers tend to be reluctant to become involved in com- munity activities, although such involvement is commonly regarded as an important asset to the professional educator. REFLECTIONS The writer was impressed by the cooperation Of all who participated in the development and completion of this study. This research could not have been accomplished 94 without the Michigan State University Director of Student Teaching, Center Directors, cluster consultants and student teachers. Their professional interest was demonstrated by their prompt assistance in those tasks which were requested. Hopefully, this cooperation and interest will benefit student teaching programs at Michigan State University and elsewhere. Student teachers have indicated less interest in the school-community experiences than those experiences related to classroom skills and techniques. Michigan State University student teaching programs for over 25 years have emphasized this community involvement as an important asset for the professional teacher. The study has indicated that student teachers do not regard community activities as highly important. Student teachers chose ”participating in community activities" as an experience they had least experienced, valued, or would recommend for inclusion in future student teaching programs. This feeling about community involvement may be better understood as the recognition by student teachers that classroom pressures and demands require immediate answers, knowledge and skills. Also, student teachers evaluations by their supervisors normally emphasize teaching skills, techniques and knowledge of subject matter. Thus the importance Of community activities and involvement is lessened and the opportunity to make the most of community experiences is Often lost. 95 The cluster student teaching program has been supported by many investigators, including Kennedy, Chase, Jackson, Daunt and Anderson, and this study as being a more effective program than the conventional student teaching program.* The cluster program appears to develop a more professional attitude and behavior in pre-service teachers. A larger number of cluster student teachers reSponded to the questionnaire. More student teachers reported they had encountered a larger number and a greater variety of student teaching experiences than did the con- ventional student teachers. This sharing of ideas, grouping and regrouping, developing teaching techniques and the variety of experiences that cluster student teachers encounter provide a valuable preparation for prospective teachers. Such a program clearly requires strong leadership and adequate human resources in terms of cooperation and professional commitment, on the part of the universities and the public schools. Another finding of this study which surprised the writer as a secondary school administrator is the simi- larity of the experiences reported by secondary and ele- elementary student teachers. Jackson, in his study, found that elementary student teachers experienced, valued and recommended student teaching experiences that were very similar to those reported by the secondary student *See Chapter 2. 96 teachers in this study. This similarity was in the order of frequency and values placed on the respective eXperi- ences. This study has raised in the writer's mind the question of the quality of the experiences that student teachers encounter. Should a researcher replicate this study, the instrument developed should in some way gather and evaluate the specific duration of time, and number of times, student teachers Should be exposed to specific experiences. Each student must perceive and understand the experience before he is able to assimilate that experi- ence into his professional teaching. One area of student teaching of prime importance to the writer is the ”feedback” and final evaluation processes. We should continue to improve these areas in order that only the best qualified prospective teachers are certified. The real impact of education can only be improved with concerned, professional classroom teachers. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Amidon, Edmund, and Elizabeth Hunter. Improving Teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. Anderson, Calvin C. "Secondary Education Residency in Lansing, A Model Project Developed Cooperatively by Lansing School District and Michigan State University to Improve the Preparation of Teachers." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, East Lansing, Michigan State University, 1972. Andrews, Leonard 0. "Student Teaching As A Springboard for Inservice Education," Theory In Practice XIX (Fall, 1975). . Student Teaching. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1964. Association for Student Teaching. Guiding Stugent Teaching Experiences. Bulletin No. l. Lockhaven, Pennsylvania: Association for Student Teaching, 1952. . Research on Student Teaching. Bulletin NO. 5. DuBuque, Iowa: WiIliam C. Brown Co., 1965), p. 27. . Prospective Tegchers Learn From_Experiences With gHildren and Youth. BulIetin No. 7. Cedar Falls, Iowa: Association for Student Teaching, 1957. . The Student Teacher's Ex eriences in the Communiry. BuIIetin No. 21. Cedar FaIIs, Iowa: AssocIation’IOr Student Teaching, 1964. . Theoretigal Basggfor Profesgional_Laboratory Experiences in Teacher Education. Forty-Fourth Year- bOOk. Washington;_D.C.: Association for Student Teaching, 1965. Association of Teacher Educators. Guidelines to Clinical Experiences inggacher Education. Washington, D.C.: Association Of'Teacher EdUcators, 1973. 97 98 Brown, Robert M. A Survey of Student Teachers View on Selected Aspects of the Teacher Education Program in Secondary Education. U.S. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 121729, April 1976. Campbell, William G., and Stephan V. Ballou. Form and St 1e: Theses, Reports, Term Papers. Boston: Houghton MiEflin, 1974. Chase, Donald J. ”A Comparative Study of the Cooperative Michigan State University-Lansing, SERL Project and the Conventional Program Of Student Teaching with Reference to Openness and Attitude Formation.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Clem, Paul N. "A Study of the Michigan State Full—Time Resident Student Teaching Program. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, East Lansing, Michigan State University, 1958. Cogan, M. L. "Professional Requirements in Programs for the Preparation of High School Teachers," The Journal Of Teacher Education IX (September, 1958), 274. Combs, Arthur W. The Professional Education of Teachers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965. Corrigan, Dean. The Stugy of ngching. Washington, D.C.: The AssociatioanOr Stfident Teaéhing. Curtis, Dwight K., and Leonard Andrews. Guiding Your Student Teacher. New York: Prentice-Ha Co., 54. Danzer, Gerald A. "Student-Teaching Activities: The Spectrum of Possibilities," The Journal Of Teacher Education XXII (Winter, 1971). Daunt, Patrick D. "A Follow-Up Study of the Michigan State University-Lansing School District SERL Project and the Conventional Program of Student Teaching in the Lansing Public Schools with Comparisons Of Teacher Attitudes, Ratings, and Career Progress. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, East Lansing, Michigan State University, 1972. Davies, Donald. "The Teachers Number Game," American Education VI (October, 1970). Dean, Leland W. Speech presented at the Intern and Clini- cal Consultant Conference, East Lansing, Michigan State University, May 25, 1972. 99 Diamond, Solomon. Information and Error, An Introduction to Statistical Analysis. New York: Basic Books, 1959. Dickhart, Audrey. "Student Teachers Are People," The Journal of Teacher Education XII (September, 196T) . Dimitroff, Lillian. "A Model Program in Teacher Education." Improving College and University Teaching XX (Apring, 1972). Edelfelt, Roy A. "Remaking the World of the Career Teacher." Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, National Education Association, 1966. . Innovative Ideas in StudenETeachin . Baltimore, Maryland: National Commission on Teacher E ucation and Professional Standards, National Education Association, April, 1969. Flowers, John, and others. School and‘Community Laboratory Experience in Teacher Education. Oneonta, New York: American Association of Teachers Colleges, 1948. Fowkles, John Guy. "A Contemporary Design for the Prepa- ration of Teachers." Conference address on Teacher Intern Programs at River Falls, Wisconsin, May 11, 1964. Gayles, Anne Richardson. "Improving a Secondary Student Teaching Program," Improving College and University Teaching XX (Apring, 1972). Good, Carter V. Dictionary of Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959. Gray, Maxine. "The Use of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory in Selection, Counseling and Placement of Student Teachers." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Wayne University , 1956 . Haberman, Martin. "Relating the Study of Teaching to Other Dimensions of Teacher Education." The Study of Teaching, ed. Dean Corrigan. Washington, D.C.: Association for Student Teaching, 1967). Haines, Aleyne C., and Bernadene Schunk. The Outlook in Student Teaching. Forty-First Yearbook of the Associ- atfon for Student Teaching. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Co. , 1962). Heidelbach, Ruth. Developirg Supervisory Practice. Bulletin No. 41. Washington, D.C.: Association of Teacher Educators, 1975. 100 Hess, Mary B. "The Student Teaching Center: Filling the New Order in Student Teaching,” The Journal of Teacher Education XXII (Fall, 1971). Houston, W. Robert, Frank H. Blackington, III, and Horton C. Southworth. Professional Grgfith Through_Student Teaching. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Books, 1965. Isaac, Stephan, and William B. Michael. Handbook in Research aLd Evaluation. San Diego, California: Robert R. Knapp, Publisher, 1971. Jackson, Charles L. "A Study of Selected Student Teaching Experiences Reported by Michigan State University Cluster Program and Conventional Program Student Teachers.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, East Lansing, Michigan State University, 1971. Johnson, Edward G. "Improving the Student Teaching Experi- ence," Improving College and University Teaching XIX (Spring, 1971). Johnson, Jim, and Floyd Perry. Readings in Student Teach- ing: For Those Who Work With Student Teachers. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall7Hunt PubliShing Co., 1976. Johnson, James A., and Roger C. Anderson. Secondary Student Teaching: Reading. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1971. Johnson, James A., and Louis D. Deprin. Elementary Sindent Teaching: Readings. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman, 1971. Kennedy, W. Henry. Tgward Excglleng in Student Teaching, ed. Hugo David. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Pu is ing Co., 1973. Kerber, James E. , and Donald W. Protheroe. Guiding Student Teaching Experiences in a Coopje_r;ative Structure. Bulletin No. 33. Washington, D.C.: Association of Teacher Educators, 1973. Lansing School District and Michigan State University Student Teaching Office. SERL Project: A Projgct to Improve the Preparation of—Teachers. Lansing, Michigan. Lang, Duaine C., Alan F. Quick, and James A. Johnson. A Partnership for the Simervision of Student Teachers. Mt. Pleasant, Michigan: Great Lakes Publishing Co., 1975. 101 Loftis, Helen A. The Student Teachgr and Professional Activities. Bulletin No. 27. Cedar Falls, Iowa: ,Association for Student Teaching, 1966. MacGregor, Ronald N. "Evaluating Student Teacher Experi- ences in Art Education," Art Education 27 (Fall, 1974), 15-18. Merrill, Edward C., Jr. "Professional Student Teaching Programs," A Handbook for the Student Teacher, COOperating School Personnel and College and University Sponsors. Danville, Illinois: Interstate Printers and Publishers, 1967. Michigan State University Student Teaching Office. Supple- ment to Agreement with Schools for Clinical Clusters. East Lansing, Michigan State University, 1970. Morris, John E. "Relating Programs of Professional Laboratory Experiences and Staff Development," The Clearing House, May, 1976, pp. 402-405. Myers, George R., and William J. Walsh. Student Teaching and Internship in Todayjs Secondary Schools. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Bocks, 1964. Nash, Curtis, and Yvonne Loathouse. "New Developments, Research, and Experimentation in Professional Laboratory Experiences." Cedar Falls: Association for Student Teaching, 1964. ‘ Oestreich, Arthur H. "The Professional Growth of the Student Teacher," Phi Delta Kappan 55 (January, 1974). Price, Robert D. "The Influence of Supervising Teachers," The Journal of Teacher Education XII (December, 1961). Price, William J. "The Student Teacher as Indentured Servant," The Journal of Teacher Education XXIII (Fall, 1972). Report of Student Teachers Placed. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1972. Mimeographed. Report to the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1970. Robbins, Glaydon D. "The Preparation for Teachers," The Educational Forum XXXVI (November, 1971), 99-102. 102 Rucker, William C. "A Critical Analysis of Current Trends in Student Teaching." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 1951. Seperson, Marvin A. and Bruce R. Joyce. "Teaching Styles of Student Teachers as Related to Those of Their COOperating Teachers." Educational Leadership, Vol. 31 (November 1973). Silberman, Charles E. "You May Not Agree, But Student Teaching is Dismal," Todays Education LX (January, 1971). Smith, E. Brooks, ed., and others. A Guide to Professional Excellence in Clinical Experiences in Teacher Education. Washington, D.C.: Association for Student Teaching, 1970. Sterns, Harvey N. "Team Teaching in Teacher Education Programs," The Journal of Teacher Education XXIII (Fall, 1972), 321. Stratemeyer, Florence B., and Margaret Lindsey. Working with Student Teachers. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1958. Student Teaching Office. "Student Teaching Year End Report." East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1968. Mimeographed. Student Field Experience Handbook. Greeley, Colorado: University of Northern Colorado, 1969-71. Tyler, Ralph W. Prospects for Research and Develo ment in Education, National Society for the Study 0 Education. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1976. Wilhelms, Fred T. "Realignment for Teacher Education." Teacher Education: Future Directions, ed. Margaret Lindsey. Washington, D.C.: Association of Teacher Educators, 1970. Zahorik, John A. “The Myopia of Methods." Clearing House. Teaneck, New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson University, 1973. APPENDICES APPENDIX A ENROLLMENT OF CLUSTER AND CONVENTIONAL SECONDARY STUDENT TEACHERS, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, WINTER TERM 1972 APPENDIX A ENROLLMENT OF CLUSTER AND CONVENTIONAL SECONDARY STUDENT TEACHERS, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, WINTER TERM 1972 Teaching Center Cluster Conventional Total Battle Creek 11 8 19 Benton Harbor 22 10 32 Charlotte - 13 13 Detroit - 44 44 Flint 31 4 35 Grand Rapids 31 3 34 Jackson 8 9 17 Lansing Elem - 4 4 Lansing Suburban 28 5 33 Lansing/E. Lansing 84 14 u 98 Harry Hill 23 - 23 Livonia 35 5 40 Macomb 8 32 40 Owosso 20 - 20 Pontiac 29 8 37 Saginaw 26 10 36 Traverse City - 10 10 Walled Lake 21 12 33 Rome - 7 7 The Hague - 3 3 Total 377 201 578 103 APPENDIX B LETTER TO UNIVERSITY COORDINATORS, SELECTED CLUSTER CONSULTANTS AND DIRECTOR OF STUDENT TEACHING AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY APPENDIX B LETTER TO UNIVERSITY COORDINATORS, SELECTED CLUSTER CONSULTANTS AND DIRECTOR OF STUDENT TEACHING AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY January 20, 1972 Attached is the questionnaire which I wish to use for researching how secondary cluster and noncluster student teachers evaluate their secondary school student teaching experience. Please examine each item for ambiguities, redun- dancy and for student teaching experiences not included in the questionnaire. Then write any recommendations or improvements on the suggestion sheet which should be returned to me in the self-addressed envelope. This questionnaire is based on the instruments devel- oped by Dr. Irvin J. Shutsy and Dr. Charles L. Jackson and is modified for the secondary programs. The suggestions you submit shall be considered for implementation, for improve- ment or modification of this instrument. This modified instrument will then be issued to secondary student teachers at the end of this winter term. Thank you for your time and cooperation for this project. we are all working for the improvement of student teaching and hopefully this research will help meet that goal. Please return the suggestion form by February 1, 1972, as I am planning to use the instrument this term. Sincerely, Leo S. Sunada Enclosure 104 APPENDIX C LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO STUDENT TEACHERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE OF THE STUDY APPENDIX C LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO STUDENT TEACHERS AND QUESTIONNAIRE OF THE STUDY In connection with my program in the College of Education, I am researching how cluster and noncluster student teachers evaluate their secondary school student teaching after they have completed that experience. The population for this survey is drawn from the secondary education majors who taught during Winter Term 1972. This information is being collected for research purposes only; therefore, no information identifying any individual will be published. I know how busy you are upon your return to campus, and appreciate the time it will take you to complete the check list. The value of this program must be evaluated by you, the participant. The accuracy of your answers and the value of the research will help future student teachers at Michigan State. I know we are all interested in improving these student teaching programs. Enclosed is a postage paid return envelope and check list. Please complete the form and return within the next ten days before the mid-term rush. Thank you for your cooperation. If you wish additional information or wish to discuss the material, please drop me a line. Best wishes for a successful career in education. Sincerely yours, LEO S. SUNADA Coordinator East Lansing/Lansing Area Encl: Check List Return Envelope 105 106 EVALUATION OF STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES INFORMATION: 1. At what Michigan State University Student Teaching Center did you do your student teaching? 2. Did you student teach in a Cluster Program? Yes No 3. What subject matter area did you teach? Major Minor INSTRUCTIONS: The checklist emphasizes specific student teaching experiences. A. Place a check mark after the experiences you had as a student teacher; otherwise leave blank. B. Place a check mark after the experience if you evaluated it "valuable"; otherwise leave blank. C. Place a check mark after the experience if you recommend it for future student teaching programs. Please rate all of these experiences in this column whether you had them or not. REMEMBER: CHECK IF . . . . . . . . Experienced Valuable Include in Stu- dent Teaching . Developing own daily lesson plans. Teaching a unit prepared by others. Organizing and teaching a unit of instruction. . Selecting content material for a squect taught. . Making hamework assignments for classroom material taught. O) 01 uh “NH Preparing and administering drills in subject matter taught. 107 I 50) 44‘: m~4 m n 0} CU REMEMBER CHECK IF 3 m "*3 0) H 05" "-0 .0 'U H (U 234-, 0) 5 HQ o—u om x (U C'U m > H 7. ‘Developing material to enrich lesson you taught. 8. Including in plans an introduction that had as its purpose motivating the students. 9. Introducing new materials not included ii a unit you taught. 10. Giving classroom evaluative tests for assign- ing students to another level, group, or class. 11. Developing in your lesson plans material for remedial pupils. 4 12. Including in lesson plans specific tech- * niques to control behavior problems. 13. Planning instruction through teacher-pupil involvement. ’ 14. Developing and using behavioral objectives in lesson plans. 15. Using a learning game as a teaching tool. 16. Using someone from the community as a resource person in the classroom. 17. Developing a file of activities, pictures, lesson plans or materials. 18. Using the school library for your resource material. 19. Locating and utilising resource units developed by other organizations; i.e., County Health Department file. 20. Including the school library as a part of' a lesson plan for students to do their work. 21. Previewing audio-visual material Béf6re using in class. 22. Developing units structured around and using pupil creativity. 23. Assuming total responsihility for starting activities of classroom. 24. Preparing and presenting with pupil involve- ment, a part of school extracurricular activities program. 108 REMEMBER: CHECK IF . . . . . . Experiences Valuable Include in Stu- dent Teaching 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.. 43. Including in your lesson plans specific change of pace techniques. Reteaching a lesson after the results of a test you administered indicated a need. Developing own teaching aids for a class presentation. Planning and constructing a Bulletin board display. Organizing and cohdficting a field trip or participating as a chaperone. Have an opportunity to work in special mathematics language or reading laboratories. Visit and observe speech correctionist or reading specialist. Attempt to analyze your techniques of! questioning. Including provision for individual differ- ences in lesson plans. Tutoring a student after sChool in a community program. Using students for tutoring other students in difficult subject matter areas. Constructing and administering tests over material you taught. Determining grades or evaluatidn fdr report cards. Assisting in determining grades for report cards. Maintaining student record§ of tests, assignments, and grades. Learning about and maintaining class attendance records. Administering commercial testing material in.class. Recording data in cumulative records of pupils with coordination of school counselor. Reading the cumulative records of pupils. 109 a. +»s muq <1 .2 m at) o -a«u REMEMBER: CHECK IF . . . . . . 533 mg -a Java u to s4J a: 5 Pas o.r4 L>m x «u can ca > H 44. Teaching under only one supervising teacher ' for the term. 45. Teaching under two or more supervising teachers during the term. 46. Observing, while student teaéhing, 1 or 2 ' different teachers. 47. Observing, while student teaching, 2 or J , more different teachers. 1 . f 48. Teaching classes on at least two different 1 grade levels (achievement levels). ‘ 49. Teaching classes on at least three or more I , grade levels (achievement levels). i 50. Teaching as a member of a team teaching . ‘ unit if department had such a team. L ‘ . 51. Teaching on an individualized (one to i I , one) basis. L ‘ i 52. Teaching on a small group (two to ten or i ; T less) basis. 1 F 1 53. Teaching on a’large group (more than one Ti: 7 class) basis. 1 1 54. Teaching remedial pupils separatefrom 3 ‘T rest of class. L I 55. Teaching advanced pupils separatefrom i ' rest of class. ' F 56. Teaching heterogeneous Tsex) groups. * 57. Teaching homogeneous (sex) groups. I ' 58. Assuming school bus supervision, hall patrol, or lunch room duty for at least one week. ' 59. Assuming school bus supervision, hall ; patrol, or lunch room duty part of time 1 when assigned by school. ’ 60. Supervising directed study in classroom. 61. AsSuming responsibility for the teaching program, of at least one subject for a period of three weeks or more. 62. Assuming responsibility for the total teaching program of supervision, as able to take over, for four or more weeks. 110 REMEMBER: CHECK IF . . . . . . Experienced Valuable Include in Stu- dent Teaching 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. Assuming responsibility for partial teaching program of two supervising teachers. Participate in a school research project. Substituting without pay for your super- vising teacher when he/she was absent for illness or participating in an inservice workshop. Attending a student council meeting. Participating in after school extra- curricular activities. Participating in community activities while student teaching. Preparing stencils or dittoshfdr either your own lesson plans or for your super- vising teacher. Handling discipline problemsof'class without supervising teacher. Making a case study of a pupil. Having conferences with students in relation to classroom matters. Counseling individual pupils at their initiation. “up “asap—r". Discussing pupils with school counselor or principal. Visiting the homes ofpupils. Joining on conferences with school principal and parents when one of your students was involved. Writing a letter or making a telephone call to parents regarding their students. Using a film projector in a lesson you taught. Using a tape recorder in a lesson you taught. Using a tape recorder for self-evaluation. Using micro-teaching during student teaching for self-evaluation. Evaluating yourself on video tape while student-teaching. Evaluating your goals as a stddent teadher. h 111 I arm +1: mua o .c m st) 0 was REMEMBER: CHECKIF....... 5,1”,ng "-1.013 u «u 54; a) 9 Pas o.r4 ()0 x to :13 m :> H J 84. Observing a variety of teaching approaches; ] i.e., differentiated staffing, open class- 4 room, team teaching, etc. 85. Observing in elementary sChOols ofyour district or other districts. 86. Observing in secondary schools of your district or other districts. ' 87. Have opportunity to teach in an adult ‘ education class. ' 88. Participating in parent-teacher conferences. : v 89. Having an orientation meeting with the 1 2 principal. I I 90. Meeting with representatives of speCial 4 3 services of school or discuss their roles. j “ 91. Participating in the development of i curriculum committees for the school. ' i 92. Attending and/or contributing to a building I J faculty meeting when held. gj gL 93. Attending student teacher seminars conducted by University coordinator or cluster con- "'7 r- ‘r- :a sultant. 94. Attending building or district ihserviCe meetings. 95. Attending prdfessional organization meetings. ‘ 96. Joining a professional organization. 97. Attending Parent Teacher Association, or other parent group meeting. 98. Visiting Board of Education meetings. 99. Visit to community service agencies or governmental agencies. 100. Feeling you were welcome in the school as a student teacher. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION APPENDIX D SCORES FOR SECONDARY STUDENT TEACHERS OF THE SELECTED STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, WINTER TERM APPENDIX D SCORES FOR SECONDARY STUDENT TEACHERS OF THE SELECTED STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, WINTER TERM 3:22:2t Pair Groupa Programb Experienced Valuable 32C:::::ge Noncluster l l 2 l 55 50 90 2 1 2 2 61 61 58 3 2 2 l 37 47 38 4 2 2 2 12 17 30 5 3 2 1 45 78 49 6 3 2 2 41 34 59 7 4 2 1 56 52 ll 8 4 2 2 68 69 68 9 5 2 l 8 42 51 10 5 2 2 41 35 35 11 6 2 l 44 43 61 12 6 2 2 64 64 95 13 7 2 1 38 35 37 14 7 2 2 46 31 37 15 8 2 1 58 58 93 16 8 2 2 55 55 79 17 9 2 l 49 42 26 18 9 2 2 58 52 79 112 113 Recommend to Include Valuable Experienced Program? a Group Pair Student Number 32 11 42 47 10 10 11 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 57 48 38 55 34 23 52 53 45 11 51 21 17 35 71 84 57 82 56 50 4O 12 12 13 33 37 13 26 27 59 47 51 14 14 15 49 28 29 3O 31 32 33 41 43 48 41 49 44 15 50 73 16 16 17 46 42 49 51 65 66 58 59 49 72 67 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 39 35 55 44 53 43 36 52 48 4O 68 68 70 98 44 53 4O 53 53 41 52 53 42 39 35 39 76 86 40 4O 43 53 44 45 76 64 61 4O 59 52 23 46 47 48 49 24 24 25 83 52 52 30 27 34 114 gzzgzgt Pair Groupa Program? Experienced Valuable :fic:::::§e 50 25 2 2 49 64 44 51 26 2 l 68 81 80 52 26 2 2 52 52 49 53 27 2 l 56 55 68 54 27 2 2 44 81 54 Cluster 55 28 1 l 48 30 3O 56 28 l 2 66 71 91 57 29 1 1 46 39 59 58 29 1 2 60 75 83 59 30 l 1 66 52 71 6O 3O 1 2 51 46 57 61 31 l l 46 45 77 62 31 1 2 59 61 88 63 32 l l 81 84 78 64 32 1 2 54 54 54 65 33 l l 44 73 64 66 33 1 2 63 63 67 67 34 1 l 59 29 18 68 34 1 2 62 61 58 69 35 1 1 52 85 42 7O 35 1 2 44 39 77 71 36 l l 51 45 31 72 36 l 2 53 64 66 73 37 l l 63 95 85 74 37 1 2 63 84 80 75 38 l l 41 41 68 76 38 1 2 53 37 59 77 39 1 l 58 56 96 78 39 l 2 63 62 94 115 Recommend to Include Valuable Experienced b a Program Group Pair Student Number 66 72 66 74 46 76 45 66 4O 4O 41 79 80 81 64 68 63 42 38 61 41 82 59 42 42 83 15 45 42 84 67 67 68 43 85 93 69 47 70 51 43 86 87 87 44 44 9O 47 56 27 30 39 35 70 39 64 45 S6 36 35 50 88 89 45 24 13 45 9O 46 46 47 91 20 94 92 71 48 93 3O 95 47 94 54 45 48 48 95 62 96 97 94 95 87 49 49 83 68 47 68 53 98 35 45 50 50 51 99 100 101 102 103 38 95 52 96 48 62 81 89 69 42 51 52 52 88 55 85 69 49 51 104 105 69 53 54 53 64 78 54 24 53 106 107 91 80 54 54 71 11 54 60 108 109 55 116 isggzgt Pair Groupa Programb Experienced Valuable 22C::::33e 110 55 1 2 53 55 52 111 56 1 1 57 56 79 112 56 l 2 63 68 63 113 57 l l 49 46 45 114 57 1' 2 40 37 60 115 58 l l 61 60 60 116 58 1 2 58 44 47 117 59 l l 41 32 64 118 59 1 2 62 60 67 119 60 l l 42 34 61 120 60 l 2 61 88 84 a . Group: 1 = cluster; 2 = conventional. bProgram: 1 = academic; 2 = elective. APPENDIX E SCORES OF SECONDARY STUDENT TEACHERS OF SELECTED STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES BY PAIR, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, WINTER TERM APPENDIX E SCORES OF SECONDARY STUDENT TEACHERS OF SELECTED STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES BY PAIR, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, WINTER TERM Academic Pair Elective N°° M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3 Cluster 1 48 30 30 66 71 91 2 46 39 59 60 75 83 3 66 52 71 ‘ 51 46 57 4 46 45 77 S9 61 88 5 81 84 78 54 54 54 6 44 73 64 63 63 67 7 59 29 18 62 61 58 8 52 85 42 44 39 77 . 9 51 45 31 53 64 66 10 63 95 85 63 84 80 ll 41 41 68 53 37 59 12 58 56 96 63 62 94 13 66 66 66 64 74 72 14 63 46 68 38 76 42 15 61 45 59 45 15 42 16 68 67 67 70 69 93 17 51 47 87 56 56 90 18 36 27 47 35 30 24 19 50 39 13 7 35 20 117 118 Pair Academic Elective N°° M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3 20 71 70 94 48 39 30 21 54 64 95 45 45 62 22 87 95 94 68 68 83 23 53 47 35 52 38 35 24 48 95 96 62 89 81 25 69 69 88 49 42 55 26 51 69 85 54 53 64 27 78 80 91 54 54 71 28 24 60 11 53 55 52 29 57 56 79 63 68 63 30 49 46 45 40 37 60 31 61 60 60 58 44 47 32 41 32 64 62 60 67 33 42 34 61 61 88 84 Totals 1,835 1,888 2,124 1,775 1,852 2,111 Noncluster l 55 50 90 61 61 58 2 37 47 38 12 17 30 3 45 78 49 41 34 59 4 56 52 ll 68 69 68 5 8 42 51 41 35 35 6 44 43 61 64 64 95 7 38 35 37 46 31 37 8 58 58 93 55 55 79 9 49 42 26 58 52 79 10 47 42 32 3 45 ll 11 52 48 57 45 38 53 119 Pair Academic Elective N0 ' M1 M2 M3 M1 M2 M3 12 56 55 51 50 34 21 13 40 23 17 37 ' 33 35 14 51 59 71 49 47 84 15 43 41 57 49 48 82 16 44 41 50 49 46 73 17 51 42 9 65 67 66 18 43 39 58 36 35 59 19 52 55 49 48 44 72 20 40 53 68 28 63 52 21 53 53 70 53 52 98 22 40 39 44 40 35 53 23 40 39 ' 76 59 76 64 24 52 86 61 52 52 83 25 34 27 30 49 64 44 26 68 81 80 52 52 49 27 56 55 68 44 81 54 Totals 1,252 1,325 1,404 1,254 1,330 1,593 APPENDIX F SCORES OF CLUSTER AND CONVENTIONAL PROGRAM STUDENT TEACHERS RELATED TO SELECTED STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES H.Ho mm m.b> Hm H.Hm mm N.eh mv v.5m Hm m.om mm .usmsmu umuuma vownnsm ca madman mcwumumwswsom com mcwummoum .o N.Nn mm m.vh mv «.mb mm m.vn av v.on mm «.mm mm .unmswu Hmwuoums sooummmao Mom musoecmwmmm xuoswEon mswxmz .m m.mm me m.om ow m.aw we m.vm mm o.hm mv m.om om .usmsmu uownnsm u now Haaumums acousoo mcfluomamm .e o.mm om m.mm mo o.~m om v.mm Ho o.mm om m.mm mo .cowuosuumcw no use: 8 mafinommu pom mcwuflcmmuo .m m.mm Hm o.mm mm m.nm ma m.mv mm >.ov mm 0.5m mm .muosuo mm Conmmmum was: s meanness .N o.~m om v.mm Ho o.mm om 0.0m om m.om mm 0.5m em .mcmHm s0mmmH mawmo s30 mcflmon>mo .H w h w m w m w h w m w m .H.>soo umumsHo .H.>coo umumsau .H.>soo umumsao mmocwfiummxm ocwnomms mocoflummxm onu manusam> mm muw>wuo¢ popcmEEoomm mocmwummxm Cmuuommm msu Cmocmfluomxm mmuzmHmmmxm OZHSU¢MB BZMDDBm Omfiomqmm 09 Qmfidqmm mummUZOU 02¢ mmBmDAU ho mmMOUm m xHDzmmmfi 120 121. m.mn mm m.Hm vm m.mn av m.ah nv v.0h mm N.Hh hv .ucoao>ao>sw Hamsmuuonomou smsousu cowuosuumse unaccuam .ma H.Ho mm m.mn om m.Hm mm . H.~o av m.Hm mm m.vm mm .meuanoum uofi>mcmn Houucoo ou monogamous cameoomm madam commma aw msfipsaocH .NH n.ow mm >.mn wv m.ov mm H.mm hm o.hm om m.mv om .mawmsm financed“ Ham Hmwumuma Manda commoa HBO» cw mammon>oo .HH o.em om m.mv mm m.m m m.om om v.e v ~.H~ vs .mmmao no .Esoum .Ho>oa nuances cu mucmo noun msasmwmmw How mummy o>aumsaw>m sooummmflo msw>wu .oa m.mm mm b.~n mv o.mo vm ~.mo mv m.vm mm ~.mo mv .unmamu 50> was: m :w Cocoaocw uos mamwnouma 30s mswoscouucH .m o.mh mv m.nn Hm H.vh ov n.mm ov m.mn av «.mo mv .mucwosum may oceum>wuoa omomusm mow mm on: used soauosoouucw cm madam cw ocwosaosH .m m.mm ms m.em mm 0.5m av m.mm mm m.em av m.Hm vm .uamsmu so» commas aoauam on Hmwuouma mnemoHo>mo .5 w .m w .m w .m w .m w .m w .m 0 c g I m 0 H.> oo scum HO H.>sou u umsao a.>coo umumsao moosmeummxm mascomme mocowummxm may manmsam> mm mua>auod Umosoesoomm mocoeummxm nouuommm on» omosmfiuomxm 122 m.am mm a.mm av >.ov mm m.vm om v.vv vm o.mm mm .xuos Hams» on 0» mucmosum How swam Cowmma a mo puma 8 mm unsunaa aooaom may mcaoaaoca .om n.mm mm a.om hm n.ov mm m.mv mm 0.5m om w.am aw .oaau acme qummmo nuamom mucsou ..m.a “macaumuacmouo Monuo up pomoao>oo muass wousommu osauaaaus can msaumooa .ma e.om om a.me mv o.mm vm ~.ae av m.mo an m.ea am .amaumums mousomou uzos sow sumunaa aooaom was scams .ma m.mo hm m.vh mv o.mo vm >.mo @v o.mo vm m.mm mv .amauouse so madam ccmmoa .mousuoam .moaua>auom mo oaaw m mcamoam>mo .na o.mm 0m m.ah hv m.mv mm o.nv am «.mm ma m.vm mm .SOOHMEMao on» ca Gammon mou90mwu m mm huacaeabo on» scum osooabm means .@a n.mo mm m.am vm o.mm 0m n.5b am m.am mm m.mh 0m .aoou ocanomou m mm memo usasumma m msamo .ma >.mm mm m.hm mm m.mm mm a.mm mm v.05 mm ~.vn av .mcmam s0mmoa ca m0>auomnno asu0a>mnmn moans can osam0a0>wo .va w m w m w m w .m w .m w m .a.>sou umumsau .a.>cou Roundao .a.>soo Houmsau moosmauomxm acacomme mocmaummxm on» manmoau> mm >ua>auo¢ poocoafiooom mosmaummxm vouuommm any Coosoaummxm .123 m.vo mm m.mb om a.wv om m.mo mv m.mm ma p.00 vv .Cmms m owumOaUCa Commumacaeom 90> ummu m mo muasmou on» nouns sammoa m msanomouom .om o.mm vm m.mn mm m.vo mm n.mn mv o.mm 0m n.0m vv .wmsvassoou comm mo mucosa oamaowmm Macao commma use» :a mcaosaosa .mm @.mm om a.m® av m.mm ma m.mv Om a.vN ma m.am am .Eduwoum mmaua>auom udasoaunso nmuuxm aoonom mo puma m .usosm>ao>ca aamsm spas mcausomoum can mcaummmum .vm m.mn av m.mm mm 0.05 mv m.mm mm m.mw mv v.mm mm .eooummmao mo moaua>auom mcauumum mom suaaaaam Icommmu amuou msaadmmd .mm m.hn Nv m.mn mm m.mo hm n.mh mv m.vm mm >.mm mv .>»a>aumouo aamsm moans was masons wousu nosuum muass usaQOam>oo .mm o.mh mv m.vm om m.vm mm m.om mm m.mm mm m.am vm .mmmau ca means muommn amaumuma amsma>loacsm msa30a>mum .am w m w m w m w m a m w m .a.>soo soumsau .a.>coo umumsao .a.>soo “mannao woodmauomxm moanomma mocmauomxm on» wanmnam> mm >ua>auo¢ caucuseooom mocoauomxm wouuomom on» poocoauwmxm 124 h.ov mm m.mv mm m.m~ va m.mm mm n.0a m n.ma ma .amumoum wuassasoo m Ca aoosom umumm usoosum m ocauousa .vm m.hh Nv m.mm mm 5.00 mm h.mh mv m.v® mm N.vh mv .mcmam commma Ba moocoumwwao ams©a> Iaoca Mom soama>oum mcaosaosa .mm v.on mm m.mm mm m.vo mm n.0m vv m.vo mm a.mo av .mcaCOaummso mo mmsoaccomu use» on>amcm ou unsound .mm 0.0m hm o.mo Nv m.am ha v.mm om v.om aa m.vm mm .umaamaowmm msaomou no umaCOauomuuoo nomomm o>uomno can uama> .am m.mv mm m.mm mv a.v~ ma m.mv mm m.va m o.ov hm .mwauoumuonma mcapmou no momsocsa nuance lacuna asaoomm ca Mao: ou huassuuommo so o>mm .0m m.mm mm p.00 vv m.am mm v.mv mm v.vv vm v.~v mm .osouommso 8 mm mcaumm Iaoauumm so may» macaw a mcauospcoo was msauaccmuo .mm m.ov mm a.mm mm a.mv mm m.mv om a.mv 0m 0.0m mm .>sammao mason cauoaasn m msauosuumsou ps8 mcaccmam .mm v.05 mm m.vm om m.mh mm m.vm mm ~.Nn mm m.nw mm .BOaumu isomoum mmdau u now moan msanommu :30 mCaQan>oo .hm w m w m w h w .m w .m w m .a.>sou umumsau .a.>cou Hmumsau .a.>soo umumsau moosmauomxm moanomoa mocmauomxm on» mansdam> mm mua>auom poocoaeoomm mocmauomxm omuuomom on» Coocwauwmxm m.am ha m.mv mm 0.0a oa m.mm ha m.va 0 «.ma oa .uoammcaoo aoozom mo soaumsaouooo spa: maamdm mo mouoomu m>au0asEdo ca sumo ocaoucomm .mv m.am ha m.vm mm v.om aa m.mm ha a.v~ ma m.vm MN .mmMao sa awaumume msaummu amaoumeeoo msauoumaCanm .av m.am vv m.hh am 0.on mv 0.05 mm v.vm am 0.0m o0 .mouooou mosmpcouum mmmao mca IcaMDCamB 0cm usonm msacumma .ov m.mm mv m.nm mm o.nm nv v.00 hm m.mm mv m.mm N0 .mmomum 0:0 .musmssmammm .mumwu mo mvuooou usmosum oCaCamusamz .mm 0.00 pm n.mh mv m.v0 mm h.mh mv m.v0 mm N.an nv .moumo phonon How moomum msasaauoumo ca usaumammd .mm m.mn av m.am v0 0.m> mv m.vm 0m 0.mn mv m.mm mm .mpumo uuomou Rom scabs usam>w no moomum moacaaumuoo .hm m.am vv 0.vm 00 m.mm 0v m.hm mm m.mw mv m.om o0 .unmsmu 90> asaumums um>o mummu msa snowmaCasvm can ocauusuumsoo .0m m.mm mm 0.00 ov v.vv vm m.mv om 0.mm 0a v.mv mm .mmmum Hounds uomflnsm uasoawmao ca muswosum umsuo moauouou you mucwosum moan: .mm w h w h w h w h w h w m .a.>cou umumaau .a.>cou uwumsau .a.>coo umumsao mmocoaummxm mcacomme moswaummxm mru maamsao> mm >ua>auo¢ monomeeooom mosoaummxm nouuomwm on» moonwaummxm 126 0.00 00 0.>0 00 0.Nv mm 0.a0 v0 0.00 ma 0.0v N0 .amao>ma usmam>oa£omv mam>wa momum muoe uo owns» ummma us so mommmao mcanomms .0v 0.05 0v n.0n 0v 0.hn mv 0.00 0v 0.05 av 0.00 0v .Amaw>ma poms Im>oacomv mao>oa mouse usououmam 03» ammoa us so mommmao moanomos .0v 0.00 00 0.>n a0 v.50 a0 ~.ah hv 5.00 mm m.an 5v .mumnommu ucmuomuao whoa no N .mcanomou ucmosum oaasz .0:a>uwmno .hv a.v> 0v 0.0v 00 0.00 hm 0.0v mm 0.00 v0 0.nv a0 .mumnomou usmuommav N no a .mcanomou unmasum maans .maa>ummno .04 a.mv 00 p.00 0v n.0v mm 0.00 «v 0.00 0a 0.00 0v .Eumu 0:0 msauso muonosou msama>uomsm whoa no 039 Rooms moasomoa .0v 0.0v 0N 0.n~ ma 0.00 pm 0.00 ea 5.00 00 0.00 00 .Bumu 0:» Mom Hosomou moama>ummsm moo haco Rowan moanomma .vv n.0v mm a.m0 av 0.00 am 0.0v 00 v.vv v0 0.n0 00 .maamsm «0 mououou w>aumasado may moaommm .0v a m w m w m w m w m w m .a.>coo umDmSao .a.>coo umumsau .a.>coo umumsau moosmaummxm moanomwe mocmauomxm mnu manmsam> mm mua>auo¢ Coososeoomm wocoaummxm Umuuomom may mmosmaummxm 127 0.00 0a 0.0v 0N a.v~ 0a v.00 0m a.vm 0a 0.0v 5N .mmsoum Axomv msooco0oeo: moanomma ,.50 0.0a mv v.00 em m.~s mm m.v0 00 0.05 av v.00 5m .38..0 lawmc msomswmououan 0sanomma .00 0.0v 00 0.5v a0 0.a0 5a 0.v0 0m a.v~ 0a 0.00 0a .mmMao no 900» scum ouuummon maamsm mmoss>om meanosoa .00 a.0v 0m 0.a0 v0 0.00 0a 0.50 00 a.vm 0a 0.00 00 .mmmau no ummu scum mumummom maamsm auacusmu 0Canomma .v0 0.a0 mm 0.0v N0 0.00 am 0.0v 5N 0.00 ma 0.50 mm .mamun AmmmHU 030 55 thv macho 00u0a a so 0sasomoa .00 0.00 50 0.v0 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 50 0.05 00 .mammn Ammma no sou on 0390 msou0 aamsm a so 0Canowma .00 0.v0 00 0.a5 5v 0.00 50 0.00 0v 0.v0 00 0.50 00 .maman 50:0 on 0:00 cwua Iamsoa>aCCa as so meanomoa .a0 0.00 50 0.00 mv 0.5m 0a v.00 vm 5.0a 0 0.a0 am .800» a 20:0 can poms nausmmo ma pass 0casomwu Esau a mo Rename 0 mm moanomma .00 w .w m m w .m w .m w .w a .m .a.>soo uwumsau .a.>:ou umumsao .a.>cou Hmumsau mmoswaummxm 0sanomma madmauomxm map manmsam> mm hua>auo< Cmosmseoomm mocoaummxm Couuomom may voocwaummxm 128 v.vv vm a.0m an 0.mv mm a.0m am a.v~ ma 0.00 mm .muwsommu ucama>uwmsm can no Emumoum meaaomwu amauumm new huaaanamsommmu 0casamm¢ .00 0.05 0v 0.00 00 0.05 0v 0.a0 v0 0.55 «v 0.a0 v0 .mxwms wuoe no usou How .um>o 0x0» 0» wand 00 .s0a0a>ummsm mo Emumoum 0ca£omou amuou man How muaaanamsommmu moaadmmd .00 0.05 0v 0.00 00 0.05 0v 0.a0 v0 0.a0 vv 0.00 00 .ouoa no 0x003 moan» mo QOanm 0 How pownnsm mco ummma an no .Bmumoum moanomou 0:» Row auaaanamcommmu moassmmd .a0 0.00 00 0.00 mv v.50 a0 a.~0 av a.a0 00 0.05 00 .aooummuau ca wvsum vmuomuav 0sa0a5homdm .00 a.vm 0a 0.00 mm 0.0a 5 0.vm 0a a.aa 0 0.0a 0a .aoosom 5n Cmeammm soc3 05a» mo uumm ausu Econ nocsa no .aouumm aamn .COama> uuwmsm man aoonom 0ca65004 .00 0.00 0a v.00 vm 0.va 0 0.va 0a 0.0a 5 0.0a 0a .xmos moo ummwa um ~00 huso Boon gonna uo .aouumm aamn .s0a0a> nummsm man aoonom 0ca8500< .00 w m w m w h w m w m w m .a.>coo umumsau .a.>soo umumsau .a.>cou uwumsau mmosmauwmxm 0Bacomme mocwaummxm ms» manmsam> mm anabauod cmwswEEOUmm moswauwmxm Cwuuommm ms» Gooswauwmxm .129 5.00 0v 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 v.v0 a0 0.00 00 .nmnommn meama> Inwmdm usonua3 mmmao mo mamanonm mcaamaomaw 0saavsmm .05 0.00 0v 0.05 00 5.00 0v 0.05 00 v.v0 a0 0.v0 00 .nonomuu 0Cama> unmmsm n50» now no madam Bowmoa s30 nsom nmsnam nom mouuau no maaosoum meanmmmnm .00 0.00 Na v.00 0m v.00 aa 0.v0 00 0.0 0 0.00 00 .0sanommu usovsum maanz mmaua>anom anacsafioo ca moaummaoaunmm .00 5.00 00 0.05 00 a.am 00 N.m® 0v 0.00 00 5.N5 mv .mwau0>wuom nuasoannsoumnuxo aoozom nouns ca 0cauumaoannmm .50 5.0v NN 0.0v 0N N.NN Na 0.00 mm 0.0 m 0.0a Na .mcauwwa aaossoo usmcsnm m 0saosmuu¢ .00 v.vv v0 0.00 00 0.00 50 a.00 50 0.v0 00 N.a5 5v .mocmxnos moa>nmmca cm ca 0caummaoannmm no mmmcaaa now ucomnm 003 msm\mn cog: nososou 0cama>nmmsm nsou now 080 asexuas meausuaumnsm .00 0.00 «a 5.00 0a 0.va 0 0.0a 5 5.0 N 0.0 N .nuwnonm nonmommn aoonom 0 Ca mummaoaunmm .v0 a .m a m w .m w .m w .m w .m .a.>soo nwumsau .a.>cou nonmsao .a.>soo nmumsao mmocmanmmxm mcazomma oocwanmmxm man manwsam> mm >ua>auo< cmvsoafioomm mommanmmxm Umunommm man 000cmanmmxm 130 5.0v 0.va 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.5m NN am mm N0 0v 0a 0.v0 a.00 0.00 a.00 0.00 0.00 00 00 ON 50 ov 00 0m 0.0m 0.0a a.a0 0.00 0.05 ma va 00 mm av 0a 0.0v 0.50 5.NN a.00 0.50 0.55 0.00 00 mm 0a 50 00 a0 mm 0.00 0.00 a.0v 0.05 a.aa ma 00 0N av v.00 5.NN 0.0a a.00 0.0v 0.05 N.ma vN ma 50 N0 00 Na .muswcsnm nawnn 0sa0nmmmn mncmnmm on aamo osocmmamn m 0caxms no nwunma m 0sauan3 .vm>ao>ca 003 mnsovsnm n50» no «so sw£3 musmnmm 0cm awmaUCanm aoonom nua3 mmocwnmmcoo so 0saCaon .maamsm mo mason as» meannma> .ammaUCanm no noaomsaoo aoonom nuaB maamsm meammsomaa .coanmauaca naonu um maamsm amswa>a0sa 0caammcsoo .mnmunma_aoonmmmao on soaumamn ca mnsmwsnm nua3 mmosmnmmsoo 0ca>mm .aamsm 0 mo wcsnm 0000 m moaxmz .55 .05 .05 .v5 .05 .N5 .a5 w h w m w h w h w h a m .a.>sou nmumsao .a.>:ou nmumsau .a.>coo nmnmsau mmocwanwmxm meanomma mua>ano¢ on» cavemanmmxm mosmanmmxm may vmvcoasoomm manmsam> mm mosmanmmxm omnnommm 131 0.0v 00 0.50 00 0.50 00 0.0v 0m 0.0m 0a 0.50 00 .muoanumav nwnuo no noanumac n90» no maoosom hnmucmawam ca 0ca>nomno .00 0.05 00 0.a0 v0 v.50 a0 a.00 00 0.00 50 0.00 00 .ouo .0sasomwu Boon .soonmmmao ammo .msammmnm cmuMancwnmmmac ..w.a ammnomonmmm usamomwn mo humanm> m 0sa>nomno .v0 a.v5 0v 0.05 00 0.05 0v 0.55 am 0.55 0v 0.55 am .nmcommu ucmoanm 0 mm mamom nsow ucanmsam>m .00 v.vv v0 0.00 0v 0.00 ma 0.0v 00 a.aa 0 0.v0 0m .0casosmn ncmvsnm maans 000» omUa> so uammnsoa 0canmsas>m .00 0.00 va v.mv 0m 0.va 0 0.00 0a 0.0 0 0.0a ma .ROaumsam>o Imamm n00 meaaommu usmcsum 0cansv meanommulonoaa 0Camo .a0 0.00 50 0.a0 v0 0.50 om v.00 0N v.00 aa 0.v0 0a .BOaumsam>quamm now nmnnooon 000» m 0sama .00 v.50 am 0.50 00 0.00 50 0.0v 00 0.00 am 0.0v 0N .nnmsun so» commma a Ca nmvnooon 000» m 0camD .05 5.00 00 0.05 00 0.00 v0 5.00 vv 0.00 00 0.05 00 .ummsmn so» cemmma a ma nouomnonm Eaam m moans .05 w m 0 ha 0 .m w .m w .0 w .m .a.>soo nmnmsau .a.>soo nwumsau .a.>sou nmnnsao mmocoanomxm moasomma mocmanmmxm on» manmsam> mm mua>ano¢ cmmcmesoomm wucmanwmxm cwunomwm may 000cmanwmxm 1132 0.00 00 0.a5 5v 5.00 00 ~.a5 5v 5.00 0v 0.00 00 .usmnasmcoo nmnmsao no nonmcaonooo 5uamnm> taco an Umuosucoo mnmsaaom nmsommu uswcsum 0sa0smnu0 .00 0.00 00 0.00 0v a.a0 00 0.00 0v a.v5 0v 0.05 00 .0am: Emma moanmwa unasomw 0ca0aasn m on 0causn Iannsoo n0\0sm 0caccmuu¢ .00 0.00 am v.00 00 0.00 am 0.50 mm 0.a0 5a 0.50 0a .aoonom ms» now mmwnnas neon asasoannso mo namemo uam>m© wan ca 0canmmaoaunmm .a0 0.50 ON 5.00 vv 0.50 om N.00 0v 0.0m 0a N.00 0v .waon naman mmsomac no aoosom mo mmoa>nmm amaommm mo mw>aumnsmmmnmmn snas meanmmz .00 a.a0 00 0.v5 0v v.vv vN a.00 av 5.0v mm ~.v5 0v .ammaosan0 man spas 0saumma coanmnsmano cm 0ca>mm .00 0.00 00 a.00 av 0.50 00 v.00 0N v.0~ aa 0.00 00 .mmosmnmmsoo nmnomwn ouswnmm ca 0sanmmaoannmm .00 0.00 0a 0.v0 00 a.aa 0 0.00 5a 0.0 0 0.v 0 .mmflau soaumoavm Hanna :0 Ca soomn on unassunommo m>mm .50 0.55 «v 0.v5 0v 0.00 00 5.00 vv 0.a0 00 0.00 0v .muoannmao nwnuo no nuannmao n50» mo maoonom annosoomm ca 0ca>nmmno .00 1.. .m w .0 w .w w .m w .w a .m .a.>soo nmnmsau .a.>cou nmnmsao .a.>cou nmumsao mmocmanmmxm mcagomme mocmanmmxm man manMSam> mm >na>ano< omccoasoomm 00cmanomxm nwunomom on» cmosmanwmxm 133 0.00 0v 0.00 00 5.00 0v v.00 a0 0.00 0v v.00 a0 .nmcommn nsmvsnm 0 mm aooaom wnu ca oeooaws mnms 50> meaammm .00a 0.00 ma 0.0v 00 0.va 0 v.mv 00 a.aa 0 0.v0 0N .mmaocm0m amuswasnm>00 no mmaosmmm moa>nmm muassEEOo on nama> .00 «.00 an 0.0v mm a.0a m 0.v0 mm 0.0 m 0.a0 an .mmcnnome coanmoaan no vnmom mannnma> .mm 0.a0 5a o.ev am 0.00 ma 0.00 on 5.0a 0 a.~a 0 .0aanmws mson0 namnmm nwsuo no .coanmaoommd nmnomma nsmnmm moawcmnum .50 5.0a 0 5.00 0a a.aa 0 0.50 0a 5.0a 0 5.0a aa .COaumuasmmno amcoammowonm w meaCaOH .00 0.00 0a 0.0v mm 0.00 va v.~v mm 0.00 va 0.00 an .mmaanmws aoanmnaaamno amcoammmmonm meaosmnu¢ .00 m.nm an v.~v mm a.aa an a.0v an a.aa ma 0.0v om .mocanmos moa>nmmcn nonnnmno no manoansn ucancmnna .v0 & m w m w h w h w m w m .a.>coo nmumSao .a.>coo nwnmoao .a.>coo nmumdao mmosmanmmxm 0sanomms mocoanmmxm man wanmsam> mm mna>auod cmmsmaeoomm moooanomxm Umunommm mnn Umoswanmmxm HICHI mmimm“ 3