A COMPARATIVE FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF TWO STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAMS UPON THE SCHOOLS OF MICHIGAN WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR. THE EVALUATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY CHARLES J. PISONI, SR. ’ 1977 III M III IIIIIIIIII III I 31293960 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A COMPARATIVE FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF TWO STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAMS UPON THE SCHOOLS OF MICHIGAN WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EVALUATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS presented by CHARLES J. PISONI has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for 911.0. degree In DIVISION OF STUDENT TEACHING & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Major éjfessor Date FEBRUARY 14, 1977 07639 .fl, it 1‘ "£5510 may: I I I. ' 5"" I - w "In ML“ .‘ I: A - I) \W ‘3’ w ill. qum-II .-. f..‘. “b m“ «I m. ,. '3'; '. 9”. collected 1" I O D I ‘5“ ”an collea. 1“ ff” ”‘6! of (em rw ll cclutsv ..I I ‘Mfil (v {I‘- 3- I' =: I acquired eight are. , - . ' A?!" ‘ 1 . . ' (ilk... wit a .- h: ' "1. “§‘ otltwi-ta Mus” ‘:3- «Mend .f stair“ teach- ‘ i’fie coma! an. ”MAI. .55.. were g-Irm-t'ad in»: 6026 ‘mfi mum {ma-u. one 930 nduwuuomu. h— an M It. ha: {5- 396 than“ the-him unit—r» «mm W nay-nun hub- ,4” m h we, a. m w ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF TWO STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAMS UPON THE SCHOOLS OF MICHIGAN WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EVALUATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS by Charles J. Pisoni The purpose of the study was to analyze the Central Michigan University data collected in the 1969 Impact Study and the Central Michigan Univer— sity data collected in 1973 to determine if there was a difference in the impact of Central Michigan University student teachers in those two years upon the cooperating schools in Michigan. The two programs were identical in course requirements and differed basically in the length of time devoted to the professional laboratory experience. The 1969 program required eight weeks, while the 1973 program required a full semester (sixteen weeks). W In a 1969 Michigan statewide study of the effects of student teach- ing programs upon the cooperating schools, data were gathered from 4676 student teachers, 4554 cooperating teachers, and 938 administrators. In- cluded within this 1969 study were data for 496 Central Michigan Univer- sity student teachers, 491 Central Michigan University cooperating teach— ers, and 113 administrators. Data were gathered in 1973 from 925 Central Michigan University student teachers, 930 Central Michigan University cooperating teachers, and 235 administrators. The data were subjected Charles J. Pisoni to factor analysis and Chi—Square was utilized in the comparison. Findings and Conclusion The comparison revealed: (1) Statistically significant differences between the two Central Michigan University programs were found in eight of the twelve individual hypotheses (factors) for the Cooperating Teacher group. (2) Statistically significant differences between the two Central Michigan University programs were found in eight of the eleven individual hypotheses (factors) for the Cooperating School Administrator group. (3) Statistically significant differences between the two Central Michigan University programs were found in ten of the twelve individual hypotheses (factors) for the Student Teacher group. (4) The full day full semester program developed in 1971 at Central Michigan University must be evaluated as a strong improvement upon the former eight weeks program regarding the impact upon the cooperating schools in Michigan. Recommendations (1) Central Michigan University should establish a con— tinuous plan for evaluating its product and its pro- gram with the main objective of improving the teacher education program and its impact upon the cooperating (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Charles J. Pisoni schools. The study should be replicated with another pop— ulation of Central Michigan University student teachers. In addition, Elementary and Secondary student teachers should be studied separately. The Impact Study provided a wealth of data which included much demographic information. Many cor- relations could be made with these data. A greater in-depth look at the role of the student teacher should be planned. Consistent with the literature and the findings of this study, the student teacher is providing many new insights, materials, ideas, and aids for the schools. In addition, the cooperating teacher becomes more effective. This aspect of the teacher education program might be looked upon as a great in-service vehicle and should be examined further. Cooperating schools and universities should constant- ly be encouraged to evaluate the procedures, prac— tices, and effectiveness of their joint teacher ed— ucation programs. While the Impact Study instruments are able to pro— vide a wealth of data, more valid shorter instruments to measure the effectiveness of teacher education programs are needed. The student teacher and cooperating teacher responses to both the 1969 Impact Study and the 1973 Central Aida“ ' (8) (9) Charles J. Pisoni Michigan University study should be analyzed on a cross-matching basis to see if the individual attitudes are consistent toward the questions (variables). A factor analysis of the Indiana Student Teaching Study data should be done to determine if factors will emerge which are similar to those factors found in this study. This study should be utilized to revise the Impact Study questionnaires and to develop scoring scales to rate individuals and/or programs. A COMPARATIVE FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF TWO STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAMS UPON THE SCHOOLS OF MICHIGAN WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EVALUATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS by Charles J. Pisoni, Sr. 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 . : r); ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to the following: To Dr. W. Henry Kennedy, Major Advisor, for his valuable guidance, assistance, and friendship. To Dr. Richard Featherstone, Dr. Arden Moon, and Dr. James McKee, Committee Members, for their guidance and support. To Dr. Robert DeBruin and Ann Fallon, Central Michigan University, for their assistance. To my wife, Nancy and my children, Chip, Meg, Paul, Amy, and Nancy Jo for their patience, support and sacrifice. May it be possible that I will be able to repay them in some small way. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........ ... ................................. ii LIST OF TABLES ........................................... v Chapter I. THE PROBLEM ....................................... 1 Purpose .. ................... . .................. 1 Hypotheses to be Tested . ....................... 3 The Need for the Study ......................... 6 Background of the Study ..... ................... 10 Elementary Education ..... .................. 11 Secondary Education ...... ....... . ..... ..... 19 Basic Assumptions .......... . ................... 25 Limitations ... ..... .. ...... .... ................ 25 Definitions of Terms ........................... 27 Summary ..... ........... . ....................... 28 Overview .. . ......................... . ........ 28 11. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ....... ...... ...... ..... ...... 30 Professional Laboratory Experience ........... .. 30 Impact Study . .............. . ...... . ............ 44 Summary ... ............. ...... .................. 48 III. DESIGN ...... ........... . ......... . ................ 50 Procedures, Methods, and Techniques .. .......... 50 Factor Analysis .... ...... ........ ........ . ..... 55 IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ............. 73 Summary ....... ..... ...... ..... ... .............. 132 V. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ........ .. ...... ............ 135 Summary ............................ .......... .. 135 Discussion .......... ....... . .......... . ........ 136 Conclusion ................... ..... ....... ...... 139 Recommendations .......................... ...... 139 iii Page ......o-oousola-Ito.a......-oosoosnaononoo'la-s 141-191 l ‘W‘.1 I : '1.- .# I truncate Used in the Study 141-170 V O 1831f1¢lnt Loadingfl ...-......000.000.000ll00 171-188 “EpQICh1'8flufir€ Analy‘is OI...OIIOOQOIOCOOOIOIOIOII 189—191 _-u cocoa-soc... 192-196 :3. wf‘inf‘ ‘0 COUF-S'T 1' I D. Stud-r2: - I Q. Coop-x ' 77o CINP31.15'_I “, SLIfl-TI T I.~< I ..o WI? '\ I ‘I'. . H.113 E) L3 ‘7 . ' ’1 I main” fi‘. Merv: - - n; Er " “rubies teacher Inn -. s . . 5; r3 . - . . . able-s :.-.‘; "Iron in 1m "'Iz'. rtth‘a :I‘- I . is: viii-.1 . 1:41.... .*.‘ Tah J‘ ‘ was}. in t1: -: . {ECO DA {”37 ;-:;- . ‘. , '- “other I’S.[~v"‘.l .\- 1.1.»:7: i .\,_. ' hi1? {N F.) ‘twk '1 "P ‘ 'Mv'dvguii z: 1 s 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Page Data Base for the Study ........... .............. ... 54 Average Correlation, Number of Cases, Standard Error, and Significant Loading for Nine Distinct Groups of Respondents .............................. 65 Administration Group ............................... 66-67 Cooperating Teacher Group ..... . .................... 67 Student Teaching Group ..... . ....................... 68 Cooperating Teacher Group .......................... 71 Cooperating School Administrator Group .............. 71 Student Teacher Group .... ........ . ................. 72 Cooperating Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor I-A - Cooperating Teacher Utilization of Student Teacher ............. 74 Cooperating Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor I-B - Cooperating Teacher Conference with Student Teacher .... ..... ... 76 Cooperating Teacher Percentage Reaponses to the Variables Within the Factor I-C - Staff Utiliza- tion in Non-Instructional Areas ..... ....... ... ..... 77 Cooperating Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables within the Factor I—D - Individualized Infltruction....... ........... 0- .0. e ------- o ......... 79-80 Cooperating Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables within the Factor I-E — Additional Participation of Cooperating Teacher ............... 81-82 Cooperating Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor I—F - Cooperating Teacher Instructional Change ....................... 83 Cooperating Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor I-G - Student Teaching Substitution .............................. 84 Table 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Page Cooperating Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor I—H - Cooperating Teacher Assistance ....................... . ........ 85—86 Cooperating Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor I—I - Non-Instructional Supervision ..... ...... . ............................ 87 Cooperating Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor I—J - CoOperating Teacher Professional Development ................... 88 Cooperating Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor I-K — Acceptance and Influence of Student Teacher .. ....... . ......... 89-90 Cooperating Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor I-L - Student Teacher Preparation ........................ . ...... 91-92 Cooperating Administrator Percentage ReSponses to the Variables Within the Factor II—A — Non-Instruc- tional Contributions by the Student Teacher ........ 95 Cooperating Administrator Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor II—B - Special University Service Availability to Staff ..... . ..... 96-97 Cooperating Administrator Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor II-C - Administrator Work Load Change in Counseling and Communication ... 99—100 Cooperating Administrator Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor II-D - Pupil In- structional Activity Change ........... . .. ...... 101 Cooperating Administrator Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor II-E - Instructional Input of Student Teachers ..... ...... .. . .......... . 102- 103 Cooperating Administrator Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor II—F - Student Teacher Academic Program ................... ....... . 104 Cooperating Administrator Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor II-G - Administrator Utilization of Released Time of Cooperating Teacher, Student Teacher and Staff........................... 106 vi the Variables Within the Factor II-H — Teaching Utilization of Student Teachers .................... 107 29. Cooperating Administrator Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor II-I - Normal University Service Availability to Staff ........... 108—109 Table Page 28. Cooperating Administrator Percentage Responses to 30. Cooperating Administrator Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor II-J - Additional Participation of Cooperating Teacher ............... 110-111 1 31. Cooperating Administrator Percentage ReSponses to 1 the Variables Within the Factor II—K — Student I Teacher Effect on Pupils, Staff, and Parents ....... 112—113 I 32. Student Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor III-A - Staff Utilization in Non— Instructional Areas ............... . ................ 115 f 33. Student Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor III-B - Cooperating Teacher Con- ferencing with Student Teacher .. ............... .... 117 34. Student Teacher Percentage Response to the Variables Within the Factor III-C - Instructional Input of Student Teacher ............ . . . .. ........... 118-119 Student Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor III-D - Student Teacher Substitu- timIOIOIOICOII... IIIIIIIIIII .‘QOII. IIIII O O ..... 120 Student Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor III-E - Cooperating Teacher Job- Related Time Change .... ..... ....... ......... . .... 121 Student Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor III—F - University Supervisor Assistance ........ ............... ..... . . ........ 122 Student Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor III-G - Cooperating Teacher Individualized Instructional Change ................ 124 Student Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor III-H - Cooperating Teacher Professional Development ........................... 125 vii 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. Page Student Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor III-I - Cooperating Teacher Responsibility Changes ............................. 126 Student Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor III-J - Student Teacher School and Community Involvement ........ ...... ......... .. 127-128 Student Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor III—K - Additional Participation of Cooperating Teacher ............ ....... . ...... ... 129 Student Teacher Percentage Responses to the Variables Within the Factor III-L - Cooperating Teacher Instructional Change ....... a o a a a a a a u o a a o u a a a a ...... 130-131 Total Administrators 1969 ........... ........ ....... 171-172 Central Michigan University Administrators 1969 .... 173-174 Central Michigan University Administrators 1973 .... 175-176 Total Cooperating Teachers 1969 . ...... ... ...... .... 177-178 Central Michigan University Cooperating Teachers 1969 ...-......I............IICOI...IIOOOCCIII...IO. 179—180 Central Michigan University Cooperating Teachers 1973 oooooooooooo-use...as.sou-oases.essence-soon... 181-182 Total students 1969 I.sol00.0....aloe-Iaoalolaoloooo 183—184 Central Michigan University Students 1969 .......... 185-186 Central Michigan University Students 1973 .......... 187—188 CHAPTER I CHAPTER I The study evaluated two different Central Michigan University teacher education programs regarding the impact of their student teachers upon the cooperating schools in Michigan. Student teachers in 1969 normally were placed in the cooperating schools full days for a period of eight weeks. In 1973, student teachers were placed in the cooperating schools full days for a full semester (sixteen weeks). Data concerning each program were collected in 1969 and 1973. The data base provided by the Impact Studylin 1969 made the undertaking of the study possible. THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of the study was to analyze the Central Michigan University data collected in the 1969 Impact Study and the Central Michigan University data collected in 1973 to determine if there was a difference in the impact of Central Michigan University student teachers in those two years upon the cooperating schools in Michigan. The 1969 Central Michigan University Elementary Education student teaching program placed students in a cooperating school environment for one assignment running half days for sixteen weeks and a second assignment of full days for eight weeks. For Secondary Education students in 1969, the student teaching assignment ran full days for eight weeks in a cooperating school environment. All assignments were made at a grade level consistent with the certification area of the student teacher. The 1973 Central Michigan University student 1Student Teaching Programs: Qgestions and Answers (Impact Study), Deans and Directors of Teacher Education in Michigan, June, 1970. 1 2 teaching program placed both Elementary and Secondary Education students in a cooperating school environment for full days for a full semester (16 weeks) in grade levels consistent with certifi- cation areas. The data for the study were drawn from the judgments and opinions of cooperating teachers, cooperating school administrators, and student teachers affiliated with the Central Michigan University Teacher Education Program. The study specifically sought to: (1) Compare the impact of selected factors upon cooperating schools as viewed in $21; by Elementapy and Secondagy cooperating teachers participating in the new full semester professional laboratory experience with the impact of the same selected factors upon cooperating schools as viewed in gggg by Elementary and Secondagy cooperating teachers participating in the former eight week professional lab- oratory experience. Compare the impact of selected factors upon cooperating schools as viewed in I21; by cooperating school adminis- trators participating in the new full semester professional laboratory experience with the impact of the same selected factors upon cooperating schools as viewed in gggg by cooperating school administrators participating in the for- mer eight week professional laboratory experience. Compare the impact of selected factors upon cooperating schools as viewed in $21; by student teachers participating in the new full semester professional laboratory experience 3 with the impact of the same selected factors upon cooperating schools as viewed in gggg by student teachers participating in the former eight week professional laboratory experience. The following research hypotheses were developed for the study: RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS I There is a significant difference between the impact of the 1969 Central Michigan University Student Teachers and the 1973 Central Michigan University Student Teachers, upon the cooperating school districts as viewed by their respective cooperating teachers, using selected factors. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS II There is a significant difference between the impact of the 1969 Central Michigan University Student Teachers and the 1973 Central Michigan University Student Teachers, upon the cooperating school districts as viewed by their respective school administrators, using selected factors. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS III There is a significant difference between the impact of the 1969 Central Michigan University Student Teachers and the 1973 Central Michigan University Student Teachers, upon the cooperating school districts as viewed by the respective student teachers, using selected factors. Mull hypotheses are more suitable for the application of .gStatistical tests. Therefore, three null hypotheses were developed {”, Tfiftbsf the research hypotheses and several factors were identified 4 as a basis for judging each hypothesis. The null hypotheses and their individual factors are: NULL HYPOTHESIS I There is no significant difference between the impact of the 1969 Central Michigan University Student Teachers and the 1973 Central Michigan University Student Teachers, upon the cooperating school districts as viewed by their respective cooperating teachers, using the following factors: A. Cooperating Teacher Utilization of Student Teacher. B. Cooperating Teacher Conference with Student Teacher. C. Staff Utilization in Non-Instructional Areas. D. Individualized Instruction. E. Additional Participation of Cooperating Teacher. F. Cooperating Teacher Instructional Change. C. Student Teacher Substitution. H. Cooperating Teacher Assistance. I. Non-Instructional Supervision. J. Cooperating Teacher Professional Development. K. Acceptance and Influence of Student Teacher. I L. Student Teacher Preparation. NULL EXPOTHESIS II There is no significant difference between the impact of the 1969 Central Michigan University Student Teachers and the 1973 Central Michigan University Student Teachers upon the cooperating ‘Jrgs school districts as viewed by their respective school administrators, 5 Non-Instructional Contributions by the Student Teacher. Special University Service Availability to Staff. Administrator Work Load Change in Counseling and Communication. Pupil Instructional Activity Change. Instructional Input of Student Teachers. Student Teacher Academic Program. Administrator Utilization of Released Time of Coop- erating Teacher, Student Teacher, and Staff. Teaching Utilization of Student Teachers. Normal University Service Availability to Staff. Additional Participation of Cooperating Teacher. Student Teacher Effect on Pupils, Staff, and Parents. NULL HYPOTHESIS III There is no significant difference between the impact of the 1969 Central Michigan University Student Teachers and the 1973 Central Michigan University Student Teachers upon the cooperating school districts as viewed by the respective student teachers, using the following factors: Staff Utilization in Non—Instructional Areas. Cooperating Teacher Conferencing with Student Teacher. Instructional Input of Student Teacher. Student Teacher Substitution. Cooperating Teacher Job-Related Time Change. University Supervisor Assistance. Cooperating Teacher Individualized Instructional Change. Cooperating Teacher Professional Development. Cooperating Teacher Responsibility Changes. 6 J. Student Teacher School and Community Involvement. K. Additional Participation of Cooperating Teacher. L. Cooperating Teacher Instructional Change. Each factor under each hypothesis statement is treated as an individual hypothesis for purposes of acceptance or rejection. An individual hypothesis will be accepted as true if less than one- third of its accompanying variables show a significant difference between the two CMU programs. Each variable consists of the per- centage responses from a particular 1969 CMU group and the corres- ponding responses from the 1973 CMU group. These responses were analyzed for significance by the Chi—Square method. THE NEED FOR THE STUDY Experimentation and innovation must of necessity be part of any ongoing program if the program is to be constantly updated and improved. This is particularly true in the area of teacher educa- tion whose primary purpose must be the preparation of good teachers.2 A major complaint against education centers around the lack of research aimed at determining which types of teacher education programs demonstrate positive effects upon the participants. And indeed, a new program is often started without any planned method of evaluating its effectiveness in comparison to the program which is being discarded. Kaltsounis and Nelson spoke to this point when they stated: Research findings are the most acceptable means ‘zTheodors Kaltsounis, John L. Nelson, "The Mythology of Student Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education, XIX (Fall, 1968), J‘Vpp. 277-8. I” 7 of determining the quality, and therefore the nature of potential change of a teacher education program. Unfortunately, the theoretical basis for teacher edu— cation programs has not been well tested through re- search, and change in programs occur as a matter of tradition, power plays, and fetishes.3 Because of public pressures to hold education accountable for positive growth, the evaluation of any new program seems imperative. Dressel stated: Evaluation involves judging the worth of an ex— perience, idea, or process. The judgment presupposes standards or criteria. Thus, the worth of a single element, such as an idea, may be judged on some abso- lute basis - for example, its truth or falsity. The worth of each of several alternative ideas may be judged by comparison — for example, by their relative simplicity, inclusiveness, or effectiveness. The worth of an experience may be judged by its educa— tional impact - that is, by the extent to which it, in itself or in comparison with other possible ex- periences, results in certain desired changes in those having the experience. Education is a complex process involving the selection of ideas (concepts, values, skills) and the planning of experiences designed to foster mastery of these ideas in the people subjected to the educational process. Choices must be made in planning an education program, and the effectiveness of the program must also be studied. Evaluation is, therefore, inevitable in education. . . . The issues to be resolved in clarifying the nature of the eval- uation which takes place are concerned with the nature of the data, the range of considerations involved in making judgments, and the persons or agencies entrusted with making them. There is no issue regarding the presence or absence of evaluation. When one is faced with choice, evaluation, whether conscious or not, is present. Failure to engage systematically in evalua- tion in reaching the many decisions necessary in edu- cation means that decision by prejudice, by traditions, or by rationalization is paramount. Such patterns of decision making are not consistent with the aims of education, particularly with those of higher education, which in our culture are based upon the assumption 4 that informed judgments can and should be wiser judgments. 31b1d. “Paul L. Dressel, Evaluation in Higher Education, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1969, p.6. 8 Commenting upon evaluation of programs, Kaltsounis and Nelson stated: With the lack of substantial supporting or con- testing research data on effectiveness, programs need to be continually examined internally to provide at least a logical validation for their operation. That is, by applying tests of logic and empirical or obser— vational judgment to programs of teacher education, the programs can be intellectually supported until acceptable research data contradict. Thus, if teacher educators are to maintain credibility as pro— fessionals consistent with the aims of higher education, they must constantly support planned evaluation of new and innovative teacher education programs which replace or add options to existing programs. Closer partnership between universities and school districts, particularly in the preparation of teachers, both pre-service and in-service, has been a common goal in the state of Michigan for many years. Dean stated "The move of student teaching from campus to public schools was done with the assumption that both could pro- fit from the relationship. However, over the years, little attention has been given to measuring the effect on the school in which students are placed. Consequently, questions have arisen as to the nature and extent of the benefits accruing to each of the partners."6 Central Michigan University can take a leadership role in solidifying a closer partnership if the University can provide assurances that its Teacher Education Programs, particularly the professional laboratory experiences, are having a positive impact upon the cooperating school district (i.e. do the benefits justify involvement in the partnership). Ilsltsounis, op. cit., p.278. Impact Study, 9p. Cit., Foreward. Seagren mentioned: As teacher training institutions have asked the public schools to accept increased numbers of student teachers, officials of these schools have legitimately asked, 'What impact do student teachers have on the students, both in terms of achievement and attitudes?’ This question has been asked primarily about the aca— demic areas where the effect of the student teacher perhaps is not so easily assessed as in specialized or laboratory areas. School officials are being neg— ligent in fulfilling their basic functions if they do not request of teacher training institutions, some assurances that the student teacher is not hindrance to the learning process. Because of this lack of assurance, the Council of State College Presidents of Michigan in December of 1968 instructed the Deans and Directors of Teacher Education Programs in Michigan to devise a study to answer the question "What is the impact of a student teach- ing program upon the cooperating school district?" Educational researchers from Michigan State University, University of Michigan, and Central Michigan University designed the study and developed the survey instuments. A pilot study was conducted in the Spring of 1969 to help refine the survey instruments and the procedures needed to carry out a state-wide test. Officials from both the Michigan Education Association and the Detroit Federation of Teachers were actively involved in the development of the instruments. The survey included the entire population of student teachers assigned to student teach in Michigan during the Fall quarter or semester of 1969, all the cooperating teachers working with these student teachers, and all the cooperating school administrators where student teachers were placed. This study commonly referred to as the Student Teaching Impact Study involved the judgments and 7Alan T. Seagren and others, The Ippact of Student Teachers Upon the 3 Attitude and Achievement of High School Students, Kansas City: ‘ Mid-Continent Regional Education Lab., Inc., 1967, p.1. 10 opinions of more than 10,000 cooperating teachers, student teachers, and cooperating school administrators in the most comprehensive study of student teachers in the state of Michigan. The present study then grew out of the need for evaluating the effectiveness of teacher education programs and of the changes in these programs as they develop within institutions. A further recognized need was that of up-dating the findings from the 1969 Impact Study. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY Central Michigan University is an institution committed to constant growth and updating of its programs. One of its main functions has been and remains the improvement of teacher educa— tion. A brief historical description of the teacher education program at Central Michigan University will enable the reader to appreciate this constant struggle toward the goal of improvement. In 1891, a number of public-spirited citizens of the Mount Pleasant area formed an association for the building of a normal school to train teachers. This normal school was managed by pri- vate citizens until 1895 when the physical plant was offered to and accepted by the state of Michigan. The Act by which the Michigan legislature made the Central Normal a state institution declared that its purpose shall be, "For preparation and training of persons for teaching in the rural district schools and the primary departments of the graded schools of the state."8 A “Training School (1-6) was established in 1896 whose purpose was Igggégtral Michigan State Normal Catalog, 1897-98, p.7. 7 .1 ' V1.7} 11 "to exemplify the model of conducting a good public school, and to train the Normal students in observing and teaching children. . It shall be the aim to make this, as far as possible, a model school, both in the nature of the work done and in the general conduct and management of the same, so that the student who observes will see only the models which are worthy of imitation."9 Since this optimistic beginning, Central Michigan University has consistently provided some type of professional laboratory ex- perience for its teacher candidates. Elementary Education In its early beginning, Central State Normal put its heaviest emphasis upon the training of elementary teachers. Its early aim was "to furnish better teachers for the schools in which the masses are educated . . .the best teachers should be employed in the elementary schools, not only because so many children never get beyond them, but because all future work in school must rest on the foundation laid in the elementary grades."10 The program of study was called Rural School Course which involved theoretical work in subjects such as arithmetic, reading, U.S. History, etc. and the involvement of the student teaching in the Training School. The student teacher had "to demonstrate his ability both as disciplin- arise and instructor"110ver "thirty-nine hours of work, i.e., one hour daily for thirty-nine weeks."12 gggptral Michigan Normal Training Manual ,1897-98, p. 2. ‘ ggpgral Michigan Normal School Yearboo , 1900-01, p.13. chi an State Normal Catalo , 1897— -98, p.13. 12 In 1901, the above school practicum was changed to student teacher involvement in teaching and observation in the Training School for twenty-four weeks. Also in this year the Training School added kindergarten because a two—year program (leading to certification in kindergarten) was added to the Central State Normal curriculum. Students seeking certification in kindergarten were required to spend thirty-six weeks in the Training School. Twenty-four weeks were required of all the other elementary student teachers. In 1918, Central Michigan State Normal was authorized by the State Board of Education to offer a four-year course of study leading to the B.A. degree with teacher certification. Credits were counted in units which equated to one hour of work per week for twelve weeks. Because of the above change, Teaching 101 and 102 became equivalent to eight term hours. The course descriptions summarized the work required of the student teachers: "Teaching 101 — 4 term hours - This course is based upon observation of teaching in the grades of the Training School. A study is made of the psycho- logical principles underlying the teacher's work. In addition to exercises in observation and discussion each student will do reference reading. Special emphasis is taken to the making of lesson plans. Teaching 102 - 4 term hours — This work embraces observation, teaching in the Training School, writing reports on assigned topics and conferenges with the instructors supervising the teacher."1 Teaching 103 (4 term hours) was also available as an elective course. Teaching 104 (4 term hours), an elective course, was added in 1924. 13Central Michigan Normal School Qparterly, XXVIII, No.2, April . 1922, p.102. 13 Because of the changing patterns of elementary education in the public schools of Michigan, Central Michigan Normal School, in 1925, maintained two separate programs for training teachers. One program offered practice teaching in rural schools affili— ated with the Normal School, while the second program offered prac- tice teaching in the Training School or a public elementary school in Mount Pleasant. Special arrangements were made so that a student doing his practice teaching in the city school or the rural school might spend two hours per day for one term and receive eight term hours of credit and thus complete the required work in one term.14 The rationale for practice teaching in the city schools was given as providing greatly increased facilities as well as an opportunity to do practice teaching under actual conditions. A name change to Central State Teachers College was author— ized by the State legislature in 1926. As if to keep up with the tradition of a name change, the teaching curricula were also changed along with course numbers. Teaching 201 (4 term hours), Teaching 202 (4 term hours) were required on all K—6 curricula. Teaching .203 (4 term hours) was required on all K—3 curricula. The course descriptions read: "Teaching 201,202 - the work embraces observa- tion, teaching, writing of reports on assigned topics and conferences wdth the instructors Supervising the teaching. Teaching 203 - this course required of students enrolled on the Early Elementary and "15 and Specializing Curricula. This sequence of courses was described 1agentral Michigan Normal School Quarterly, XXXI, No.11, April 1925, p.115. lifllentral State Teachers College Qparterly, 1926-27, p.150. 14 in the purpose of the Training School by stating "the 180 hours of supervised teaching required should give every student a certain degree of competency at the very start of his career."16 In 1927, the course requirements were changed so that all elementary programs leading to a life certificate had twelve term hours of practice teaching required. Five-year certificates in grades four through six had eight term hours of practice teaching required. Central State Teachers College was also authorized to add the 3.8. degree in 1927. The course numbers were changed again in 1928 to Teaching 301, 302, 303 each carrying four term hours of credit. Again, in 1931, the course numbers were changed to Teaching 401, 402, 403. Nineteen thirty-three saw the official establishment of a Training Department within the structure of Central State Teachers College. In 1936, the course names were changed to Student Teaching whose purpose was stated as: "During the three terms of student teaching, college students are given opportunity to live and work with children upon any selected level of development under the guidance of expert teachers. Through such participation, the principles of education obtained from academic and professional courses are tested out and vitalized . . . this experience should enable these candidates for teaching to attain a certain degree of skill in child guidance as well as a workable philoso— phy of education."17 Central State Teachers College changed its units of credit in 1939. The conversion was from term hours to semester hours. The Student Teaching courses were also changed to reflect this arrange- ment. Student Teaching 401 (4 semester hours) and 402 (4 semester gnu. , p.158. :I7ggggral State Teachers College Yearbook, XLII, No.II, 1936, p.159. ‘ '11 ' . 15 hours) were now required of all elementary teacher candidates while Student Teaching 403 (4 semester hours) became an elective course. Elementary student teachers were now required to spend a double period (2 hours) per (by in Student Teaching. The Training Department became the Department of Laboratory Schools in 1940. Also with this change, the Student Teaching courses were renamed to Directed Teaching and renumbered to Directed Teaching 453 and 454 Elementary (8 hours).18 In 1941, the official name of the institution was changed to Central Michigan College of Education. Consistent with this change, elementary student teachers were required to spend three hours per day (either A.M. or P.M.) in Directed Teaching. The other half day was spent in course work, normally in education. An internship program was also available where the elementary student teacher would spend one semester full day in Directed Teaching. Group seminars for these interns were conducted over two semesters. At least six weeks of this experience had to be spent in a public elemen- tary school. Separate arrangements were made with public schools throughout the state of Michigan for this six-weeks block.19 Special Education was offered as an additional area of certifi- cation on both elementary and secondary programs in 1946. In the next two years, the Elementary Education Curricula were changed so that ten (10) semester hours of Student Teaching were required. (Also note ' course name change again.) However, there was no change in student teacher time spent in the laboratory experience. In addition to the above change, in 1948, all units listed under Student Teaching, Labor- atory Schools, or Rural Education were united into the newly established 1:Central State Teachers College Yearbook, Vol.46, No.2, 1940, p. 185. ‘_ 9‘Vfiggtral Michigan Collegg of Education Quarterly, Vol.48, No.2, 1942, -. 5 . _- , p.228. F 16 Department of Psychology and Education. In 1953, the Directed Teaching (name change) courses Elementary 453 (5 hours) and 454 (5 hours) were described as ten hours per week of observation and teaching and two hours per week of conferences with supervising instructors.20 The ensuing years saw a rapid change in the institution. Its name became Central Michigan College in 1955 and Central Michigan University in 1959. The Elementary Education program was also changed. The ten semester hours of Directed Teaching remained the same. However, the course numbers were changed in 1960 to Elementary 354 — Directed Teaching (5 hours) and Elementary 355 - Directed Tea- ching (5 hours). The largest change involved Elementary 355. Most elementary student teachers were now placed in public schools through- out the state of Michigan full day for eight weeks to fulfill this course requirement. The other eight weeks of the semester were spent on campus involved in other educational courses. In special cases, students were allowed to take Elementary 355 in the same manner as Elementary 354, which was ten hours per week of observation and teaching and two hours of conference with supervising instructors. Because of the placement of student teachers in areas away from the immediate campus, the Department of Psychology and Education had faculty , members who lived in these distant communities. The faculty member's job was to supervise student teachers and hold seminar meetings with the student teachers. While holding official faculty rank, their title has ranged from Coordinators to University Supervisors. This practice led to the establishment of off-campus student teaching centers 20Central Michigan College of Education Qparterly, Vol.59, No.3, H July 1953, p.233. l7 administered by one or more University Supervisors. (As the Univer- sity grew, the number of off—campus centers also increased.) This pattern of Elementary Education professional laboratory experiences stayed constant from 1960 to 1972, with the exception of an internship program which ran from 1962 through 1970. Through a grant from the Ford Foundation, Central Michigan University offered a five—year intern program. Three semesters of professional labora- tory experience were provided the teacher candidate. During the first experience, the student was regarded as a teacher assistant and the second experience was looked upon as an in-depth student teaching experience. Finally, the teacher candidate spent a third semester in complete charge of a classroom with close supervision both by the public school and the University. Various degrees of pay were given the student throughout the three experiences. The program was presented "The Distinguished Achievement Award" in Teacher Education, 1965, by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. However, the program design allowed the intern to graduate and become certified without enrolling in the third semester laboratory experience. Thus, the program lacked the power to hold candidates through the third semester and so fulfill its commitment to the cooperating school districts. In addition, collective bar- gaining between teachers and administrators brought an end to public school districts hiring non-fully certified personnel, making place— ment of the third semester intern extremely difficult. For these reasons, the intern program was eliminated in the 1969-70 academic 7m- In summary, since 1960, most Elementary Education students re- :‘: irld their professional laboratory experiences in two separate 18 courses in two different semesters. The first course was a half— day (A.M. or P.M.) student teaching assignment in the peripheral school districts around C.M.U. (within a 35 mile radius). The stu- dent received five semester hours of student teaching credit for this experience. Duirng the other half day, the student took enough course work (normally 10 to 13 semester hours) on campus to enable him to maintain a full semester of credit. Some of these courses were in education, others were not. The second course of a student's professional laboratory experience was a full day eight weeks assignment in a Michigan public school. The student teachers were assigned to an off—campus center manned by one or more University Supervisors who provided and direc— ted the laboratory experience of the University students in that center. The student received five semester hours of student teaching credit for this experience, giving the student a total of ten semester hours of student teaching credit toward graduation and certification. Concurrent with the second school experience, the student teacher participated in a three semester hour problem— solving oriented seminar directed by the University Supervisor. During the other eight weeks of the semester, the student took course work taught on campus by the Elementary Education faculty. The Elementary Education student, therefore, spent thirteen semester hours cut of a. required thirty Elementary Education hours with the University Super- visor in a field experience. Because of a constant concern by the University faculty, the cooperating teachers, and the University students themselves, that 19 the first laboratory experience was an extremely heavy burden upon the physical and emotional state of the student who was carrying ten to thirteen semester hours in addition to an involvement in the public school, Central Michigan University searched for a more mean- ingful first experience for its Elementary Education students. In addition to the above concern was the fact that for some students a year to a year and a half might elapse between the first experience and the second experience. In the Fall Semester 1971, the Elementary Education Department, in cooperation with the Student Teaching Department, approved a program for a full semester professional laboratory experience ef- fective Fall Semester 1972. Included within this professional se- mester is ten semester h0urs of student teaching credit and a three semester hour seminar involving a variety of topics Such as eval- uation, collective bargaining, parent conferences, and special areas of concern to one or all student teachers. Thus, the professional laboratory experience for Elementary Education students has been compressed in time to involve total commitment for one semester. Secondary Education The historical development of the professional laboratory ex- perience for Secondary Education students parallels the Elementary Education development very closely. As was mentioned above, one Of the purposes of Central Normal was to prepare and train people for teaching in the primary departments of the graded schools in the _g$ate. The Training School provided opportunity for practice teaching ... 20 in grades seven and eight. The Graded School Course "includes the common academic branches of the high school and in addition the purely professional status. It is expected that one h0ur daily for the entire year will be given to observation or teaching. While actually teaching, a student will be allowed to carry but three subjects."21 The normal load was four or five subjects. As with the Elementary Education program, the student in the Secondary Education program was required to observe and teach for twenty- four weeks or two out of three terms. In 1906, specialized cur- ricula were offered to prepare teachers in public school music and manual training. The Graded School Course was changed in 1912 to better identi— fy with the area of certification. It now became known as the Course for High School Teachers. The involvement of the student teachers in observation and teaching still remained at twenty-four weeks. Specialized curricula were again added in the ensuing years with preparation programs for teachers of agriculture (1913), allied sciences (1914), art (1920), and physical education (1920). As was mentioned previously, during these same years the institution estab— lished a four-year course of study, changed to units of credit (1918), and then to term hours of credit (1922). From its beginning and until 1940, the institution did not list different course titles or numbers for Elementary Education and Secondary Education Teaching courses. Therefore, the description of caurse changes both in titles and numbers, that applied to the Elementary Education section above also apply equally here. The emergence of a truly separate Secondary "mpg“ n5; Michigan State Normal Catalog, 1897-98, p.16. 21 Education program started in 1921. The Training School was divided into a K-6 unit and a Junior High unit each with its own principal. In 1926, Central High School, Mount Pleasant, Michigan was made avail- able as a student teaching placement facility. Also in this year, all specialized curricula on Secondary Education programs required twelve term hours of teaching. These curricula included the above mentioned plus commerce, home economics, and a split to boys' and girls' physical education. All other Secondary Education programs required eight term hours. The 1928-29 yearbook describes the high school program thusly: "There are ten supervisors of student teachers in the Mount Pleasant High School, offering opportunities for teaching in every department."22 These supervisors were faculty members of the public school system. In 1933, the B.A. or B.S. degrees were required for all new teachers teaching in accredited high schools. Once again, the change men— tioned in the previous section applies here. The change in 1939 from term hours to semester hours had a positive effect upon the Secondary Education program. Because now all students on these curricula were required to take eight semester hours of student teaching. This change was further reflected in 1940 by the establishment of separate course titles for Secondary Education. These courses were now listed as 463 and 464 - Directed Teaching and Special Methods — Secondary - 8 hours. The internship program mentioned in the previous section was also available to Secondary Education students. These students were invol- ved for at least six weeks in a public school outside Mount Pleasant, and separate arrangements were made in the same manner as for the Ele- mentary Education student teachers. The normal Secondary Education rzzgggtral State Teachers College ngrterly, Vol.XXXV, No.11, April 7 V 1929, p.155. 22 student teacher still spent only one hour per day in observation and teaching until 1955. The course description for 463 and 464 was five hours per week in special methods, observation, teaching, and two hours of conference with supervisors. From 1955 to 1960, the Secondary Education program provided some options for its student teachers. The student teacher could arrange to student teach for two semesters in one or more classes under a supervising teacher or he could arrange to student teach full day for eight weeks in an off-campus center under the direction of a University Super- visor and a supervising teacher. Concurrent with the time period, the Junior High was closed in the Training School (1957). The year 1960 saw the formulation of a more structured program for Secondary Education students. The professional laboratory experienceibr Secondary Education students was established as one eight-week period of full—day stu— dent teaching. As in the case of the Elementary Education student, this assignment was in a student teaching center staffed by one or more University Supervisors. The student received eight semester hours of student teaching credit for this experience. The other eight weeks of the semester consisted of course work taught on cam- pus by Secondary Education faculty members. The Secondary Education student had the choice within University faculty load limits as to the period (first eight weeks or second eight weeks) in which the professional laboratory experience was taken. This arrangement re- mained constant until 1972. The only exception to this type of ex- perience was the internship concept (1962-70) mentioned under the glieientary Education section. W In January 1971, the inception of a different concept in Sec- 23 ondary Education at Central Michigan University was created because (1) eight weeks is a very limited time period in which to provide student teachers with a variety of field experiences, (2) a variety of different field experiences over sixteen weeks had proved suc- cessful for Elementary Education student teachers, and (3) many faculty members in the School of Education desired to attempt to in- tegrate educational theory and practice more closely. Thus, the Secondary Education Department, in cooperation with the Student Teaching Department, approved a full semester professional laboratory experience that became completely operational by Winter Semester 1972. Included within this semester are eight semester hours of student teaching, a three semester hour integrated methods course, and a two semester hour seminar normally run on an independent study basis. Inherent in this program is a shift in the total number of semester hours involved in the professional laboratory experience. Instead of only eight semester hours of a required twenty-one semester hours in Secondary Education being handled by a University Supervisor, the new program increased the semester hours in the field experience to thirteen. This has increased the instruction and supervision in the off-campus center run by the University Supervisor from 382 of the required Secondary Education courses to 62%. Thus, the Secondary Ed- ucation student teacher in the new program is spending much more time involved with public and private school students and teachers than the Secondary Education student did in the former program. In summary, teacher education at Central Michigan University has ‘heen constantly evolving. Unfortunately, prior to the present study, whether the changes have been improvements. 24 Since the major thrust toward a longer professional laboratory experience in both Elementary Education and Secondary Education pro- grams resulted in substantial instructional changes and students being removed from the campus environment for a longer period of time, planning documents from the Provost's Office spoke to this concern: "Recommendations call for the expansion of the professional semester. These recommendations are supported; however, this development should be studied and efforts made to evaluate carefully its impact on students . . . as soon as enough evidence is available, evaluations should determine whether the qualitative change in student experience justifies the cost in additional resources and the separation of faculty and students from campus . . . this program required care- ful evaluation in the next few years . . . and quality of student experience should be reviewed."2 Thus, Central Michigan University must attempt to evaluate all available data, both 1969 and 1973, to determine if the changes in the Teacher Education Program, particularly the professional lab- oratory experience, have an increasing impact upon the students and the cooperating schools. This study judges the latest change in the evolution of teacher education at Central Michigan University in comparison with the earlier programs described on pages 17 and 18 for Elementary Edu- cation and page 22 for Secondary Education. This was the status of the Central Michigan University programs at the time the data were gathered for the 1969 Impact Study. 23Central Michigan University's Planning for the Future, 1971-72, volume 1, Number 2, p.22. 25 Basic Assumptions The planning, conducting, and reporting of the present study were subject to the following assumptions: Assumption I That the University Supervisor, who administered the questionnaire in 1969 and 1973, did so in a comparable manner. Assumption 11 That the 1969 and the 1973 cooperating teachers had similar qualifications to be participants in professional laboratory experiences. Assumption 111 That the 1969 and the 1973 cooperating school administrators had similar qual- ifications to be participants in pro- fessional laboratory experiences. Assumption IV That any significant change in impact is independent of the University Supervisor. Assumption V That any significant change in impact is independent of the present job market or the militancy of teachers. LIMITATIONS The limitations of the study fall into three categories. The first concerns the choice of populations. The factor analysis in- volved with the three total groups represented almost the entire student teaching population in the state of Michigan in 1969. 26 Generalizations drawn from this analysis should be limited to that papulation, although some general findings might be cautiously applied to other student teaching samples either within the state of Michigan or outside the state of Michigan.24 The analysis in- volved with the sections of student teachers, cooperating teachers, and administrators concerned with Central Michigan University have produced findings that should be generalized only at Central Michi- gan University. A second limitation is cited in reference to methodology. The study utilizes the questionnaire technique. This technique is sub- ject to the usual research criticisms except in the area of returns. Because of the procedure used in the dissemination and collection of the questionnaire, a response of approximately 902 was achieved. This percentage of return is sufficiently high to negate the crit- icism of small returns. A third limitation relates to the off-campus centers. The pro— fessional laboratory experience is governed in part by the quality of cooperating teachers and school administrators within the centers. The more years a University Supervisor has worked within a center, the more familiar he will be with the ability of the school's staff, the programs in his various school districts, and the unique prob— lems and concerns within his center. Therefore, the atmosphere of each center may vary with each University Supervisor, and no attempt was made to correct for these variations. 24The Indiana Student Teaching Study, Indiana Association of Teacher Educators in cooperation with the Indiana State Department of Public Instruction, 1975. 27 DEFINITION OF TERMS ems. Total (Administrator, Cooperating Teacher, Student Teacher) - those individuals in each group who represent all the Michigan institutions participating in the Impact Study in 1969 (thirty-one institutions representing 99% of all student teachers placed in the Fall of 1969). Ippact The effect student teachers have upon the cooperating teachers, staff, students, and instructional activities in the cooperating schools. Teacher Education All activities and courses directed by the College of Education which made a contribution to the preparation of teachers. This re- presents both cognitive learning and practical experience. Professional Laboratory Experiences All those organized and directed contacts with children, youth, and adults which made a direct contribution to an understanding of individuals and their guidance in the teaching-learning process. Off-Campus Center School systems which have joined with Central Michigan Univer- sity by contracted agreement to have student teachers in their schools. University Supervisor The faculty member appointed by the University to direct the professional laboratory experience in the off-campus center. 28 Student Teacher An individual enrolled in the teacher education program who actively participates in the professional laboratory experience and who is currently registered for student teaching credit. Cooperatigg Teacher A regular teacher on the staff of a cooperating school district who helps direct activities of a student teacher doing the professional laboratory experience. School Administrator The building administrator who is in charge of the placement of student teachers in his building. Coopgratipg School District A school district which makes up part of an off-campus center. Summary and Overview This chapter has reported the following: (1) the purpose of the study (2) the statement of the research hypotheses and the development of the null hypotheses and their factors (3) the need for the study (4) the background for the study-historical development of teacher education at Central Michigan University (5) the basic assumptions (6) the limitations (7) the definition of terms 29 In Chapter II the literature which is relevant to the study is reviewed. The theme of the chapter is the professional lab- oratory experience and its involvement with the cooperating school districts. The first section focuses upon the advantages and/or disadvantages of the professional laboratory experience for the cooperating school districts. The second section reviews the studies which used the Impact Study data and/or instruments. The procedures used in the study are discussed in detail in Chapter III. The methodology of the collection of the data for the populations of the study are described. The development of the factor analysis used in the study as well as the selection, naming, and analysis of the factors are reported in detail. The statistical data which were gathered are presented in Chapter IV and the findings are analyzed. A summary of the study appears in Chapter V, together with a discussion of the findings of the study. Conclusions prompted by the study are drawn and recommendations for further study are suggested. CHAPTER II CHAPTER 2 A REVIEW OF THE PERTINENT LITERATURE INTRODUCTION Since the subject of this study involves the comparison be- tween two Central Michigan University Teacher Education programs and their impact upon the cooperating schools, the cited litera— ture falls naturally into two areas. The first area involves the literature dealing with the need for a professional laboratory ex- perience, the rise of off-campus centers, and the acceptance and benefits of teacher education programs. The second area includes those studies which made use of the Impact Study and/or instruments. Professional Laboratory Experience The literature in the area of teacher education professional laboratory experience is abundant with articles and studies. An in-depth look at this plethora of material reveals many interest- ing trends. The student teacher, the cooperating teacher, and the university supervisor - the three members of the student teach- ing triad - are studied singularly or in relationship with each other. Much of this material seems to divide itself into five major group- ings: (l) role expectations, (2) personal influence and attitudinal change, (3) comparisons, (4) achievement measures, and (5) opinion surveys, with the vast majority of these studies falling into the first three categories. The administration and organization of student teaching programs have also been reported extensively. 3O 31 The most consistent, and perhaps most interesting, discovery from these many studies is that student teaching is regarded as the most important experience of the teacher certification program. Even a critic like Conant concludes, ". . . the one indisputably essential element in professional education is practice teaching."1 Further Hunter and Amidon stated, "It may well be that student teaching is the single most important experience in teacher educa- tion in terms of influencing the classroom behavior of future teachers."2 This theme runs throughout so much of the literature that it appears to be a fixed generalization about teacher education programs. The second major discovery from the literature is the absence of arguments for the need of a professional laboratory experience. The need is assumed. Colleges and universities responsible for de- veloping and improving teacher education programs have, from their inception, recognized the need for providing some type of profes- sional laboratory experience for their teacher candidates.3 From the beginning, laboratory or campus schools played a large role in this experience to the extent that Quick reported, "Campus laboratory schools were once the heart of the teacher edu- cation program."4 1James B. Conant, The Education of American Teachers, (New York: Elizabeth Hunter and Edmond Amidon, "Direct Experiences in Teacher Education: Innovation and Experimentation," The Journal of Teacher Education, XVII (Fall, 1966), p.282. 3Harrison Gardner and Marvin A. Henry, "Designing Effective Intern- ships in Teacher Education," Journal of Teacher Education, XIX, (Summer, 1968), 181. Donald M. Quick, "A Historical Study of the Campus Laboratory Schools in Four Teacher Education Institutions in Michigan," (unpublished dissertation, University of Michigan, 1970), p.1. 2 4 32 While a historical description of the role of the laboratory school might prove interesting, the summary of the major findings related to the historic and contemporary functions of the campus laboratory schools as reported by White5 will serve as sufficient information: (1) During the nineteenth century these schools served principally as places where prospective teachers could ob- serve instructional techniques and do practice teaching. (2) At the beginning of the twentieth century, certain college-controlled laboratory schools became centers for educational experimentation. However, student teaching and demonstrations were still the primary functions of most of the laboratory schools. (3) The removal of the student-teaching function from the college-controlled laboratory schools to the public schools during the years following World War 11 caused some educators to question the proper role of the labor- atory schools. (4) The most commonly cited function of the con- temporary college-controlled laboratory schools was to provide a satisfactory education for the pupils enrolled. (5) The second major function of the present laboratory schools was to provide facilities for pre-student teaching observation. (6) Experimenta- tion and research were not among the principle functions of the ma- jority of the college—controlled laboratory schools. However, the demise or falling out of favor of campus labor- atory schools is well documented. During the 1920's, there was a marked increase in the use of off-campus practice teaching. One survey showed that from 1917 to 1927, there was an increase of 27 percent in the number of normal schools using only off-campus 5Norman D. White, "The Status and Potential of College Controlled Laboratory Schools, (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1964). 33 practice teaching. This increased use of the public schools for practice teaching was partially due to the fact that the growth in normal schools resulted in their model schools being incapable of accomodating all the practice teachers. Also, there was a feeling that the public school could provide a more typical tea- ching situation for the practice teacher.6 Swenson and Hammock summarized several reports published between 1920 and 1947, indi— cating that there has been a steadily increasing dependenceon pub— lic schools for student teaching and that in 1947 it was becoming apparent that laboratory schools ought to be used as research cen- ters and not for student teaching. They commented further that the public school has increased in its function as a laboratory to the point where it is of at least equal or greater importance in education of teachers for our schools.7 Cox maintained that three major reasons for the exodus from campus laboratory schools to the public schools are "(1) labora- tory schools are expensive, (2) laboratory school classrooms were overloaded with teachers, and (3) public schools provide a more realistic teaching situation,"8 while Quick reported that "During the 1950's and especially during the 1960's, the campus laboratory 6James A. Johnson, A Brief History of Student Teaching, (DeKalb, Illinois: Creative Educational Materials), 1968, p.9. 7Esther J. Swenson and Robert C. Hammock, "Off-Campus Laboratory Experiences" Their Growth, Importance, and Present Role in Teacher Education," Off-Campus Student Teaching, Thirtieth Year- book of the Association for Student Teaching (Lock Haven, Penn.: The Association, 1951), p.20. 8Dan Cox, "Why Should Public Schools Accept Student Teachers?," Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol.45, No.5, (September, 1959), p.275. 34 schools began facing a series of evaluations and justifications to warrant the need for their continued existence on the college campuses."9 These factors clearly led to the demise of campus laboratory schools and forced teacher education institutions to rely heavily, if not entirely, upon the K—12 public and private schools for placement of student teachers. ”The beginning devel- opment of off-campus laboratory experiences is extremely difficult to document. Swenson and Hammond indicate this problem by stating: It is known that almost at the time of the establishment of the first normal school the campus school, or "model" school appeared. The first off- campus facilities used are not recorded, but it can be surmised that the first teacher education insti- tution which enrolled more students than its campus school could care for as student teachers turned to the public schools in the town. It is recorded that in 1920 one-third of the normal schools in the couni0 try were using public schools for student teaching. Looking at the objectives of the student teaching program, Walsh stated: The major objectives of student teaching were to provide prospective teachers with direct experi- ences in classrooms with children, to provide oppor— tunities for practice teaching under competent guidance and supervision, and to further evaluate the palifi- cations of individuals for becoming teachers. The Deans and Directors of the state universities in Michigan in a position paper published in 1968 listed four main principles which were considered paramount for a model student teaching program: 9Quick, op.cit., p.37. loSwenson and Hammock, op.cit., p.21. 11John Edward Walsh, "The Administration and Supervision of Seven Elementary School Student Teaching Programs in the State of New Jersey," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 1969). 35 (1) The program for student teachers should provide great flex- ibility so that strengths and weaknesses of individual students will determine the specific program each will follow; (2) the student teacher should be involved in a program which is designed to provide contact with several teachers and various teaching styles; (3) the program should be structured to provide many other kinds of school experiences for the student teacher in ad- dition to classroom teaching; and, (4) effective means should be developed to bring practicing teachers and teacher preparation institutions into a true partnership in the design and implemen- tation of teacher education programs.12 Bennie, in a comparative study of on-campus and off-campus student teaching experiences, stated that off-campus experiences were superior to on-campus experiences because "off-campus provides opportunity for more student teacher participation in learning activities, involves more adequate participation in these activities, and results in greater and earlier attainment of the objectives of student teaching."13 Telego further speaks to the off-campus benefit when he stated: In the opinion of most college administrators student teaching centers had been established originally 12Leland Dean and W. Henry Kennedy in collaboration with Deans and Directors of Teacher Education in Michigan Colleges. "A Position Paper on Student Teaching Programs," Teacher Education in Transition, Vol.1, Howard E. Bosley (Director) (Baltimore, Maryland: Multi—State Teacher Education Project, May, 1969), pp.l65-166. William.A. Bennie, "A Comparative Analysis of the On-Campus and Off-Campus Student Teaching Programs in Secondary Schools at Miami University," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1955.) l3 la \.- 1‘ 36 to unite schools and colleges in a joint effort to improve off-campus experiences for prospective teachers. Both college administrators and center coordinators tended to agree that centers had provided greater involvement of student teachers in a wide range of experiences in the school and community; increased availability of professional assistance; closer school-college cooperation; and greater familiarity with school faculty resulting in better placement of students and increased flexibility in designing experiences.14 The need for the student teacher to undergo a professional laboratory experience is supported by Preil, who discovered that: The data supported the first hypothesis that beginning elementary teachers with student teaching backgrounds are more effective teachers than be- ginning elementary teachers without student teaching backgrounds. This was indicated at statistically significant levels for fourteen of the twenty-three teaching functions evaluated by principals.1 Further the student teacher must become aware of and actively share in many activities of the school and its community. Indicating this aspect of teacher education Ward and Stearns stated: . . .the public school and a local community can make distinctive contributions: there are almost infinite possibilities for educative field trips, re- source people, local records to examine, and reading opportunities which give information and serve to clarify meanings. Experiences may be gained as stu- dents visit many kinds of classes and community functions on their own time. Volunteer service to various agencies often results from these contacts. The emerging teacher gains an understanding of the historical background of a community, its physical features and natural resources, its governmental agencies, the people, occupational and professional life, educational opportunities and facilities, 14Gene Anthony Telego, "An Analysis of Selected Aspects of Student Teaching Centers in Secondary Schools," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1972.) 15Joseph J. Preil, "The Relationship Between Student Teaching and Teaching Effectiveness," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1968.) 37 religious groups and their activities, civic groups and their programs, transportation and communication facilities, cultural opportunities, health agencies and their work, and facilities for leisure pursuits.16 That there are benefits accruing to the cooperating schools seems to be well documented. The position paper of the Deans and Directors of Michigan stated the following anticipated benefits to the teachers and schools: The inservice growth Opportunitites for the classroom teacher will be greatly increased . . . The greatly increased instructional resources avail- able in a school building makes possible the re- lease of individual teachers on occasion from their normal responsibilities. . .The school program can be enhanced and enriched by many activities which the students can well direct as they gain exper- ience with pupils and programs. . . The presence of student teachers in a school can have a healthy psychological effect upon experienced teachers. . . The increased instructional resources would provide for additional aid in the classroom proper, and also provide remedial services of many kinds for small groups or individuals outside the formal classroom setting. . . One other benefit to the school system has long been recognized. This is the opportunity it provides for the school district to employ excellent beginning teachers . . } Two separate studies of the opinions of cooperating teachers and administrators regarding the effect of student teaching pro- grams upon the public schools in New York and Pennsylvania were conducted by DelPopolo and Hillson.18 They found that because of the presence of student teachers, cooperating teachers (1) increased their own awareness of a need to do their best job of teaching, 16Association for Student Teaching, Teacher Education and the Public Schools, Fortieth Yearbook (Cedar Falls, Iowa: The Association, 1961), p.99. 7Deans and Directors, op.cit., pp.ll-lz. 18Joseph A. DelPopolo and Maurie Hillson, "Student Teaching and the Role of the Public Schools," New York State Education, LI (March, 1964), pp.l4-15. 38 (2) attempted to be models for student teachers, (3) were en— couraged to seek critical comments about their own teaching, (5) spent more time in planning than usual, (6) adopted some methods used by the student teachers, and (7) derived personal satisfaction from watching growth of their student teachers. Further, they reported that because of the presence and contributions of the student teachers: (1) more teaching time was available, (2) the quality of classroom programs was im- proved, (3) the personal welfare of the pupils was improved, (4) individual pupils showed greater growth, (5) new insights about some children were adopted, and (6) helpful assistance in non-teaching obligations was shown. Finally, the consensus of all respondents was that be- cause of the student teaching program, the instructional competency was upgraded, the classroom program was enriched, as well as expanded, and that an "esprit" continued to permeate the staff even after the student teacher left the public school scene. Rich questioned cooperating teachers and administrators in the Davenport, Iowa and Rock Island, Illinois area as to their reactions to the Western Illinois University student teaching program. He found that: The public school participants reported many benefits received from participation. Reported most often were statements that the pupils received more assistance, the teachers became better teachers, and classroom instruction had improved. While few problems were reported, those mentioned most often were that the teaching pace was slower when the student teacher 39 was in charge, and other teachers did not always understand the role of the supervising teachers.1 Greenezoand others in the Department of Student Teaching at Northern Illinois University conducted a study of recent graduates who had completed student teaching at Northern Illinois University. 476 elementary and secondary graduates responded to a free response questionnaire asking what benefits they felt student teaching pro- grams brought to the pupils, to the cooperating teachers, and to the school and community. 76% of the graduates indicated that they had benefited the pupils by introducing viewpoints, methods, pro- cedures, and materials that were different from those which had been used by their cooperating teachers. Another high response (73%) was that the presence of two teachers working in the classroom resulted in more individual attention for the pupils. Edgar Tanruther, Chairman of the Association for Student Tea- ching's Commission on Inservice Education of the Supervising Teacher, stated that: When a local school system cooPerates with a teacher education institution both tangible and intangible benefits can result. Pupils can benefit from an increased amount of enthusiasm and skill with which a supervising teacher and student teacher often approach their work. Other teachers and the prin- cipal benefit from the help that can be received from the college supervisor and other college personnel who spend time and effort in the school working with 19Victor J. Rich, "The Evolving Student Teaching Program at Western Illinois University and an Assessment of the Quad-Cities Resident Student Teaching Center," (Unpublished doctoral dis- sertation, Michigan State University, 1967), p.147. 20Gwynn Greene, et al., "Student Teaching: Do the Participating Schools Benefit?," Illinois Education, Vol.55, (November, 1966), pp.lO7-109. 40 the student teacher, supervising teacher, and others. Parents frequently take pride in the fact that their school is recognized as one which the college 3r university selects as a coopera- ting school. 1 Ward and Stearns expanded upon the parent and community aspects by stating: The expanding role of the public school in teacher education implies a new closeness of teacher education activities to the peOple of the local com- munities. One of the most significant contributions a public school can make to teacher education is the good will which it has built within the community. A good community relationship with the school fosters a good community relationship with the teacher educa- tion program. Community acceptance of its school is a prerequisite of community acceptance of a coopera- tive teacher education program, and without such acceptance many of the poten§%al values in the edu- cative experiences are lost. Citing another reason why public schools should offer facilities and staff for student teaching, Bennie states that the obvious reason is that ". . .the public schools have a vested interest in the quality and preparation of teachers who will be filling their classrooms in the future."23 In a study which asked secondary pupils their reactions to student teachers from Indiana State University, Sharpe cited the following con- clusions: 21Edgar M. Tanruther, "Facilitating Inservice Education," Professional Growth Inservice of the Supervising;Teacher, Forty-Fifth Year- book of the Association for Student Teaching, (Cedar Falls, Iowa: The Association, 1966), p.74. Ted ward and Troy Stearns, "An Expanding Role," Teacher Education and the Public Schools, Fortieth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching (Cedar Falls, Iowa: The Association, 1961), pp. 106-107. William A. Bennie, Cooperation for Better Student Teachin , (Minn- eapolis, Minnesota: Burgress Publishing Company, 1966), p.20. 22 23 41 (l) Pupils enjoy having student teachers in their classes. They do not want them in every class nor do they want them throughout the whole year. Pro- bably the most important reason for liking student teachers is the fact that having them constitutes a novel, and therefore an interesting experience. Other reasons include the recognition that two teachers are able to provide more help than one teacher along (sic), and the recognition that the program provides valuable experiences to future teachers. (2) Pupils feel that their learning does not suffer when student teachers are assigned to a class. Most of them feel that the total learning situation is improved. The fact that they feel as they do is a high compliment to the co- operating teacher, who plays the crucial role. (3) Pupils recognize that matters of group control and discipline present more difficult problems to the stu- dent teacher than to the regular teacher. However, they do not feel that they have suffered because of the student teacher's inexperience. (4) Pupils seem to share the opinion of those persons who have insti- tuted off-campus student teaching programs that sugh a cooperative arrangement is a desirable practice. 4 Daniel and Compton25 surveyed pupils in public high schools and pupils in a campus laboratory school as to their reactions to their student teachers from Southwest Missouri State College. They found that 75 percent of both groups liked having student teachers, although the public high school students had significantly more positive attitudes toward student teachers than did the campus school pupils. Another study relating to pupil reactions to student teachers was conducted by Drake and Kraft26 utilizing 365 pupils in 13 different 2('Donald M. Sharpe, "The Pupils Look at the Program," Off-Campus Student Teachipg, Thirtieth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching (Lock Haven, Pennsylvania: The Association, 1951), pp. 119-120. K. Fred Daniel and Ronald Compton, "Reactions to Student Teachers," School and Community, Vol. 51, (November, 1964), p.23. 26 Thelbert L. Drake and Leonard E. Kraft, "How Do Students Feel About Student Teachers?," Illinois Education, Vol. 55, (November, 1966), 25 42 school districts in Illinois. A total of 91 percent of the pupils agreed with the statements "Generally student teachers' instruction is good" and "I look forward to having a student teacher in my classes." The two statements "Student teachers are fair in dis- ciplinary matters" and "Student teachers explain material well" were agreed upon by 89 percent and 88 percent of the pupils respectively. In another highly favorable response, 83 percent of the pupils a- greed with the statement "Having student teachers has been bene- ficial to me." The statement "Student teachers seem concerned about me as an individual person" only had 62 percent agreement while only 56 percent of the pupils agreed with the statement "I feel free to discuss with student teachers personal problems that affect my school- workf' In yet another study concerning the attitudes that 2503 junior and senior high school pupils held about student teachers from the University of Northern Colorado, Naylor cited the following: Pupils generally perceived that student teachers had (1) concern for them as individuals; (2) control in the class; (3) enough opportunity to teach; (4) a- bility to teach; and (5) beneficial effects on pupils. However, the pupils did not feel free to discuss with student teachers personal problems that affected their school work.27 Other studies in the literature support the assumption that pupils taught by student teachers achieve as well as pupils taught 27James Norman Naylor, "Factors for Pupils' Attitudes Toward Student Teachers on Selected Criteria," (Unpublished doctoral dis- sertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1973). 43 by regular teachers, both at the elementary level 28.29 secondary level30. and at the In a Mt. Pleasant Public School study of the reaction to stu- dent teaching programs of nineteen administrators, 59 teachers, 1418 pupils, and 79 parents, Barberi31 found positive reactions to- ward student teachers by all four groups. The pupil and cooperating teacher groups tended to express the most positive attitudes, while administrators and non-cooperating teachers were moderately positive and parents were least positive. Pupils in grades seven through ten were most accepting of student teachers, while eleventh and twelfth grade pupils were moderately accepting. The areas of the lowest positive response concerned the student teacher's subject competence, his ability to cope with discipline problems, and over-all quality of instruction. The role of the secondary student teacher as perceived by pupils, parents, school board members, student teachers, cooperating teachers, administrators, and college supervisors was studied by Funkhouser. From among his many conclusions, the following are closely 28John A. Rutherford, "The Effect of Student Teaching Upon Pupil Achievement in Selected Fourth Grade Classrooms," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 1967). 29Marlow Ediger, "The Influence of the Student Teacher on the Pupil, Academically and Socially, in Selected Elementary Grades," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, 1963). 30Kenneth E. Fulp, "What is the Effect of Student Teaching on the Achievement of Pupils?," Bulletin No.22 of The Association for Student Teaching (Cedar Falls, Iowa: The Association, l964),pp.16l-162. 31Carlo C. Barberi, "A Study of the Acceptance of the Secondary Student Teaching Program as Perceived by Faculty, Administrators, Parents and Pupils in the Mt. Pleasant Public Schools, Mt. Pleasant, Mich- igan," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Univer— sity, 1969), pp.73-74. 44 related to the present topic: . .(3) The responsibility for providing student teaching experiences has been accepted by the public schools:. . .(S) Pupils are often confused by student teachers because their discipline and grading policies and procedures may be different from the cooperating teacher's. . . . (6) Student teachers do not lose effec- tiveness by trying to be friendly with pupils . . . (8) Student teachers are treated as equals by their cooperating teachers and other members of the public school faculties . . .(10) Student teachers use posi- tive reinforcement to strengthen certain pupils be- haviors. . . (11) Student teachers possess certain questioning and discussion leadership skills. . .(12) The presence of a student teacher in a classroom does not mean that pupils will receive more personal atten- tion, they do not contribute to the learning of pupils by reducing the pupils-per-teacher ratio; however, they are perceived as contributing members of the public school instructional team. Impact Study The main concern of this section deals with those studies which made use of the Impact Study data and/or instruments. Marcus33 used the Impact Study data in his study. Disregarding the No Change responses from the data, he compared the positive re- sponses to the negative responses. He found the reactions of cooper— ating teachers, student teachers, and cooperating school administra- tors all to be positive toward student teaching programs. The re- sponses were favorable in all six of his categories: instructional activities for pupils, school activities outside the classroom, 32Charles Wayne Funkhouser, "The Role of the Secondary Student Teacher as Perceived by Pupils, Parents, School Board Members, Student Teachers, Cooperating Teachers, Administrators and College Super- visors," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1972). Clifford M. Marcus, "Contributions of Student Teaching Programs to Michigan Cooperating Schools as Perceived by Student Teachers, Supervising Teachers, and Administrators," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970). 33 45 assistance to regular staff in certain activities, effect upon the performance of cooperating teachers, staff morale, and attitude of teachers and administrators toward student teaching. He asserted that his main hypothesis that "Student teaching programs are per— ceived as favorable to Michigan cooperating schools" was confirmed by the data. Veenstra used the Impact Study data in an investigation into relationships between student teaching and pupil motivation, as perceived by supervising teachers, student teachers, administrators, and pupils. He used all the student teacher (4390) and cooperating school administrator (985) data from the Impact Study. However, only the Impact Study data of the 569 cooperating teachers who worked with the Michigan State University student teachers were included in the study. In addition, 376 Grand Rapids, Michigan pupils in grades five through twelve were asked for their perception of the student teaching program and its effect upon pupil motivation. The reported findings were (1) Motivation of pupils was perceived to improve significantly during student teaching programs by all four groups of respondents. Breakdown of the data from pupils and supervising teachers by level, however, showed that only at the elementary level was there a perception of significantly improved motivation during student teaching programs; . . .(2) Supervising teachers per— ceived benefits from student teaching programs in terms of more small group instruction, more individual atten- tion, and introduction of new and different learning materials. They perceived discipline, however, to be somewhat poorer when student teachers were in charge. . . (3) All variables examined for relationship to motiva- tion, based on pupil perceptions, were found to be correlated positively and significantly with motivation. .. (4) The pupils in the study perceived improvement (or increase) during student teaching programs in the follow- ing variables: a. Pupil participation in decision- making. b. Variety of procedures. c. Motivation d. Introduction of new and different learning materials. 46 e. Small group work. f. Individual attention. g. Use of praise and encouragement. The pupils perceived the following variables as being poorer (or less frequent) during student teaching programs: a. Discipline. b. Teacher competence in the subject matter. c. Use of audio-visual media. d. Pupil understanding of the material. e. Knowledge of progress of the learner. . .(5) A significant posi- tive relationship (r = .45) was found between super- vising teacher perceptions of student teacher pre- paration and pupil motivational change. The third major study using the Impact Study data was done by Brabson. Her hypotheses were selected on the basis of the Student Teacher Questionnaire used in the collection of the Impact Study data. Therefore, the study only analyzed the responses of the 4,683 student teachers and did not analyze the data from either the cooperating teacher group or the cooperating school administrator group. Her findings were as follows: (1) the presence of student teachers increased the amount of small group instruction the same as their presence did not change the amount of small group instruction; (2) the student teachers' sex, grade placement level, subject area taught, and number of contacts with their supervising teachers were signifi- cantly correlated with increases in the amount of small group instruction; (3) the presence of student teachers reduced the time that supervising teachers spent grad- ing papers, planning lessons, and teaching classes; (4) the presence of both male and female student teachers reduced the time that supervising teachers spent plan- ning lessons, but the reduction was greater if the stu- dent teachers were female; (5) having a student teacher meant that most supervising teachers spent some extra hours completing their student teaching-related duties; yet, no significant relationships were found between the supervising teachers' student teaching-re- lated duties and the student teaching variables; (6) student teachers did very little direct work with parents' groups thus contributing very little to the Lawrence E. Veenstra, "An Investigation into Relationships between Student Teaching and Pupil Motivation, as Perceived by Supervising Teachers, Student Teachers, Administrators, and Pupils," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972). 47 cooperating school community in this manner; (7) some student teachers supervised pupils' extra— curricular activities but their contributions through this means was minimal; and finally, (8) student teachers' contributions of instructional materials and other aids had a greater impact on the cooperating school than extra-curricular pupil work or work with parents' groups.35 Kaml compared the impact of selected Michigan State University elementary teacher preparation programs on cooperating schools in the areas of individualized instruction, instructional activities, con- tributions to the cooperating school program, additional professional activities by supervising teacher, and additional professional activ- ities by other staff members. The Michigan State University programs compared were the Conventional Elementary Program, the Cluster Elemen- tary Program, the Elementary Intern Program, the Experimental Elemen- tary Education Program, and the Teacher Corps Program. The survey questionnaires (Student Teacher, Cooperating Teacher, and Cooperating School Administrator) developed by the Deans and Directors of Teacher Education Programs in Michigan to gather data for the Impact Study were used in the Kaml study. Of a possible 80 questions in each ques- tionnaire, only 31 questions in the Student Teacher and Cooperating Teacher questionnaires and 24 questions in the Cooperating Teacher questionnaire were used to test the five hypotheses of the study. The total number of respondents for each program was (1) Conventional - 99 students, 99 teachers, 61 principals; (2) Cluster - 110 students, 18 teachers, 13 principals; (3) Elementary Intern - 67 students, 67 teachers, 44 principals; (4) Experimental - 25 students, 10 teachers, 2 principals; (5) Teacher Corps - 21 students, 18 teachers, 5 principals. 35 JoAnne Millie Brabson, "Impact of Student Teaching on Cooperating Schools," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston College, 1973). 48 The major findings of the study were: (1) Meaningful differences were perceived by the supervising teachers in the Experimental Program as com- pared to the supervising teachers in the Conventional Program in the amount of time pupils were involved in individualized instruction. (2) Meaningful differences were perceived by the student teachers in both the Elemen- tary Intern and Teacher Corps Programs, and the princi- pals in the Teacher Corps Program based on changes in instructional activities for the pupils when compared to the Conventional Progarm. (3) Meaningful differences were perceived by all three groups of respondents in the Experimental Program and the student teachers in the Teacher Corps Program when compared to the Conventional Program based on the contributions to the cooperating school program by the student teacher. (4) No meaning- ful differences were perceived between the selected tea— cher preparation programs and the Conventional Program in the amount of time the supervising teacher must spend on professional duties due to the presence of a student teacher. (5) Meaningful differences were perceived by the supervising teachers from the Experimental Program when compared to the perceptions of the supervising tea- chers in the Conventional Program in the amount of time other staff members spend on professional duties due to the presence of the student teacher. Summary The literature reviewed as relevant to the study was organized into two areas. The main generalization which appears to run through- out most of the literature is that student teaching is the single most important experience in the teacher certification process. The student teaching programs were viewed from the perceptions of pupils, school board members, cooperating teachers, student teachers, cooperating school administrators, university supervisors, and parents. A prevailing feeling in all of these groups indicated that student teaching programs bring many benefits to the cooperating schools. 36Jerry M. Kaml, "A Comparison of Selected Michigan State University Elementary Teacher Preparation Programs Based Upon The Perception of Student Teachers, Supervising Teachers and Principals of Cooper— ating Schools," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975). 49 While the evidence is impressive that the education process is greatly improved because of the presence of student teachers, the generalization can be drawn from the studies that, at least, the situation, if not improved, remains equally as good. Some of the benefits to cooperating schools which were per- ceived by respondents in the various studies included better aware- ness by cooperating teachers; more teaching time available; new ideas, methods, and materials; more individual help; more outside help; and the opportunity to prepare and select quality teachers. Some of the negative aspects of the student teaching programs were the subject competency of student teachers, the ability to cope with discipline problems, and the perceived slower pace in learning. Nevertheless, the studies tended to find many more positive bene- fits than negative reactions accruing to the cooperating schools be- cause of student teaching programs. The second section of the chapter dealt with the studies which used the Impact Study data and/or materials. The findings and con- clusions of these studies generally supported the studies reviewed in the first section. From this review of the literature, a strong argument can be made that the continuing cooperation between colleges and universities and the c00perating schools in structuring the professional laboratory experience must be maintained. CHAPTER III CHAPTER 3 This chapter explains all the procedures used in the study in- cluding specifically (I) the collection of the data through the verification process, (2) the factor analysis methodology, and (3) the selection, naming, and analysis of the factors. PROCEDURES, METHODS, AND TECHNIQUES The descriptive method of research was used. The data are ex- pressed quantitatively. All the data were collected via the ques— tionnaire method with a return of approximately 90%. Practicing cooperating teachers, school administrators, and student teachers formed the sample for the collection of the data. Fortunately, the data for one part of the study were available from the Impact Study mentioned earlier which was completely under the auspices of the Deans and Directors of Teacher Education in the state of Michigan. This Impact Study gathered data from: 1. 4676 student teachers enrolled in student teaching during the Fall quarter or semester of 1969 with a Michigan teacher certificate-granting institution. 2. 4554 cooperating teachers who were working with these student teachers. 3. 938 public school administrators who were respon- sible for both the student teachers and the coop- erating teachers. Because Central Michigan University was actively involved with the Impact Study, specific data regarding the Central Michigan Uni- versity programs were available. Focusing upon those participants who were involved in the 1969 Central Michigan University professional 50 51 laboratory experience, the data represented: 1. 156 elementary half-day student teachers. 2. 65 elementary full day eight week student teachers. 3. 275 secondary student teachers. 4. 491 cooperating teachers who were working with these student teachers. 5. 113 public school administrators who were responsible for both the student teacher and the cooperating teachers. The research instruments (Appendix A) used in the 1969 Impact Study were also used in gathering data for the 1973 Central Michigan University full semester professional laboratory experience, both in Elementary Education and Secondary Education. The population which represented the 1973 Central Michigan University programs consisted of: l. 375 elementary student teachers. 2. 550 secondary student teachers. 3. 930 cooperating teachers who worked with these student teachers. 4. 235 public school administrators who were involved in this professional laboratory experience.1 In the Impact Study, IBM answer sheets (Appendix A) were numbered and color coded and then distributed to each college and university participating in the study. University Supervisors in each school were instructed to distribute and administer the instruments and the answer sheets to the appropriate people. Each student teacher was assigned the same numbered answer sheet as his cooperating teacher. 1The numbers in 1973 reflect the total number of student teachers who were assigned during the Fall Semester, 1973, while in 1969, the numbers reflect only those student teachers who were assigned during the second eight weeks of the Fall Semester, 1969. 52 The methods of gathering data for the new full semester pro- fessional laboratory experience, both Elementary Education and Secondary Education, were adhered to as close as possible to these methods used in the Impact Study. Central Michigan University Super— visors were charged with the responsibility of distributing and administering the questionnaire (with the answer sheet), to the ap— propriate people. The IBM answer sheets were coded in a similar fashion to the Impact Study answer sheets (See Appendix A). The three groups (student teachers, cooperating teachers, and school administrators) were asked to read the questionnaires and fill out the answer sheet in a manner which would eliminate comparing of answers either within a particular group or among people repre- senting the three different groups. Once again each student teacher was assigned the same numbered answer sheet as his cooperating teacher. Both the questionnaires and the answer sheets were collected by the University Supervisor and returned to the researcher. The answer sheets were checked to ensure maximum return by the appropriate people and then the answer sheets were tabulated to allow for in- depth statistical analysis. While the study is limited in the extent of generalization to other institutions, it enables an in-depth an- alysis of the responses for Central Michigan University. The factors obtained by the factor analysis of the entire 1969 Impact Study re— sponses might be used as a starting point for an institution to eval- uate its Teacher Education program and particularly the field exper— ience, since the factors represent general areas of importance for all the thirty-one universities and colleges in Michigan concerned with Teacher Education. 53 As a final check before all the computer cards (1969 and 1973) were submitted to the computer for factor analysis, the cards (about 30,000) were submitted to a card reader and printer. Since the 1969 set of cards had been stored and moved considerably and the 1973 set of cards had not been checked except to insure an even number of cards, it was felt that this final check would help to eliminate any erroneous data. This is extremely important because of the nature of the computer cards. Each respondent had two computer cards. Each computer card had eighty (80) slots available to be punched. The first card for each respondent contains identifying numbers in the first ten slots. The answer to questions one through sixty were then punched in slots numbered eleven through seventy. The second card for each respondent contained the same identifying numbers as the first card with responses to questions sixty-one through eighty punched in slots numbered eleven through thirty. Because of the pro— cedure in which the computer read the computer cards, it was extremely important that all the computer cards were in the proper order and that each respondent had a set of computer cards. Also as a further check to eliminate erroneous data, any set of cards which contained more than 50% of the available answer slots blank was removed from the data base. This was necessary because from analyzing the data provided from the card reader, the author found a dichotomy existed among the responses for all groups. On the one hand, a vast major- ity of respondents completely answered all of the questions contained in the questionnaire. 0n the other hand, those who failed to answer all the questions, typically answered very few of them. Specifically this final check resulted in the removal of a number of respondents 54 from the data base. The table below summarizes this final check: TABLE 1 DATA BASE FOR THE STUDY Gross Unusable Data Sets Net Data 1969 Total Administrators 938 19 919 1969 Total Cooperating Teachers 4554 73 4481 1969 Total Student Teachers 4676 51 4625 1969 C.M.U. Administrators 113 7 106 1969 C.M.U. Cooperating Teachers 491 11 480 1969 C.M.U. Student Teachers 496 11 485 1973 C.M.U. Administrators 209 6 203 1973 C.M.U. Cooperating Teachers 740 8 732 1973 C.M.U. Student Teachers 815 5 810 The data were then submitted to the computer and processed under nine separate group headings. These groups are identified as 1969 Total Administrators, 1969 Total Cooperating Teachers, 1969 Total Student Teachers, 1969 Central Michigan University Administrators, 1969 Central Michigan University Student Teachers, 1969 Central Michigan University Cooperating Teachers, 1973 Central Michigan Administrators, 1973 Central Michigan University Cooperating Teachers, and 1973 Central Michigan University Student Teachers. Each group was analyzed separately. The computer program gave the following data from each group: (1) means, (2) standard deviations, (3) correlation coefficients, (4) Eigenvalues, (5) cumulative percentage of Eigenvalues, (6) Eigenvectors, (7) factor 55 matrix, (8) variance of the factor matrix for each iteration cycle, (9) rotated factor matrix, and (10) check on commonalities. The data were also tabulated to give percentages for each response to each question for each group. FACTOR ANALYSIS Factor analysis is one of the most popular methods of statis- tical investigation. In most computer centers, factor analysis ranks as one of the top three methods used by researchers. The other two ranking methods are regression analysis and discriminant analysis.2 However, popularity can never be used for justifying a method. Any method must be judged by its ability to analyze the available data. In describing the use of factor analysis, Kerlinger stated: If we examine empirical evidence rather than opinion, it is impossible to escape the conclusion that factor analysis is one of the most powerful tools yet devised for the design and analysis of complex areas of scientific psychological and educational concern. It is also impossible to escape the conclusion that factor analysis has great potential importance in educa- tional research.3 In an early book on factor analysis, Holzinger and Harman described the nature of factor analysis: Factor analysis is a branch of statistical theory concerned with the resolution of a set of descriptive variables in terms of a small number of categories or factors. This resolution is accomplished by the analy- sis of the intercorrelation of the variables. A satis— factory solution will yield factors which convey all the essential information of the original set of variables. 2Claud 0. Archer and Robert I. Jennrich, "Standard Errors for Rotated Factor Loadings," Research Bulletin, (Princeton, New Jersey: Educational), p.1. 3Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967), p.684. 56 The chief aim is thus to attain scientific parsimony or economy of description. Therefore, because factor analysis is considered a "powerful tool" and because it has the ability to synthesize many variables into a few factors, this study used the method of factor analysis. Factor analysis was developed in the early twentieth century as a mathematical model for explaining psychological theories about human ability and behavior. Its early uses were confined to psychology and, even today, some people still consider the techniques of factor analysis as a psychological theory. Dating back to 1904, Charles Spearman, generally considered the father of this method, developed "a psychological theory involving a single general factor and a number of specific factors."5 However, Speaking from a pure statistical standpoint, Harman credits Karl Pearson for setting forth the method of principal axis in a 1901 paper.6 After 1925, and particularly in the 1930's, there was a great deal of controversy about Spearman's Two—Factor Theory. Some experimenters were finding more than one general factor in their studies. This discovery of more than one general factor opened new horizons in the development of factor analysis. Main contributors to this early deve10pment of multiple factor analysis7 4Karl J. Holzinger and Harry H. Harman, Factor Analysis, (Chicago: The University of Chicago, Press, 1941), p.3. 5Harry H. Harman, Modern Factor Analysis, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967), p.3. 6Ibid. 7This term is now synonymous with the term factor analysis. The term was originally used to distinguish the method from Spearman's Two-Factor Method. 57 were Charles Spearman, Cyril Burt, Karl Pearson, Godfrey H. Thomson, J.C. Maxwell Garnett, and Karl Holzinger. However, factor analysis became popular as a research tool through the efforts of L.L. Thur- stone, who began experimenting with the method in the early 1930's.8 During the next 20 years many individuals experimented with various methods regarding factor analysis. A great variety of papers were published with each individual urging his one method as being better than any other method. Speaking to this development in the growth of factor analysis, Harman stated: However, with a fuller understanding of the salient features of each method, and with the increased efficiency computations, the differences among the var- ious methods no longer loom so ominously, and the followers of a particular approach are much more tol- erant of the adherents of an alternative scheme. Any study involving the use of factor analysis will normally be divided into three major areas of concern: (1) what method of factor analysis to use, (2) when to stop factoring, and (3) when are the factor loadings significant. This study used the principal-components solution and the varimax rotation of the factor matrix. This method is generally supported today as the most important and useful of factor analysis. Cooley and Lahnes have stated that, "Students of factor analysis have recognized for some time that the principal-components solution is the most desirable way to obtain the intital factor structure of a correlation matrix."10 In early materials, this method was considered 81bid. 91bid., p.10. 10 William W. Cooley and Paul R. Lahens, Multivariate Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962), p.157. 58 good; but because of the amount of time involved in the calcula- tions, it was not highly recommended. Holzinger and Harman spoke to this point in 1941 when they stated: The labor of computation in the direct principal- factor solution increases very rapidly with the number of variables and factors . . . In case a machine is devised which will simplify the type of multiplication involved, the direct principal-factor method will then be appropriate for large sets of variables. Cooley and Lahnes expanded this concept by acknowledging that "principal-components analysis is a generally useful procedure whenever the task is to determine the minimum number of indepen- dent dimensions needed to account for most of the variance in the original set of variables."12 In urging the use of the principal-components method, Ker- linger wrote: The principal-factors method is mathematically satisfying because it yields a mathematically unique solution of an R matrix. Perhaps its major solution feature is that it extracts a maximum amount of var- iance as each factor is calculated. In other words, the R matrix is expressed in the smallest number of factors by the method. Its principal shortcoming in the past has been its computational laboriousness. . . It is strongly recommended, therefore, that social, scientific, and educational researchers use the principal- factors method.l Still another authority, while citing a concern for the principal- components solution, stated: However, the most important observation which can be made is that the correlation matrices result— ing from non-psychological areas of science, cannot, llHolzinger, Harman, 92: Cit., pp.l74-175. 12Cooley and Lahnes, 923 Cit., p.151. 13Kerlinger, 92: Cit., p.661. {‘41 }_4 59 in general, be analyzed by all factoring methods. The researcher, in non-psychological areas, would probably be well advised to select a principal- components solution, even though it may not result in an Optimum simple structure.1 ’ Finally, the leading authority today, Harry H. Harman, simply asserts that, "When a high speed electronic computer is available, there is no need to accept a substitute for the principal-factors solution."16 Therefore, because the principal-components method is appropriate for large sets of variables, because the method expresses the R matrix in the smallest number of factors, and because authorities in the field recommend the method as the most appropriate, this study used the prin- cipal-components method. The second area of concern in factor analysis is when to stop factoring; in other words, when do you know when you have the optimum number of factors? Unfortunately, the question is one for which there is still no definite answer. Addressing this point Cooley and Lahnes wrote: One continuing concern in factor analysis is the problem of how many factors to reserve for further analysis. There seems to be little agreement on the question. Statistical considerations alone are not completely satisfactory since the number of signifi- cant factors then depends on the size of the sample . . .Kaiser1 has made a very practical suggestion 14Simple structure was first defined by L.L. Thurstone. Basically, maximum simple structure can be defined as obtained when each variable loads on only one of the factors and all of its other loadings are zero. 15Robert H. Thorndike, "Methods of Factor Extraction and Simple Structure of Data From Diverse Scientific Areas," (Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Western Psychological Association, San Francisco, California, April 1971), p.8. l6Harman,.(_)_p_. Cit., p.177. l7Kaiser's method of factor analysis is referred to as "Little Jiffy" which is defined as principal components with associated eigen- values greater than one followed by normal varimax rotation. 60 for deciding how many factors to use. His recommen- dation is to use those factors gith corresponding latent roots greater than one.1 Harman supports this recommendation when he states that, "This con- clusion also agrees with the criterion of retaining a number of factors equal to the number of principal components whose eigenvalues "19 are greater than one. Although Carver and Liberty are critical of the criterion of eigenvalue 1.0, they feel that there are areas for which it is acceptable. The use of a stop-criterion of eigenvalue 1.0 is seen as unnecessarily restrictive . . . Work in the field has been "blind" adoption of the eigenvalue 1.0 criterion with little consideration for the purpose of factor studies. From the viewpoint of determining general laws of behavior, the eigenvalue 1.0 criterion with individual student responses seems appropriate. Therefore, the factoring of the R matrix was stopped when the eigenvalues became less than 1.0. This procedure is recommended by leading authorities like Harman and Kaiser and was used in almost all the 65 factor analysis studies reviewed by this author. The final area of great concern in factor studies involves the question of determining when the factor loadings are significant. In 1938, speaking basically from a psychological viewpoint, Thurstone stated: We have not regarded a projection as significant in naming a factor unless it is as large as .40. The naming of a factor cannot be made with confidence un- less the projections are as large as .50 or .60 so that 18Cooley and Lahnes, 92' Cit., p.160. 19Harman, Op, Cit., p.162. 20Donald W. Carver and Paul G. Liberty, "A Comparison of Two Approaches in Factor Studies of Student Ratings of Courses and Instructors," (Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, February 1973), p.14. 61 the factor accounts for a fourth or a third of the variance of a test. Confidence in naming a factor is also determined by the number of tests that have significant projections of .40 or higher on the factors. While he argued for this level of factor loading, Thurstone includes tables of certain factors which include tests having loadings below .40.22 This inconsistency runs throughout all of the researched materials and studies. Also in an early factor analysis book, Holzinger and Harman wrote: For example, if a particular residual is just twice its standard error . . .it can safely be said that this residual is probably significantly differ- ent from zero . . . For such investigation, then, the level of significance should be taken to be at least three times the standard error.23 Although arguing for this type of statistical method, Holzinger and Harman, in a later chapter, are unsure of the significance fac- tor loading in a particular analysis. Although conceding that a loading of .290 is significant, they state that, "Those variables having definitely significant weights, say, greater than four—tenths, are considered."24 From these early recommendations, the problem of significant factor loadings has grown into a mass confusion. Most factor studies reviewed by this author, both in education and out, were guided by the so-called "rule of thirty." What these studies accepted as signif- icant was any loading of a variable on a factor which had a numerical value of .30 or greater (absolute). The listing of these 65 studies 21Louis L. Thurstone, Primary Mental Abilities (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1938), p.79. 22Ibid., pp.79, 82, 84, 85, 86, 88 23Holzinger and Harman, 92, Cit., p.131. 24Holzinger and Harman, Op, Cit., p.229. 62 would take pages. They just give one the perspective of what is generally done in the field. While the "rule of thirty" has been blindly adopted by the vast majority of researchers, other methods of determining the signifi- cant factor loading have been used. Holdridge used the criterion that, "For an item to be considered loaded on a resulting factor, a loading of .60 or higher was required with no loading of .40 or higher on any other factor."25 There was no explanation for this procedure although this is toward simple structure. Another study used the level of .42 because it was the minimum value at which the items did not overlap on the factors.26 Here again the criterion for significance is toward simple structure. Harman has used a different procedure in finding the signifi- cant loading of items on a particular factor. He has developed a table which gives the standard errors of a factor coefficient.27 A researcher must know what the average correlation of his corre— lation matrix is and also the number of cases involved in the cor- relation matrix. The table gives the standard error of the factor coefficient for all studies where the number of variables range between 20 and 500 and the average correlations range between .10 and .75. If a factor study has less variables than 20 or more than 500 and/or average correlation below .10 or higher than .75, Harman 25William E. Holdridge, "Dimensions of Teacher Credibility and Faculty—Course Evaluation," (Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago, December 1972), p.6. 26Albert H. Yee and Benjamin Fruchter, "Factor Content of the Minneso- ta Teacher Attitude Inventory," American Educational Research Journal, VIII (January, 1971), p.121. Harman, Op, Cit., p.435. 27 63 has given the formula for determining the standard error of the factor coefficient [%;a = 8 (3/r -_§r + 4r25] . As one can see from the formula, low correlation ratios and/or a large or small number of cases will cause the standard error to fluctuate greatly from one extreme to another. Once the standard error has been determined, Harman would multiply the standard error by two or three to give needed direction toward the exact cut-off for a sig- nificant factor loading. As Holzinger and Harman stated, "By knowing the general di- rection of the discrepancies in the approximations (of the stand- ard error), the investigator can make due allowances in setting a level of significance."28 However, Kerlinger cautioned, "Unfortunately there is no generally accepted standard error of factor loadings. A crude rule is to use the standard error of E» or easier, to find the E that is significant for the N of the study . . . . Some factor analysis in some studies do not bother with loadings less than .30 or even .40. Others do."29 Jennrich broadened this concern by stating, "The whole area of standard errors in factor analysis seems to be developing too rapidly to invest a great deal of effort in problems of numerical precision at this time."30 In the only study the author found that used the Harman proce- dure entirely, Bell, studying student teacher perceptions, reported 28Holzinger and Harman, 923 Cit., p.131. 29Kerlinger, Op, Cit., p.654. 30Robert I. Jennrich, "Simplified Formulas for Standard Errors in Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis," Educational Testing Service, (Princeton, New Jersey), p.14. 64 finding the critical value at the .05 level of significance for factor loading.31 His factor loadings were all higher than .30. Many decisions made in factor analysis have been based upon the best available research at a particular point in time. As has been stated earlier in this chapter, computers have greatly expanded the methodologies available in the field of factor analysis. In summation, the author has chosen as the procedure used in this investigation the principal-components method with a varimax rotation. This method has the empirical support of all noted au- thorities in the factor analysis field. The rotation of factors has been stOpped when the eigenvalues of each particular group are less than 1.0. Once again the acceptance of this method is well documented by the experts. The method chosen for determining the significant factor loadings for each group can best be described as a combination of the Harman procedures and an attempt to estab- lish simple structure. The author followed the Harman procedure by finding the average correlation of each group's correlation matrix. By using the formula given above, a standard error was derived for each group. Using the directionality, as suggested earlier by Holzinger and Harman, and keeping a concern for simple structure, significant factor loadings for each group were determined. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, since this study dealt with nine distinct groups representing administrators, cooperating teachers and student teachers, the above procedures were applied to each group individually. Therefore, for each group, an average cor- relation of its correlation matrix was determined, the total number 31Michael L. Bell, "Personalities and Perceptions of Student Teaching," U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, 1971, p.4. 65 of cases in each group was determined, the standard error of each group was determined based upon the Harman formula, and finally a significant factor loading for each group was determined. Table shows the relationship within each individual group to the average correlation of that group, the numbers of cases of that group, the standard error of that group, and the significant loading of that group. TABLE 2 Average correlation, number of cases, standard error, and significant loading for nine distinct groups of respondents Group r N a Loading Total Administration 1969 .04322 919 .125 .390 CMU Administration 1969 .04109 106 .409 .410 CMU Administration 1973 .05296 203 .258 .400 Total Coop. Teach. 1969 .03145 4481 .072 .360 CMU Coop. Teach. 1969 .03477 480 .210 .420 CMU Coop. Teach. 1973 .03338 732 .170 .380 Total Stu. Teach. 1969 .03690 4625 .065 .320 CMU Stu. Teach. 1969 .02887 485 .229 .340 CMU Stu. Teach. 1973 .03478 810 .160 .380 Using the standard error as a guide, the author was able to focus upon the significant factor loading for each group. Attempting to find these loadings without the suggestions from the Harman procedures would have been an arduous task and might have resulted in blind ac- ceptance of the "rule of thirty." Once these procedures were established, variables for each group were assigned to a particular factor of that group based upon the significant factor loading for that group. The results of these deter- minations are presented in Tables 44 through 52 in Appendix B. In 66 these tables, each variable (questions one through eighty in the re- search instrument) is identified with the factor on which it has a significant loading. When the variable has no significant loading upon a particular factor, the factor column is blank. The investigation now concerned itself with identifying fac- tors which have common variables within each group (administrators, cooperating teachers, and student teachers). For a factor or fac- tors to be considered common among the CMU 69 and CMU 73 administra- tion group, 60% of the variables had to appear in each factor and/or combination of factors. In most instances these same variables ap- peared in the Total 69 administration group also. TabLe3 shows the factors with variables common among the administration group. Demographic factors are identified in Tables 13 throughS as those factors which have variables loaded on them which elicit information not directly related to program or curricular items with- in the public schools such as sex, community size, years of exper- ience, etc. TABLE3 Administration Group CMU 69 CMU 73 Total 69 (Factor - Variables) (Factor - Variables) (Factor - Variables) l 3, 18-20 7 15, 18-20 17 3, 18-20 2 40—47 3 41-47 3 40-43. 45-47 3 62, 64-69 2 62, 64-71 4 61, 62, 64-66,68, 69 4 28-31, 38 24 27-30, 38 1 27—31, 38 * 6 3,7,8,10,11 * 4 3,7,8,lO—12 * 2 3,7,8,10,ll * 8 4,12 * 9 4, 12 * 8 4, 12, 74 * 9 5, 6 * 8 5, 6 * 9 5, 6 10 22-24 11 13. 22-24 11 13. 22-24 * 11 l * l9 1 * l4 1, 2 15 13, 14 16 13, 14 ————-——- 17 71-73 10 70-73 21 25, 26 13 2, 25, 26 6 73 67 TABLE 3 (cont'd.) CMU 69 CMU 73 Total 69 (Factor - Variables) (Factor - Variables) (Factor - Variables) 24 48-50 12 45, 48—50 10 14, 25, 26 23 37, 52, 55,56 5 51-56 13 44, 49, 50 26 53, 54 5 51-56 7 57-60 1 34, 35, 39, 7 57-60 14 34, 35, 39, 79 57-60, 76 *Demographic factors The same 60% criterion for a common factor and/or combination of factors was applied to the CMU 69 and CMU 73 cooperating teacher group. Once again the Total 69 cooperating teacher group had similar common factors. Tablell shows the factors with variables common among the cooperating teacher group. TABLE 4 Cogperatinngeacher Group CMU 69 CMU 73 Total 69 (Factor - Variables) (Factor - Variables) (Factor - Variables) 2 35, 36, 44 17 35, 36 -—-—- 3 61-63, 68 10 62-64, 68, 69 11 61-63, 66, 68 * 4 2, 11, 31, 49 20 2, ll, 31, 49 4 2, ll, 13, 25, 31, 49 5 50-53 5 50-53 5 50-53 6 15, 16, 20-23, 60 7 15, 16, 20-23, 60 7 15, 16, 20—23,6O * 7 4-6, 9 * 8 4-6 * 6 4-6 9 37, 38, 41, 43 2 37, 38, 41, 43 2 37, 38, 41, 43 10 57-59 3 57-59 3 56-59, 67 ll 45, 71 22 45, 71 8 45, 71 13 17, 18 ll 17, 18 12 17, 18 * 17 12, 13 * 6 12, 13 * 14 12, 13 19 24, 25 19 24, 25 16 24, 25 24 39, 40 25 70, 73-75, 80 18 39, 40 26 73-75 1 7, 32-34, 79, 19, 26, 27, 28, 75 17 73—75, 80 l 7, 32-34, 79 14 3, 5 l 7, 32-34, 23 19, 27, 28 79, l4, 19, 26- 12 3, 5, 76, 77 18 76-78 28, 75 10 3, 76-78 * Demographic factors 68 As was done with the above two groups, the student teaching group had the same 60% criterion applied to each factor. As in the previous two groups, the factors were normally similar over all three student teacher groups. Table 5 shows the factors with variables common to the group. TABLE 5 Student Teaching Group CMU 69 CMU 73 Total 69 (Factor - Variables) (Factor - Variables) (Factor - Variables) 3 50-53 10 50-53 1 50-53 4 61-63, 68 4 61-63, 68 4 61-63, 68 * 5 ll, 25, 31, 47, 49 * 2 ll, 25, 31, 47, * 2 ll, 13, 25, 49 31, 47, 49 6 32-34 8 32—34 8 32-34 7 45, 71 6 45, 71 6 45, 71 8 55, 56 ll 55, 56 ll 55, 56 9 70, 76, 77 13 76, 77 12 76, 77 10 17, 18 9 17, 18 10 17, 18 12 39, 40 19 39, 40 14 64, 66, 67 21 64, 66, 67 18 64, 66, 67 15 29, 46, 69, 72 16 29, 46, 72 16 29, 30, 46, 72 19 38, 41, 43, 44 l 38, 41, 43 7 37-41, 43, 44 * 24 l, 2, 6 * 7 1, 3, 6 * 9 l, 4, 6 27 57-59 3 57-60 13 57-59 *Demographic factors Thus, factors were identified which would give a basis of compar- ison between the 1969 Central Michigan University student teaching pro- gram and the 1973 Central Michigan University student teaching program. The demographic factors identified in the preceding Tables 3, 4, and 5 were eliminated frOm consideration in the study. This exclusion specifically removed four of fifteen factors from the cooperating school administrators, four of sixteen factors from the cooperating teachers group, and two of fourteen factors from the student teachers group. 69 Generally, these factors and their variables were concerned with in- formation about the sex and age of an individual, the size of the community, years of experience, length of time working in present building, subject or grade level, class standing and grade point average, and an analysis of these factors was beyond the scope of the present study. The remaining factors in each group in Tables3, 4, and 5 were condensed into twelve general factors in the cooperating teachers group, eleven general factors in the cooperating school administrators group, and twelve general factors in the student teachers group. The naming of the factors in each particular group is a very personal matter. As mentioned previously, since the fundamental purpose of factor analysis is to compress a large set of variables into a smaller set of factors, the names attached to the new factors should give the reader a sense of immediate understanding. Hopefully, the author has reached the very difficult aim of synthesizing a vast amount of data into fairly simplistic terms. Readers or other writers are completely free to rename the factors to suit their own purposes. As Holzinger and Harman stated: "the particular name by which a factor is designated, however, should not raise an issue for dispute. If another investigator chooses to call these factors by other names, he is free to do so. The naming of factors is not a pro- blem of factor analysis, which is a branch of statistics, but some descriptive names may be highly desirable in a particular subject matter for purposes of classification." 32 The following Tables 6, 7, and 8 are presented to provide a clearer understanding of the condensing and naming of the general fac- tors in each group. The general factor names are listed as sub-titles 2 3 Karl Holzinger and Harry Harman, Factor Analysis: A4§yntheses of Factoral Methods (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941), p.152. 70 under the appropriate hypothesis statements in Chapter I. 71 N H «HAN mucmumm van ammmum .mHHmsm co uoowmm honommw ucmvzum MIHH m m 9N.MN umnome wcHumumaooo mo COHumaHoHuumm HmSOHquv< hIHH NH NH «N wumum cu zuHHHanHm>< moH>umm qumum>Hc2 Hmauoz HIHH oH MH HN muscumma unavoum mo :OHumNHHHu: wcqumoH :IHH 0 OH NH wwmum vcm .umzomoH ucovzum .umnommH waHumumaooo No maHH pommmHmm mo GOHumNHHHu: HeumuuchHsv< uuHH mcoz oH mH awumoum oHamvmu< monumoe ucmvaum mIHH HH HH oH muwnomme ucmvauw mo usacH HchHuoauumcH mIHH H «N a mwcmzo >uH>Huu< HmCOHuosuumcH HHaam QIHH q N m GOHumoHcssaoo UIHH vcm wCHHmmcsou cH mwcmnu vmoq xuo3 neumuuchHev< m m N “snow 08 NUHHHanHm>< mua>umm NUHmum>Hsa Hmsumam muHH NH N H umcumwe ucmvnum wnu xn mcoHuanHuucoo HmaoHuosuumcHndoz mo HmCOHmwououm uwnomme wcHumumaooo hIH 0H mH mH cOHmH>umaom HchHuosuumcHlaoz HIH NH HH MH wocmumHmm< nosomow mcHumumaooo muH w NN HH :OHusuHumnsm uwzomoa unavaum 01H m m 0H mwcmco HmGOHuoauumcH pmzomme waHumumaooo mIH N N o sonomme wcHumummoou mo GOHumaHUHuumm HmGOHquvd MIH N N o aOHuosuumcH vouHHmsvH>chH QIH m m m mmmu< HmGOHuosnumcHucoz SH cOHumuHHHuD mwmum UIH HH 0H m umsomoa ucmwsum :uHB mocmuowcoo monumoH wcHumumaooo muH mcoz mH N umnumwe ucmpaum mo GOHumNHHHuD umsomoe maHumuwaooo Ho>cH >uHc=EEoo cam Hoocom Honomms ucmwsum hIHHH wH HN «H mmwcmnu muHHHnHmaoammm nonomme waHumumaoou HIHHH msoz mH NH untQOHm>mQ HchHmmmwoum Hmsomma wGHumumaoou mlHHH 0H m 0H owcmno HmCOHuosuumsH meHHmusH>chH umnumoa wcHumumaoou GIHHH NH mH m mocmumHmm¢ HomH>umasm muHmum>Hss mIHHH HH HH m mwcmso maHH umumHmMIn0h Hmsomos waHumuoaoou mnHHH o o N GOHuSOHumnsm umnomma ucmvsum QIHHH w w o umnomma uamvsum mo usacH Hm:0Huo:uumcH ouHHH H q q umnomma ucmwsum nuHa waHucmumwcou Honomme wcHumumaoou mIHHH H OH m mmmu< HchHuusuumcchoz :H :OHumNHHHuD manum >>> What is your sex? 1. 2. Male Female What is your present administrative assignment? O‘UIJ-‘LJNr-o Building Principal - elementary school Building Principal - middle school Building Principal - junior high school Building Principal - combined junior-senior high school Building Principal - senior high school Other Which statement below best describes the community in which your school is located? U‘bUNt-l For ml-‘ri-a '11 or UIJ-‘wNF‘ Large central city (e.g., Detroit, Grand Rapids) Large suburban community (e.g., Livonia, Flint Carmen) Small suburban conmunity (e.g., Okemos, Essexville) Medium sized city (e.g., Battle Creek, Kalamazoo) Small city or rural area (e.g., Niles, Ithaca) how many years have you been a school administrator? Two or less Three to five Six to nine Ten to twelve More than twelve how many years have you been an administrator in your present building? Two or less Three to five Six to nine Ten to twelve More than twelve 10. 11. 12. How many pupils are assigned to your building? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 0 - 300 6. 301 - 500 7. 501 - 700 8. 701 - 900 9. 901 - 1100 10. 1101 - 1300 1301 - 1500 1501 - 1700 1701 - 1900 1901 or more How many teachers are assigned in your building? ma-wmrd 0... 10 or less 6. 11 to 20 7. 21 to 30 8. 31 to 40 9. 41 to 50 10. 51 to 60 61 to 70 71 to 80 81 to 90 91 to more For how many years have student teachers been assigned in the building in which you are presently the administrator? 1. 2. 3. Three or less A. Four to six 5. Seven to nine 6. Ten to twelve Thirteen to fifteen More than fifteen How many student teachers are assigned to your building at the present time? U'lbb-JNP" One 6. Two 7. Three 8. Four 9. Five 10. Six Seven Eight Nine Ten or more What is the optimum number of student teachers you can accommodate in your building each year? U'IDuNr-i None 6. One to three 7. Four to six 8. Seven to nine 9. Ten to twelve 10. Thirteen to fifteen Sixteen to eighteen Nineteen to twenty-one Twenty-two to twenty-five More than twenty-five How many different colleges or universities have been represented by the student teachers assigned to your building in the last two years? 1. 2. 3. One 4, Two 5. Three Four to six More than six pmaT an: iW NW” - 3 - 13. How well do you feel the student teacher(s) presently assigned to your building were prepared to enter student teaching? 1. Extremely well prepared 4. Minimally prepared 2. Very well prepared 5. Inadequately prepared 3. Adequately prepared 14. For what proportion of their time are the majority of the student teachers assigned to your building scheduled by their institution to student teaching? 1. Full days 2. Half days 3. Less than half days Question 15 through 26 deal with the contributions student teachers may have made to the school program in your building. Use the following code for question 15 through 21: l. Often 2. Sometimes 3. No 4. Does not apply 5. Don't know Have student teachers made any specific contributions to the school, pupils, or teachers, such as: 15. Supervise youth groups in meetings, programs, trips, tours, etc.? 16. Give talks to parents group? 17. Perform recess, lunch, gymnasium, playground or hall duty? 18. Chaperone social activities for pupils? l9. Supervise study halls? 20. Coach or assist in interscholastic or extracurricular activities? 21. Assist in handling discipline problems? * * 'k 9: "k 22. How many new or different instructional materials have student teachers brought, developed, provided, or suggested to the school teachers? A great many Quite a few Some A very few None mL‘wNH 23. To what extent have student teachers suggested or provided any other kinds of aids or ideas? 1. Often 2. Sometimes 3. Seldom 4. Never 24. What use have your teachers been able to make of the contributions (22 &:23) of student teachers? They always use them They sometimes use them They do not use them They discourage student teachers from contributing too freely Student teachers really do not have much to offer Lnwar—i 25. How many hours per week on the average do student teachers in your building teach their supervising teachers assigned classes? Less than an hour a week One to five hours per week Six to ten hours per week Eleven to fifteen hours per week Sixteen to twenty hours per week More than twenty hours per week O‘mwar-I 26. How many hours per week on the average are your teachers able to be away from their classroom while student teachers teach their assigned classes? 1. Less than one 4 Eleven to fifteen 2. One to five 5. Sixteen to twenty 3. Six to ten 6 More than twenty Questions 27 through 39 - To what extent are any of the following instructional activities for pupils changed because of the presence of the student teachers in your building? 27. Amount of small group instruction. 1. Much more 4. Somewhat less 2. Somewhat more 5 Much less 3. No change 28. Provision for make-up work. 1. Much greater 4. Somewhat less 2. Somewhat greater 5. Much less 3. No change 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. Follow-up of exams. 1. Much better 2. Somewhat better 3. No change Individual counseling of pupils. 1. Much more 2. Somewhat more 3. No change Supervision of study periods. 1. Much better 2. Somewhat better 3. No change Ulb \fl 0 Somewhat poorer Much poorer Somewhat less Much less Somewhat poorer Much poorer Supervision of playgrounds, hallways, etc. 1. Much better 2. Somewhat better 3. No change Amount of reteaching necessary. 1. Much more 2. Somewhat more 3. No change Discipline. 1. Much better 2. Somewhat better 3. No change Motivation of pupils. 1. Much better 2. Somewhat better 3 No change Use of audio visual materials Much more Somewhat more . No change UNH Use of field trips. 1. Much more frequent 2. Somewhat more frequent 3 No change 4. 5. UIL‘ Somewhat poorer Much poorer Somewhat less Much less Somewhat poorer thh poorer Somewhat poorer Much poorer Somewhat less Much less Somewhat less frequent Much less frequent - 6 - 38. Individual instruction or tutoring of pupils. 1. Much more 4. Somewhat less 2. Somewhat more 5. Much less 3. No change 39. Overall quality of instruction. 1. Much better 4. Somewhat poorer 2. Somewhat better 5. Much poorer 3. No change Questions 40 through so - How do you feel the availability of the following university services has influenced the attitude of your staff concerning working with student teachers? Use the following code for questions 40 through 50: Has had a very positive effect Has had a positive effect Has had no effect Has had a negative effect . Has had a very negative effect This service has not been available and would have had no effect if available 7. This service has not been available but would have had a positive effect if available 8. This service has not been available but would have had a very positive effect if available 9. I do not know whether or not this service is available O‘mL‘ri—I 40. Tuition free university credit courses. 41. University library privileges. .42. Faculty identification cards. 43. Recognition certificate from the University. 44. Consultant services from the University. 45. Instructional materials from the University. 46. Tickets to university events - athletics, cultural events, etc. 47. HOSpitalization services. 48. Cash stipends to the supervising teacher. 49. Seminars, workshOps or meetings in your school or school area. 50. Seminars, workshops or meetings on the University campus. - 7 - Question 51 through 56 - To what extent does the presence of a student teacher change the supervising teacher's participation in the following activities: Use the following code for questions 51 through 56: 51. 52. 53. 54. SS. 56. . Much more than usual More than usual No change Less than usual . Much less than usual UIL‘UJNi—I Visitation in other classrooms or schools. Comnittee work in the school with pupils and/or staff. Research. Professional reading and/or writing. Work or meet with staff members of school or department. Assistance to the principal or to other teachers. * 'k * 'k 'k Use the following code for questions 57 through 60: 57. 58. 59. 60. Very positively Somewhat positively Neutral Somewhat negatively Very negatively MbWNi-i I 0... How has the presence of student teachers in your building affected staff morale? Generally, how do parents of your pupils react to having student teachers in the building? Generally, how do the custodial, cafeteria and clerical staff react to having student teachers in the building? Generally, how do the pupils react to having student teachers in the building? * * * ‘k 9: - g - Question 61 through 73 deal with any changes in your own work load because of having student teachers in your building. bl. To what extent has having student teachers in your building affected the average number of hours per week you work? . Added more than six hours per week Added two to five hours per week Added one hour or less per week Made no change Reduced by one hour or less per week . Reduced by two to five hours per week Reduced by six or more hours per week womwap-u Question 62 through 73 - What has been the cause of any change in your own work load brought about by student teachers? Use the following code for questions 62 through 73: Increased your work load Made no change Decreased your work load Does net apply L‘WNH 62. Additional reports regarding student teaching or student teachers. 63. Finding housing and transportation for student teachers. 64. Counseling student teachers. 65. Selection of supervising teachers. 66. Orientation of student teachers. 67. Finding instructional materials. 68. Counseling supervising teachers. 69. Communication with parents about activities related to student teachers. 70. Student teacher's assistance in counseling students. 71. Student teacher's assistance with routine clerical tasks in the school. 72. Time of supervising.teachers being made available by the student teachers' teaching of classes. 73. Time of other teachers being made available by student teachers' handling some of their assigned responsibilities. * * * 'k * * 7h. 75. 76. 77. 78. - 9 - To what extent has the university coordinator or supervisor of student teaching been available to you and your staff during the student teacher contact? 1. Has always been available 2. Has usually been available 3. Has been available on call when needed 4. Has been generally unavailable 5. Has never been available To what extent do your supervising teachers encourage student teachers to have a variety of experiences outside the assigned classroom? war—o A great deal To some extent To a limited degree Not at all What effect do you feel working with student teachers has had on the teaching performance of your teachers? meNr—I Has made them much more effective Has made them more effective Has had no effect Has made them less effective Has made them much less effective What is the maximum number of student teachers a supervising teacher should have in one year? J-‘LaJNr-i One Two Three Four or more Which of the following do you consider to be the most important contribu- tion of supervising teachers to student teachers? 1. 2. Providing cognitive information in the psychology and sociology of teaching and learning. Sharing the classroom and pupils to provide teaching experiences for the student teachers. Providing instruction and experience in lesson planning and methods of teaching. Providing a climate for developing a wholesome professional attitude. Providing informal counseling and advice in one-to-one conference sessions. - 10 - 79. What is your reaction to assigning student teachers on a very flexible basis to get experience in the total school program rather than with one supervising teacher? Very positive Somewhat positive Neutral Somewhat negative Very negative U'IDUJNH 80. How representative of the teachers in your building are those who serve as supervising teachers? They are among my most outstanding teachers They are above average for my staff They are about average They are below average for my staff They are among my least effective teachers UNI-\UNF" Question 81 to 86. Important: Please go to the reverse side of your answer sheet and provide the infermation requested. mdent'Teacher N 5i M E ,“"'Y'V.’\" Qiuufin LAST COURSE NAME FIRST ner-[K \- ..."—,\~ NON INSTRUCTOR NAME OF TEST MIDDLE COURSE NO FORM [1 A DATE ”sh . .4 .L._1.'\ “'7 viii ‘1‘?) III I-IlClil..}.»-.TI STUDENTNO ’OSHQ 07W4 .i U \A 13 RE YOUR MARKS ARE HEAVY AND BLACK SE COMPLETELY ANY ANSWER CHANGED DENT NU STU MBER ...; r1 I l I N l l I we 4 (_J'I l we“ - J (J! l ,i II II N II II I I O ___:: 5 :”“ 6 : ‘ : __ :"“ 6 7"" "‘:; 5 :__:: 6 """ 7 ‘1‘“ ‘:‘-: l0 ,1 ' _____ l0 ‘: ;- IO " : f ' IO ..... T.‘ :lO - :‘:-IO : 'lO """ C) A r\_) I0 I2 M I6 20 22 24 28 3 32 34 56 .‘ 4O 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 6O 62 64 68 68 70 7 T4 7 78 80 82 84 CO --..-- Teacher ‘ STUDENT TEACHING IN MCHIGh 07m ., .' 7 E. 1 .2- v ‘ - BE SURE YOUR MARKS ARE HEAVY AND BLACK ERASE COMPLETELY ANY ANSWER CHANGED e I.! 3‘ 'W’UVYW‘WV" '4‘” «1‘1" ‘5' 55 |::::: z ::::: 3 2:::: e :22: 5 ::;:1 55 I::::: : ::::: 3 2:: G ::::: 3 :12: NAME DATE _STUDENTNO ____._ . SEX M F LAST FIRST MIDDLE COURSE NAME COURSE NO. ‘ S T U D E N T N U M B E R WO . I 2 3 4_ 7.75 _767 -.7_- 8 9 SECTEON INSTRUCTOR __ 0 | 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 __9- ; ,, 0 “7|” 7 2” 3 4” 5,, 67 7? 8 ‘3 IAVE OF TEST FORM ----- ' ' 9 ----- O I __2” -.3 4 __S“ '6 7-- #8: :_9__ BE SURE YOUR MARKS ARE HEAVY AND BLACK __9- . 9 __5__ --4 __5__ __6 _7__ e 4 ERASE COMPLETELY ANY ANSWER CHANGED o ____ I ._2 5 _4_ __5. .5 7, __9, 9 E I ..... 2---: 3--:_- 4;;:;: S ::::: 6 “““ 7 8 9 _ IO ..... 6 I """ 2 """ 3 4 5 6 ..... 7 ..... 81::22 923:3: IO""Z TI - 2~:--~ 3 4___:- 5-_-:: 6 ----- 7 ----- s ----- 9 l0 8 I ..... 2--:-. 3___:: 4::::: 5-- ~ 6 ----- 7 ----- s- - - 9 ----- IO N OI b .; l; U" I I 03 N (D I I 40 I l I 5 I I l SI;:::: 27:2: 3::::: 4 _::‘:': 5;-;-: 6 '7“ 7 ---- 8'i:'.' 9 """ IO': 1'. I0 I -_ —~ 2 -_::: 3:::-_-, 4 ----- 5 - 6 - ~ 7 ----- s ----- 9 ----- IO ----- 12 l ----- 2 ----- 3 ----- 4 ----- 5 ----- s ----- 7 ----- s ----- 9 -- IO - SI 2 _____ 3;:::: 4-_ -- 5 _ s-_-_- 7 _____ s ..... 9 ..... IO _____ I4 I ..... 2 - - 3 ..... 4 ..... 5--- _ 6 ..... 7 ..... e -- 9 _____ I0...:: 5 2 - 3-__:- 4 ----- 5 ----- 6 - -- 7 - a ----- 9 ----- IO :6: _____ 2 3 4 5 6 7 a ----- 9 ----- IO”‘" ‘7 ----- 2 """ 3 ‘_-- 4:7” 57.72:: 6 ______ 7 _____ 8 9 IO ‘8 I 2 3 """ 4 """ 5::::: 6 _____ 7 _____ 8 _- 9 """ |O-- ' .3 9 2--:::3:- _4--_::5 ----- 6 -7 s 9 IO 23I~- 2:-'3 ..... 4 ..... 5- 6 7 -e 99999 9 ----- IO ----- L I:“" 2::::: 3 ----- 4 ..... 5-‘-:- 6 ~ -- 7 ----- s ----- 9 ---- no ----- 221"" 2 ----- 3 555555 4 ‘‘‘‘‘‘ 5 ----- 6::::: 7 ----- s 9 IO ' 33 -:- 2 ::_-_ 3 ----- 4 _ -- 5:9": 6 7 s 9 ----- IO : 24 I 2 3 ----- 4 ----- 5 _ 6 7 ----- s ----- 9—--:: I0::::: ,3 "';_ 2"": 3‘:::‘ 4 _- 5;:::: 6 7 ‘ 8 """ 9 IO _____ 2 I 2 “ 3”“: 4 _____ 5 6 “““ T _____ 8_---- 9;;::: IO :3] ----- 2;:::: 3-;--— 4 - 5_-_:: 6 ----- 7 ----- s ----- 9 ----- IO 23 I ----- 2 3 4 -- 5 ----- 6___:_ 7 s -- 9 ----- Io:---- .I I -- 2— _:: 3 _____ 4-- 5 ..... 6 ----- 7--- s _____ 9 I0 321 _____ 2 3 ----- 4 ..... 5 6-:--_ 7 a - 9:::::Io::::: 33 . 9--;; 2 -_;;-. 3 -_ _ 4:--- 5 ----- 6 - 7 ----- s ----- 9 IO 99999 MI 2 - 3 ..... 4 5 ***** 6 ~ 7 ----- s ..... 9 ..... IO : ~ 3?» 2 ----- 3”- 4 ----- 5 6 - _ 7 -- s 9 ----- IO‘ 36 I ----- 2 3 4--9-: 5 6":__ 7 _____ e 9 ----- IO:::-: I I .--:r 2 ;:"‘ 3 "':‘ 4 ;:':' 5 “““ 6 ..... 7 _____ 8 9 """ IO- 38 I _- 2 3 """ 4 ..... 5 """ 6 7 “““ 8 :::;: 9 ..... I0 --::_ l‘ -- 2 ---:: 3--::: 4 .--:: 5 6 ----- 7 - s - -- 9 ----- IO 40 I-- 2 9 9 3 ----- 4 -' 5 ..... 6 ----- 7-_-- e 9 IO::;:: .- ka II I N I I ll U I I 1 b '. (J I I I I l m g (D I I: II I I9 5 I I II 4:. A I I N 0‘ I I A I U' I I I m I I l i 4 II I I I m I to I I II 5 II II I( II II 3,5; : 2 _:f__ 3 ‘ __ 4 __ 5 .5: 6 _ 7 ' '7 8 --_- 9 IO --- 46 I“- 2 3 - 4 ‘“ 5--- 6 ..... 7 8 "2:: 9 :;::: IO "": III 2 -Z" 3 """ 4 " ‘ 5 --::T 6 ' 7 """ 8 ..... 9 "" IO ----- 48 |__, Z ’’’’ 3 4 ”’2; 5 6 7 "“: 8 9 1:77 IO 2:: 3E: - 2 3:::__ 4-- _ 5-_::: 6 7 - - e ..... 9 ----- IO SOT 2 3 4 ..... 5 ----- : 6 ----- 7 _ s 9 ..... IO"": 37» — 2 3 4 ;_~::: 5 :--:: 6 7 ----- a 9 - IO 58 I- 2 3 -: 4 - s - 6 - 7 s ----- 9 ..... IO 9: 3:1- —~ 2 3- _- 4 :: 5 9 9 6 ----- 7 - s-- - 9 -- IO 60I 2 3 -- 4 5 -- 6 ---;-. 7 ~- 6 _ 9 ----- IO:;.’:; El 2----: 3 :~-4- 5 ---- 6 ..... 7 -s_.--::9~ IO 62!“ _ 2 3 - 4- 5- -- 6 7- s - 9 IO ----- ES: 2 :T::: 3 :::T_ 4 "‘:: 5 """ 6 _____ 7 H 8 _-_‘ 9 ‘: , IO “““ 64 I __ 2 3 "‘: 4 -" 5 6 """ 7 ‘ 8 9 “““ IO_- 55 I 9999 2 ::-:: 4 5 ------ 6 _ 7 8 ~ 9 IO - 66 I 9 2 3 4 - 5 -: s _____ 7 -~ - a 9 _- Io--~: Us .1 N I U '1 5 U I I 0? Q I I) I O 5 I I C) CO N of 33 U I 0') N (D I 60 O 53! 2 39:9 4;:--- 5---:: 6:”" 7 IO - TOI -2 3 "-4- ~ 5 6 - 7 - a 9 IO"“: 7" 2 -"-‘ 37:3: 4 ‘_:”' 5 _____ 6 """ 7 ‘4 ~. ‘ 72 I 2 3 "1- 4 " S "‘ 6 7 8 - 9 IO 73 2 -_ ;_ 3:- ;_ 4 5 ----- 6 ----- 7 7 I 2 - 3 _- 4 5 9 -_ 6 9 7 a 9 IO IE 2 3:": 4 _:‘ S":;; 6-:--- 7 2- Tel": " 2 3 ‘4 ' 5- 6‘ 7“ 8 9 ‘:IO 9 I71 2 -:-:— 3 ::::: 4 ~ _: 5 6 ----- 7 no _ 1’8 I - 2 3 4 ----- 5 9 : 6 7 a 9 - IO -: I? I _' 2 :Z':' 3 :t::: 4 ""1 5 ::::t 6 ’ 7 ‘4 "IO ‘ 80 |-- 2 - 3 _ 4 - 5 - 6 ‘ 1 7 8 ' 9 I0 I I : 2 :7: 3::::: 4 ----- 5 -_::: 6 -- — 7 IO 82 I 2 - 3 - 4 _ 9 6 - - 7 s 9 I0 13 - ‘ : -:' 3 :21: 4 :__:: 5 :‘--: 6 7 r 9‘ 2 ‘ _ 3 : --_ 4 9' . - 6 "‘ 7 ‘ ‘ 9 ' I0 I: -- ..... - . , . . - - - Please check the institutions which have placed student teachers in the building(s) in which you have been principal, and for each of these indi- cate the number of student teachers currently doing student teaching in your building. Number of Student Have Worked Teachers Currently With Placed Institution Example: X 3 Midwest Teachers College Public: 01 Central Michigan University 02 Eastern Michigan University 03 Ferris State College 04 Grand Valley State College 05 Michigan State University, 06 Michigan Technological College 07 Northern Michigan University 08 Oakland University 09 University of Michigan 10 Universitygof Michigan(gearborn B: 11 University of MichiganQFlint Brano 12 Saginaw Valley College 13 Wayne State University 14 Western Michigan University_g Non-public: 15 Adrian College l6 17 Albion College Alma Collegg 18 Andrews University 19 Aquinas College 20 Calvin College 21 Hillsdale College 22 Hope College 4; 23 Kalamazoo Collgge _fl 24 Madonna College 25 26 27 28 Marygrove College Mercy College Nazareth College Olivet College 29 Siena Heights College __: 30 Spring Arbor College _# 31 University of Detroit 0951 I:i L I J , -L* w .- A: _.-fim.-.. i «Du. . a... T.- .--_.' --km '1 _ .-3 . (r r V ”AC. A n 4>—*'o- C: D u >do .DE i." ... ...-mu 7.. “51‘ .1tu I Saw: xmm “co x nip 1 nwu, 1.. Hmfi m nnu; HRH N noHA.:eugw “mo-:m9 4. :6 "LS-CL. “my“.amva A no. -. ...n mfl. a” 2’; 639 9.. _n mom a). Emu...” u gnaw” A: ammo?“ u .899 v ..n Mun m.“ HNH m” ACC _.,._ .n so-“ Cu- .oz hauozpm hFIItF .I-_.r.u. ....n: Inna”. n4; . 1.... m3. .; ....L \J _ '1 I. ~ 1 I T" A \ x H ‘rr—ff—r—‘T-I N I , LJ ’ >9 4 r l L A r'_ V l 4' 4‘ .J r9 ’ . ,1- ('9 I ' ,‘ I nan .nmu ....u” 4;: .3, LC»... an ;. was ... . LIL“ 1 _, ‘n "'7 E \J a: V... :3:- Quin-HUI 3 TE 6., a” .TnmI... .3.- - S Roy no rv. u}! ..q K .7.) .- I411; _H .3» I flue-TH .4», .-\ .../.9. ../ .,7\).U. \/ 63...: 3 h -3 .1 Arr L. p .2 I: _A r‘ If: r. J7 LJ 62 .... x, 4.2 5.. 2 a ...:E ...r 2,31... , r1 (“I L: d r1 f"- u N ._. .TQ I.-. < 4.1.4 -. ...: 03. ,> I “psi- .3; Hn>oA ..., c 63.6 QC .3 up A muff... I. \J 6.. Etna .nO... C .5 HIHIU .1904 .iu n.” “awn-Q” HCUIQU HUHUC 421:? .23).; CI elimax: :I: c > .1: >.-:.. _ .2 «.33: ...: “I32 ...-.25 Ex; :.:_ ... .52._I_:§.;....5:5. I. ...:C..;...... III- I! ..l :11 3.4.2.1.. 30> 1:. ... ...Ja‘u 1.32.:— :: 52./é». 2:... 5.1 £51.). :30) 63 9.11.4.4; ad ’23:. . _ ,9}. _ .: 7 1| 5 . I ,I r. ‘ I II 1 .. u. . . 7 l I 2 5 2 . .al.‘ 9 2 .4 J 3 Hmadégfi uzdmau 024 Sal 3332 ~50> mx<<< ->xy_:mu..r,nx rm“ 7:6 nmfimunmfimunmunmu ...a. :4. T... tn. 2., ,4. .A. ,,I A: ..4I n 4 A L, 4 .4 In .4 .. a. _4I I a pa, ,4. fl. hf, m "XufiIHnNHxHhAfnu 3.5. "PHNUnBHNUnNHhu .3 .3. 3. T1. .IJI ms ...JI. .3: .3 2 J. ,iI. 3. ...I, 3 .... 5, I3 ‘3. IIIE . at: gufivunwflounwuwcu 77a... nwvnmgnwunounmnlwu ,ZI Z. .ZI. p24 2.: .2, n2. .2: I) 2 .Z .2 .2. .I I. _IIT. r): I: ‘2 2.. w “2., — n>:.nmunaafl .7, 3.6 ,nm‘nmkmxmflmu .I. ..., III, ..I I, I. I, .I, _I I. I I I I. ..I ,I I I. _.II I1 f T5 be m .3533; v u :3 3.333233va 4 no u u w u n “H u w u“ a “I... n” w M w n n w ,_ w E 5 am: 51; :33: nnwmhnnHmUNnH? . . . I. I .III "waounmkmunnu_uunanée nNPmunNHmunNUnmu Io, w ,m. m u; III, ImI ,m. ....u. .w .m m. u, ,M. W m In .m. .m. 0. w. W$H®.n—H_.n—u .Ifi—HES *n—HHFH—usfl—u n9. .9 ,9. .n. _W.” .9 9 :02 .07. 9. “9. .3 mu. 9. 9 u 9.. .9 .IDL I194, I9 a0u3 .2. .2. 533». :I. 13 ms. ,sI, EII. s, 5, If. ,s s, s I? .5 . T 5 CI .... Is; :3 , I, ...? I I I ,I "AI .Id r4 ‘4 .14I 4. ‘ I1 “4 . 4 MI» ..4 GI 4 ”J FMII IVAN-Il‘fly I» I.J4IL I. R IiI _3 ,3. 3 2) .V3I I. 1: I1 3 as. 3, no, .5 I. 3I IIL | ‘3 H3 I3.» \3, ,wwa.,nNHernN.u.., nNuNInNuIrufiNIuwfiN NynNuINg ,2 H2 2,, 2. 2. .2. I2, 2 I. .P. .... .2 .. .I .I. ,2 2, .2. 2I Zufi Ir. w>hw».wn>.s>gn>u.‘> r>2> fi>ua>gn>u.>4n>fl>.n>¥>. .I I, ..I, I .I. .I I. II I, .I I III, .I. ... . I. I “II III ,. ,.I. nxurx “CC”... “33;. um». hnxuax wax 3.x :x xx ,nx fix . 3 7 H H w n N n a...” w a“ " ...“ “u H w u n H n , n ,5. efiIIZfiBHnEnzjrgIFS S> 2?, E553. .QSKSI gun; I I I I I .I M n§>u>urfn>u3 "39.533a>x>n>x>a>uf ...m: ,m. m. m II .c. ..I. m . m. m .I I: .m. m II w .m Im. ,n. m. w. nDIIDJnDUnDInDuh:2.324.232.3255“13252.;3H ”9.. n9 I: o. I, a 3.. n 3. ,9. s w _ a .a n 9 a; p9,. Io: a. a) nkfipunkgfifirkk nhunhunhunkunk?» unkihfibunk. ,8, ,IE. .8. 8, .1 SI. I8. .SI In: E. .8 I: e E. - rd, .8. :5I n8. 8a .IBI m aw nunmfimunmum. fimufimgnmunmunmfimunmunu.nmunmu ”.7 ,7“ II. .. _7I 7” 7 ,.7 w7I. 7,, . .I 7 II. .7 III. 3... r7. 7, ... 3;. Wm“ :urzkxunmurx Trunanmuamunmugfimug 42:2": 6: 6, EC (II «c OHGUQHUP: 54.9_ncdcuncxcunouncunouéu 3 ,3, ... ,IbI. Fan—9.3:; Han; nauwiunaymfiluraAnuwafiauau I4, I4. .4 A *9 3:”: End a SHc.unOHo.,no§..:nox_..,395., _J. z I, .3. s I, *2, 2.29.256 z "5252.3,.nzwzvnzazfiuxzw .2. 2 ,2 T): 5.. ~59 2 .n .2: 5.751252% 5,22%Euniuxfnfiulf _ I .I , .I I , “jingughau. 4 .Ur3,3335%jagundnfllw 2 6 m H wax. irxuwv. .nxumv. nxurzfixgx.nxunxgnxurxkvtng ms:shagging::nfiurfifiafiwunafijnsflinsfl: .w .m m w a: 72:72»:"3142.:IEHCZXCCHC n9. .9 a .n; T: 155.1 1:.:.~I..n1 fizunIInIHanIunIInIuFIu ..e. .S n ,8. qu 3.30qu an: o Hogaonokoaounouncuqo “£323 3. .1.“ .7 7 I. an: IIEUECHU. SEQ Huui 533.523. :5: E. .6, .3 I? w u. wamulkwun J ".wEIwawunwunwunwunmuwuxwwnww, ,Is .5. .Is, 5 . 5U eonwauofiofiofiofin—HQHOHounofiounouqo#0qu“ 2..., n4 , a :4 ad. wogwuhuuwu .«Uunq wUUnUunUunuunUu—quou.ounUUnUu .3 .3. 3d ,3 2.: C... ,I.JII n3. #QIEAnurnumunminkmhoarmpnmxmxmfimkaurma ”2 .?I 2 ,2 ...S 74”. BE 12.. ”2.. n5. <5 w¥<<<, a 3225:: can . . 52““qu zmzz, >4m»m.E<<0u 553 >420 452?; mg 23:: “noun :3 U250“. 032.... 30> 5:3 20(- 3 x0- I I I I III. III II. I I I II I 9: c6:- x-E: 925393.218 at» 1:1! 1...: .33.- WEI: wig—.0383“!— III u2<2 KDO> : . , . I _ I | 1.9.9.29 \.4J .U: .<.. nmu. ”..uflg ,npu. 20...... .nox... _m 2.3 Nflnhu $.60; .92: M.‘.nVu mm. ......“ l. .2 “......h __n F a “1.. .HO L C (.4) A. \ .. ‘ _~4 __ _Y - ~ I F .n _ His 7....“ j A i 7:; “M H 12.3. no 1:: 2... A _ mmmaou >9 . .._ n39 ,. .n T. m. hwy. . .... hm J... ; ha— 2: 3 3.09. u A; H .w .mwu : How. u “nou 2 awe. ..J . . .. ..., A ...v: 54 . ..4. (BBC «fa/mug...“ w .9 w) u ..., _ X 0, .> £3. is w n 2a. .... H). u... 2r} E ..nX .2 why .H HF H am .... _n, Hm u” in up I S m H. Eu .4 ,1. H34... :9; .3 a 3.3.. ...... F38 29,... n2: 7:. ... 5.3.. uptuxpnv: n q. u. _, .n flu“. gm _ a 13,: HI? “09.6 505 nun.-.” Wm? -tnmu... Eu :Hou. wvuaau HOu... F; u... a mu” m. am ... ”do- < 649 w DH :“ a3 H1. :4.” ... n29 H mm. 9 .nN x N. .r . i a. ... m a L n. d .nN ...... _nNufi. ,nmvm ..n> H> 1C; u.> ..n> H} M 2.x 9., X :x u, .> CA a ,>. .55 x .4... “may“ ...). 39.3. S .. 1..)H ,2 X. >U, 3., “n a .../U H39.) : 393 FD” 3“ SF .. p. HP 4. ,am H: ..r ..CL. _Q ume Hm“ m... mm H J. .HIHJ hm H I .. H3 H 3 6033 Hebrcu Hm up 1. may: unguid 4.02 3 533 C hou. 0.. .n2 2 a ..nzua ...... AZ ,a 2... n2: 2 ..nrzupk #53 2 J r 3., 4 ..n H -nv. r 1 Had“ a .nvC... Hfium HZ: ....r #1419: “HOB CKCPO .....u um. m it. ... it- .... ,HnC H13 HOP. 3 .40 H o 9099 “E H, J _ 1, fl g H4”. .4... Vn/Xu.1.. an ..uu a. 6.9—#3": HIRIU H0». 0.. A”. H H. U Hwy m u :29 Q“ Jnouncu ..n m a. m ..n muh m 5m u... m u a< .2 ( ...n< .L: d A (u < u _ b _ F p: :2 “3,32 :E: can; Jv— — ?)3 c t: Cluhhda .ruz _PJZ..VA1L .: ...Aunv — .t.- l.»».— Liv-p z. I v-onArmtpi; [1‘ nil‘z Nth-Av) Bo 3..— _ 2:... Dav) I u b. _ ...—d 13.4 a _v..P '53:! X:4m._m4...:<0u mm420 ...uzwu mm: 322% m:2\JO\U1$~U)NJP‘ l®|w|>lwl~|~i°l~°l°°|~|°~lwlblwl~Hoi l l i l l l I l 171 TABLE 44 Total Administrators 1969 * FACTORS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 l6 l7 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 75 67 SO 55 67 86 87 76 80 76 74 68 42 46 50 42 6O 69 7O 77 58 71 73 66 84 80 N \J 63 75 73 71 56 N 00 45 79 45 44 63 69 61 57 bWWWLa-JWUJWWWUJN oooouoxmwah-Ioc * Only loadings greater than .39 (absolute) are included and the decimal points have been dropped. VARIABLES O\O\O\O\O‘O\U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1U1UID~£~D~ lwlblwl~|~|ol~°|°°l~|°iwl~°lwl~l~lo|~°|°°|ul b-L‘L‘ WNW b b i D U1 .I.\ O O‘ 0‘ \1000 Oxooou \l p.» \l N \l w l \I b \1 U1 ISWIL’FI Total Administrators 1969 172 TABLE 44(Cont.) FACTORS 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 65 80 S6 55 75 66 45 63 71 59 72 73 4O 55 66 55 60 70 69 67 78 77 78 82 78 43 51 80 79 73 72 45 42 44 53 74 72 41 57 85 78 56 VARIABLES |”|”| H 0 TABLE 45 Central Michigan University Administrators 1969 * l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 l6 l7 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 58 P—‘F—‘D—‘OWNC‘U‘IL‘WNH NHO H L...) l ....a D'- 1 H U1 H 0‘ H \J ....a on 73 78 80 ...: \D 53 N N I N w 50 66 70 46 72 45 52 bwwwwwwwwwwmmmmwm OQmNO‘MbWNI—‘OOQNO‘U‘Ib 48 86 87 71 71 80 79 77 84 83 79 83 45 41 74 82 8O 49 42 69 50 75 44 72 * Only loadings greater than .41 (absolute) are included and the decimal points have been dropped. VARIABLES b H b N l .5 LA.) O‘O‘C‘O‘U‘MUWUTUWU‘U‘U‘MUTb-L‘L‘bbb 0‘ b \JG‘O‘O‘O‘O‘ OKOCDNO‘U‘I \J H l \l N l \J b.) \J b I \J U1 18133935! 174 TABLE 45(Cont.) Central Michigan University Administrators 1969 FACTORS l 2 3 4 5 6 74 86 48 44 7O 80 63 68 73 62 52 59 78 76 7 8 9 10 ll 12 l3 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7O 81 84 72 47 61 83 54 71 45 78 63 67 72 71 42 48 74 80 74 64 85 VARIABLES NDNJRJKJKJBJNJP‘P‘P‘H*P‘H‘P‘H‘P‘H‘€>GD\JO\U1£~U>N>H HWHWI~39|°|©l°°l~l°ld*IWMHM l I l l l l i i N \l l N 0:: ’519931819999938! 175 TABLE 46 Central Michigan University,Administrators 1973 * FACTORS l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 75 4O 48 88 80 84 77 ' 79 43 68 64 59 49 4O 45 7O 47 74 45 74 71 69 7O 74 66 82 79 59 81 80 50 58 78 78 40 42 57 46 57 * Only loadings greater than .40 (absolute) are included and the decimal points have been dropped. VARIABLES O‘C‘GO‘O‘O‘O‘ \JO\U1-L\U.JNH b I--‘ I b-L‘b bWN 9 U1 I .L\ 0‘ I .L\ \J I U'IUWUWU'IMU‘UIU‘IU‘IUI-L‘b ®m\lO\U'I-L\LANI—‘O\OCD 0‘ O I3I$Ia \l H \l N I \] Us) I \l b \1 U1 I \l 0“ I V \l I Islet; TABLE 4 176 6(Cont.) Central Michigan University Administrators 1973 FACTORS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 76 82 69 80 52 48 80 72 85 52 87 71 50 4O 73 85 58 48 54 81 75 42 59 61 66 80 69 53 61 68 74 41 42 44 76 71 49 54 71 43 41 55 84 72 79 VARIABLES £~uJU)UJUJUJbJuJu)u>U9NDthJthJNJNJNJNDNJH‘P‘P‘H*h4PJPJ C>¢>OD\JO\U1$-UJNJH‘C>¢>G>\JO\U1$‘hJNDF‘CDmDGD\JO\U1£~uJ [—4 O I—‘ H I ... N 177 TABLE 47 Total Cooperating Teachers 1969 * FACTORS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 52 69 71 72 67 76 36 42 59 45 47 65 67 59 72 41 38 46 55 61 69 69 75 55 64 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 77 39 66 42 6O 39 63 77 69 87 87 74 66 57 64 67 71 * Only loadings greater than .36 (absolute) are included and the decimal points have been dropped. VARIABLES \l\IN\IVNO‘O‘C‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘UIUILflLfiLflUTU'iUImUI-L‘bbbbbbbb \J 0" I \J \l ODNN oxooo 178 TABLE 47(Cont.) Total Cooperating Teachers 1969 FACTORS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 71 71 45 72 75 69 43 b \1 62 69 68 75 85 82 60 73 76 46 64 66 69 49 50 56 40 65 72 61 57 38 68 63 36 63 79 58 66 46 52 VARIABLES D~u1u3uDUJUJUJuJUJUJuJKJNJNJNJKJthJhihbkzh‘P‘k‘h‘hih‘PiH‘h‘k‘€>a>\JO\U1b~uDNJH‘ C>¢>G>\JO\UID~QDNJH‘C>¢>G>\JO\UID~u>hbh‘c>€>a3\JG\U1D-u>NJP‘CD 179 TABLE 48 Central Michigan University Cooperating Teachers 1969 * FACTORS l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 b 0‘ \l U.) 72 80 58 69 43 6O 66 55 44 70 68 67 76 71 45 72 44 69 63 57 66 56 63 88 86 79 77 77 77 55 46 72 72 59 47 63 68 * Only loadings greater than .42 (absolute) are included and the decimal points have been dropped. VARIABLES \J\J\J\J\J\JO\O\O\O‘C‘O‘O‘C‘O‘O‘U1U1U1UIU1UiU1U1U1U1£~£~$~£~£~£~£~£~£~ U1£~UJNDP‘C>€>G>\JO\U1£~UJBJF‘CDWDGD\JO\U1k~u9n>h‘C><>GD\JO\U1£~UJNJFJ \l 0‘ \J \I oo \1 \1 lolcloo TABLE 48(Cont.) 180 Central Michigan University Cooperatinngeachers 1969 m l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l6 17 53 b 0‘ 62 76 57 50 75 64 74 82 81 59 57 70 66 69 65 76 73 72 61 57 48 73 68 42 78 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 73 68 42 62 43 77 53 75 59 VARIABLES bWWWUWWWWUUJNNNNNNNNNNHHl-JI-‘P-‘I-‘HHHHOWNO‘Lfl-L‘UJNH COWNO‘WkWNl-‘OOmNChm-bWNI-‘OOQNO‘UIJ-‘WNHO 181 TABLE 49 Central Michigan Universitngooperating Teachers 1973* 211929.135. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 55 75 66 74 0‘ ...: 67 69 65 60 U1 C) 68 62 60 74 bbb \OO'O \l\l\l \lI—‘U'! 45 70 64 88 85 69 41 46 73 72 72 63 65 7O 73 62 75 76 * Only loadings greater than.38 (absolute) are included and the decimal points have been dropped. VARIABLES mNNNNNMNNNNOO‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘U‘MU‘WU‘U‘U‘IU'IU'IU'IJ-‘b-L‘bJ-‘bb-l—‘b OOQNO‘U‘I-fiwNHOOQNO‘LflbWNHOOQNO‘Uwal-‘OKOQ\IO‘U'IJ-‘wNH 182 TABLE 49(Cont.) Central Michigan University Cooperating Teachers 1973 FACTORS l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 67 45 54 67 6O 65 66 76 77 43 65 65 66 78 85 84 55 48 74 48 70 64 59 39 75 49 39 59 76 61 65 4O 49 74 72 65 44 43 52 39 46 VARIABLES bWWUWWU’WUWWNNNNNNNNNNHHHI—‘HI—‘HHHHOQNO‘U‘IL‘MNH OQmNO‘LflJ-‘WNHOOGNO‘WwaI—‘OOQNO‘U‘L‘WNHO 183 TABLE 50 Total Students 1969 * FACTORS l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 33 48 39 61 32 78 65 \l 0‘ 68 b \l 39 WV (DUO 66 75 42 64 46 86 87 64 57 64 69 66 54 33 0‘ b 61 72 68 74 32 41 \1 DJ 70 72 68 80 70 47 71 4O 33 * Only loadings greater than .32 (absolute) are included and the decimal points have been dropped. VARIABLES a>\s\:\a\a\a\n\:\J\J\Jcs0~a~c~o~c~c~c~0\o~U1uvu:u1uwqu1uaUach~a~c~s~c~c~n~c~e~ C>¢>OD\JO\UI$~Q>h3F‘C>K>a3\JO\UI£~u3NDP‘C>¢>G>\JO\U1£~UJNJP‘C>¢>GD\JO\U1D~UJNJF‘ 184 TABLE 50(Cont.) Total Students 1969 FACTORS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l7 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 \IV GM 0000 WU! b.) b \J N 37 76 79 49 57 78 82 76 71 4O 79 71 67 69 78 74 62 66 43 48 67 65 72 37 68 58 57 50 44 60 39 40 64 42 63 VARIABLES bwwwwwwwwwwNNNNNNNNNNI—‘HHHHHHHHHQQNO‘MJ-‘le-I' O\OGNOUwaHOOQNGUDle-‘O‘DmflamL‘UJNHO 185 TABLE 51 Central Michigan University Students 1969 * FACTORS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 51 40 82 8O 62 44 85 83 41 37 57 53 72 67 69 77 67 63 63 81 74 74 68 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 78 70 34 54 67 81 64 48 71 67 * Only loadings greater than .34 (absolute) are included and the decimal points have been dropped. 24 25 26 27 53 48 77 73 55 57 35 38 VARIABLES muNNNVVVNV\JO‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘O‘MMU‘UU‘U‘UIU‘IUIUI#-§4-‘J>J>-bbbb O\OafloathNHOQmNO‘U‘lkUNHoemVChMJ-‘UJNHOOQVO‘LflnfiwNH 186 TABLE 51(Cont.) Central Michigan University Students 1969 FACTORS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 65 68 55 58 79 39 36 49 35 63 75 77 84 85 7O 71 62 34 52 71 7O 48 71 78 67 44 70 69 56 49 36 41 79 71 72 66 43 72 58 6O 37 37 VARIABLES L‘wwwwwwwwwWNNNNNNMNNNHHHHHHHHHHOWVO‘U‘J-‘WNH OW®NO~UIJ>UJNHommNO‘mJ-‘UJNHOGmNGMbWNl-‘O 187 TABLE 52 Central Michigan University Students 1973 * FACTORS l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l7 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 U1 U1 59 60 62 61 43 O‘ [.4 57 63 67 \I \O 73 73 69 47 72 75 63 80 83 39 78 69 75 69 76 75 41 45 44 48 74 78 76 42 71 74 * Only loadings greater than .38 (absolute) are included and the decimal points have been dropped. VARIABLES I°°I"I”I”I”I”I"I”I"I"I"I°‘I°I°‘I°‘I°‘I°‘I°‘I°‘I°‘I°I“I“I‘"I‘”I“IU‘ImImImImI’I”I°I°I”I”I”I‘°I° COODNONWJ-‘LANI—‘OOCDNO‘UWL‘UJNI-‘OOCDNChmbWNHOOCDVO‘kfl-L‘WNI—I 188 TABLE 52(Cont.) Central Michigan University Students 1973 FACTORS IT2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 76 0‘ N 72 63 55 72 68 78 82 79 77 77 67 75 75 51 71 69 57 42 6O 57 76 55 83 62 51 81 58 58 73 55 54 56 67 52 APPENDIX C Chi—Square Analysis 189 SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF COOPERATING TEACHER DATA Question # Chi Square Value Degrees of Freedom Level of Significance 7 25.99 4 .001 15 2.62 4 N.S. 16 8.75 4 N.S. 17 4.00 3 N.S. 18 8.30 3 .05 19 8.65 3 .05 20 5.77 4 N.S. 21 8.21 4 N.S. 22 8.99 4 N.S. 23 20.21 4 .001 24 12.12 5 .05 25 1.22 5 N.S. 27 21.30 4 .001 28 19.47 4 .001 32 18.76 2 .001 33 15.48 2 .001 34 8.47 3 .05 35 16.63 5 .01 36 19.55 5 .005 37 7.00 2 .05 38 1.98 2 N.S. 39 9.75 2 .01 40 9.91 2 .01 41 15.45 2 .001 43 3.75 2 N.S. 45 25.89 3 .001 50 6.42 3 N.S. 51 4.59 3 N.S. 52 2.19 3 N.S. 53 3.21 3 N.S. 57 1.31 4 N.S. 58 5.80 4 N.S. '59 4.85 4 N.S. 60 1.54 4 N.S. 62 1.31 2 N.S. 63 20.58 2 .001 68 6.83 2 .05 71 23.84 5 .001 73 4.26 4 N.S. 74 5.04 4 N.S. 75 5.33 4 N.S. 79 1.29 2 N.S. 190 SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF COOPERATING ADMINISTRATOR DATA Question # Chi Square Value Degrees of Freedom Level of Significance 13 8.41 4 N.S. 14 9.17 2 .02 18 15.09 4 .005 19 7.75 4 N.S. 20 12.62 4 .02 22 5.23 4 N.S. 23 22.95 3 .001 24 12.67 3 .01 25 27.41 5 .001 26 12.46 5 .05 28 3.24 2 N.S. 29 5.15 4 N.S. 30 .98 3 N.S. 34 4.58 3 N.S. 35 8.94 3 .05 38 4.41 3 N.S. 39 6.36 3 N.S. 41 6.37 7 N.S. 42 8.90 7 N.S. 43 3.93 6 N.S. 44 6.82 7 N.S. 45 7.03 6 N.S. 46 97.99 6 .001 47 6.14 6 N.S. 48 7.62 8 N.S. 49 11.11 6 N.S. 50 23.76 7 .005 52 1.45 2 N.S. 53 2.05 2 N.S. 54 .79 2 N.S. 55 10.90 2 .01 56 9.30 2 .01 57 10.16 4 .05 58 9.09 4 N.S. 59 1.56 3 N.S. 60 1.79 3 N.S. 62 1.08 3 N.S. 64 6.30 3 N.S. 65 1.21 3 N.S. 66 2.28 3 N.S. 67 1.28 3 N.S. 68 .98 3 N.S. 69 3.27 3 N.S. 71 2.17 3 N.S. 72 8.31 3 .05 73 9.96 3 .02 191 SUMMARY OF CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF STUDENT TEACHER DATA Question # Chi §guare Value Dggrees of Freedom Level of Significance 17 5.29 4 N.S. 18 .89 4 N.S. 29 102.82 2 .001 32 52.01 3 .001 33 30.31 3 .001 34 16.30 3 .001 38 12.31 3 .01 39 25.70 3 .001 40 15.62 3 .005 41 31.48 3 .001 43 23.46 3 .001 45 60.66 2 .001 46 76.29 2 .001 50 35.99 3 .001 51 34.03 3 .001 52 29.77 3 .001 53 17.39 3 .001 55 18.67 9 .05 56 68.96 9 .001 57 12.79 5 .025 58 11.75 5 .05 59 13.02 5 .025 61 4.72 2 N.S. 62 3.98 2 N.S. 63 9.38 2 .01 64 11.74 3 .01 66 25.40 3 .001 67 11.28 3 .01 68 6.16 3 N.S. 71 58.71 5 .001 72 83.67 4 .001 76 59.45 8 .001 77 23.45 4 .001 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Archer, Clard 0., and Jennrich, Robert 1. "Standard Errors for Rotated Factor Loadings," Research Bulletin. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational. Barberi, Carlo C. "A Study of the Acceptance of the Secondary Student Teaching Program as Perceived by Faculty, Adminis- trators, Parents and Pupils in the Mt. Pleasant Public Schools, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Bell, Michael L. "Personalities and Perceptions of Student Teaching," U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, 1971. Bennie, William A. "A Comparative Analysis of the On—Campus and Off-Campus Student Teaching Programs in Secondary Schools at Miami University," Unpublished doctoral disser- tation, Indiana University, 1955. Coopgration for Better Student Teaching. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Burgress Publishing Company, 1966. Brabson, JoAnne Millie. "Impact of Student Teaching on Cooper- ating Schools," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston College, 1973. Carver, Donald W. and Liberty, Paul G. "A Comparison of Two Approaches in Factor Studies of Student Ratings of Courses and Instructors," Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, February, 1973. Central Michigan Normal Training Manual, 1897-98. Central Michigan University Bulletins, 1897 to 1973. Central Michigan University. Planning for the Future,gl97l—l972. Volume 1, Number 2. Conant, James B. The Education of American Teachers. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963. Cooley, William W. and Lahnes, Paul R. Multivariate Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. Cox, Dan. "Why Should Public Schools Accept Student Teachers?," Educational Administration and Supervision, Volume 45, Number 5. September, 1959. 192 193 Daniel, K. Fred. and Compton, Ronald. "Reactions to Student Teachers," School and Communigy, Volume 51, November, 1964. Dean, Leland. and Kennedy, W. Henry in collaboration with Deans and Directors of Teacher Education of Michigan in Michigan Colleges. "A Position Paper on Student Teaching Programs," Teacher Education in Transition, Volume 1, Howard E. Bosley (Director), Baltimore, Maryland: Multi—State Teacher Educa— tion Project, May, 1969. Del Popolo, Joseph A. and Hillson, Maurie. "Student Teaching and the Role of the Public Schools," New York State Education, LI. March, 1964. Drake, Thelbert L. and Kraft, Leonard E. "How Do Students Feel About Student Teachers?," Illinois Education, Volume 55, November, 1966. Dressel, Paul L. Evaluation in Higher Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1969. Ediger, Marlow. "The Influence of the Student Teacher on the Pupil, Academically and Socially, in Selected Elementary Grades," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, 1963. Fulp, Kenneth E. "What is the Effect of Student Teaching on the Achievement of Pupils?," Bulletin No. 22 of the Association for Student Teaching. Cedar Falls, Iowa: The Association,1964. Funkhouser, Charles Wayne. "The Role of the Secondary Student Teacher as Perceived by Pupils, Parents, School Board Members, Student Teachers, Cooperating Teachers, Administrators and College Supervisors," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1972. Gardner, Harrison. and Henry, Marvin A. "Designing Effective Internships in Teacher Education." Journal of Teacher Education, XIX, Summer, 1968. Greene, Gwynn. et a1. "Student Teaching: Do The Participating Schools Benefit?," Illinois Education, Volume 55, November, 1966. Harman, Harry H. Modern Factor Analysis. Second Edition revised. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967. Holdridge, William E. "Dimensions of Teacher Credibility and Faculty-Course Evaluation," Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association. Chicago, December, 1972. 194 Holzinger, Karl J. and Harman, Harry H. Factor Analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967. Factor Analysis: A Syntheses of Factoral Methods. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1941. Hunter, Elizabeth. and Amidon, Edmond. "Direct Experiences in Teacher Education: Innovation and Experimentation," The Journal of Teacher Education, XVII, Fall, 1966. The Indiana Student Teaching Study, Indiana Association of Teacher Educators in cooperation with the Indiana State Department of Public Instruction, 1975. Jennrich, Robert I. "Simplified Formulas for Standard Errors in Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis," Education Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey. Johnson, James A. A Brief History of Student Teaching. DeKalb, Illinois: Creative Educational Materials, 1968. Kaltsounis, Theodore. and Nelson, John L. "The Mythology of Student Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education. XIX, Fall, 1968. Kaml, Jerry M. "A Comparison of Selected Michigan State Univer- sity Elementary Teacher Preparation Programs Based Upon the Perceptions of Student Teachers, Supervising Teachers, and Principals of Cooperating Schools," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967. Marcus, Clifford M. "Contributions of Student Teaching Programs to Michigan C00perating Schools as Perceived by Student Teachers, Supervising Teachers, and Administrators," Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Naylor, James Norman. "Factors for Pupils' Attitudes Toward Student Teachers on Selected Criteria," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1973. Preil, Joseph J. "The Relationship Between Student Teaching and Teaching Effectiveness," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1968. Quick, Donald M. "A Historical Study of the Campus Laboratory Schools in Four Teacher Education Institutions in Michigan," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1970. Rich, Victor J. "The Evolving Student Teaching Program at Western Illinois University and an Assessment of the Quad-Cities Resident Student Teaching Center," ,Unpublished doctoral disser- tation, Michigan State University, 1967. 195 Rutherford, John A. "The Effect of Student Teaching Upon Pupil Achievement in Selected Fourth Grade Classrooms," Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 1967. Seagren, Alan T. et al. The Impact of Student Teachers Upon the Attitude and Achievement of High School Students. Kansas City: Mid-Continent Regional Education Lab., Inc., 1967. Sharpe, Donald M. "The Pupils Look at the Program," Off—Campus Student Teaching. Thirtieth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching. Lock Haven, Pennsylvania: The Association, 1951. Student Teaching Programs: Questions and Answers. (Impact Study), Deans and Directors of Teacher Education in Michigan in cooper- ation with the Michigan Council of State College Presidents, June, 1970. Swenson, Esther J. and Hammock, Robert C. "Off-Campus Laboratory Experiences: Their Growth, Importance, and Present Role in Teacher Education," Off-Cgmpus Student Teaching. Thirtieth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching. Lock Haven, Pennsylvania: The Association, 1951. Tanruther, Edgar M. "Facilitating Inservice Education," 2227 fessional Growth Inservice of the Supervising Teacher. Forty-Fifth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching, Cedar Falls, Iowa: The Association, 1966. Telego, Gene Anthony. "An Analysis of Selected Aspects of Student Teaching Centers in Secondary Schools," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1972. Thorndike, Robert H. "Methods of Factor Extraction and Simple Structure of Data From Diverse Scientific Areas," Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Western Psychological Association, San Francisco, California, April, 1971. Thurstone, Louis L. Primary Mental Abilities. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1938. Veenstra, Lawrence E. "An Investigation into Relationships between Student Teaching and Pupil Motivation, as Perceived by Super- vising Teachers, Student Teachers, Administrators, and Pupils," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Welsh, John Edward. "The Administration and Supervision of Seven Elementary School Student Teaching Programs in the State of New Jersey," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 1969. Ward, Ted. and Stearns, Troy. "An Expanding Role," Teacher Education and The Public Schools. Fortieth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching, Cedar Falls, Iowa: The Association, 1961. 196 White, Norman D. "The Status and Potential of College Controlled Laboratory Schools," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1964. "Factor Content of the Yee, Albert H. and Fruchter, Benjamin. American Educational Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory," Research Journal. VIII, January, 1971.