”nyxywuvgflfl” x . | , . 0 3m!!! nflN'Vfifli‘fi! "m: I," m. mum. H n u «11,9 r\'.qu¢.d.¢ I :ro..2 .1 1.: ii .3 {1:26:13. :1: «Ln; 0):: . ll ; J. :1: 2.3 9483.1 30 . .. on 21.31., t I l' .3." v", ‘23:}.2. . ‘ . uxuuunnu.r: “I!!! o. r. .7!» . ..u.‘1,...1‘. . unu:«..ununpqrxnnnuus.x. . v ,. . t . $91.33*. x: 55% ,o,.|. . 1;)12 ....x. ?5\.l.ll.uxirl: ‘gfi, o 113-192531! . Ii": .x: .J..rxx<¢ :m a." K. .94?! .s. V . 5114f... . i! 4 2:11? . 0.11,.t’m . . r. . \ {3.g. .35 .1... p floating ‘ ‘Kl .595?! .5211..." P51}. 1‘ . if. :5 1 LP...“ :9 3.9. .1 z 1 . 5. . l’OPtV". 2103“ fiihr 10v :l ISLFSSIIISV L30 1"!c311. 9...?! .1. uiltubdvflfiléufn 57.10311}!!va- Iln . 1.1!: ‘ :1 :7! é‘OI‘ £1!\n I: .91- qlltltt. II. ‘2... . (‘7‘: | ’0? .folllr.‘ ‘lothP J'V’v l: ‘OI v. :19, {f‘}.£.pxl\rf.§.bkl :‘ ll ‘5 ‘1; Vi"? :WV rfIIIEP'VKII‘ ER [TY LIBRARIES l\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ll\\\\.\l\\l\\\\\\\\\\\l memo»: sure Uva\ 3 1293 00897 8904 r :1 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A COMPARISON OF SELECTED AREAS OF THINKING STYLES BETWEEN MUSIC COOPERATING TEACHERS AND HIGHER EDUCATION MUSIC METHODS TEACHERS presented by Robert T. Stroker has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for DOCTOR OF Wdegree in WION flaw/é 41 ,F, Major professor MS U is an Affirmative Action/Eq ual Opportunity Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY Mlchlgan State Unlverslty PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. ‘DATE DUE DATEDUE DATE DUE 1‘57}? I “’1? j ‘ MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity limitution WW” A COMPARISON OF SELECTED AREAS OF THINKING STYLES BETWEEN MUSIC COOPERATING TEACHERS AND HIGHER EDUCATION MUSIC METHODS TEACHERS By Robert T. Stroker A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY School of Music 1993 ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF SELECTED AREAS OF THINKING STYLES BETWEEN MUSIC COOPERATING TEACHERS AND HIGHER EDUCATION MUSIC METHODS TEACHERS By Robert T. Stroker The purposes of this study were to compare the thinking styles of a selected sample group of cooperating music teachers and university/college music methods teachers and to denote any differences between their thinking styles. Twelve thinking styles were measured: Humanistic-Helpful, Affiliative, Approval, Conventional, Dependence, Avoidance, Oppositional, Power, Competitive, Perfectionistic, Achievement and Self-Actualization. The sample population for this study included: (a) forty-four music methods teachers from universities and colleges with an undergraduate music education certification program in the state of Michigan, and (b) seventy-six experienced music cooperating teachers in the state of Michigan. Only cooperating teachers who have supervised student teachers at least twice during the past five years were invited to participate. The sample population included music educators from all grade levels assigned to the instruction of choir, band, orchestra, elementary general, and combinations of music subjects. One test instrument and one demographic data survey were used in this study to obtain the necessary data. To measure cooperating music teachers and university/college music methods instructors’ thinking styles the Level 1: Life Styles Inventory was used. The test was developed by J. Clayton Lafferty at the Human Synergistics Inc. in Plymouth, Michigan. The test and demographic data survey were self- administered by both cooperating music teachers and university music methods instructors. ANOVA techniques were used to calculate an E—Statistic for each independent thinking styles. ANOVA results showed that significant difference exist between cooperating music teachers and university/college music teachers in the variables of power and competitive thinking styles. Multivariate analysis of variance tests did not result in identification of significant differences between the two sample groups. Results from this study suggests that a number of experienced Michigan cooperating teachers lack confidence in others and may be more inclined to control all aspects of the student teaching process. These problems should be addressed and resolved by involving the music faculties from higher education institutions and the public schools in student teaching seminars or workshops. Copyright by Robert T. Stroker 1993 Dedicated to my wife Karen for your never ending love and support ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Robert Erbes for the guidance he has provided throughout this project and his willingness to give me opportunities to develop my professional skills. My appreciation is also extended to committee members Dr. Judy Palac and Dr. Charles Ruggiero. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF CHARTS Chapter I. II. III. INTRODUCTION Background for the Study Statement of the Problem Need for the Study Purpose of the Study Hypotheses Limitations of the Study Procedures for Study Definitions Overview REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Pre-Service University Training Cooperating Teachers Selection of Cooperating Teachers Influence of the Cooperating Teacher Influence of Field Based Experience Teacher Thinking Summary PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY Introduction Description of Population Instrumentation Administration Procedures Data Analysis Procedures Hypotheses Data Analysis vii Page ix 17 20 22 22 24 28 31 36 38 38 38 39 41 41 41 43 Chapter IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Scoring the Thinking Style Scale Analysis of Data Summary V. DISCUSSION Summary Findings Conclusions Recommendations APPENDICES A. Level 1: Life Styles Inventory and Demographic Questionnaire B. Cover Letter to Music Education Area Chairpersons C. Cover Letter to Cooperating Teachers and University Methods Teachers D. Dotplot Charts for Twelve Thinking Styles E. Demographic Data for Cooperating Teachers F. UCRIHS Approval for Testing G. Letter of Permission from REFERENCES Human Synergistics viii Page 45 45 49 50 67 69 69 72 75 80 81 84 86 88 93 95 96 97 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. E1. E2. E3. E4. LIST OF TABLES Age of Sample Population Level of Education for Sample Population Years Taught in the Public Schools Years Taught at the University Level Analysis of Thinking Styles Means, Percentile Scores, Minimum Scores, and Maximum Scores for Thinking Styles ANOVA For Humanistic-Helpful Thinking Style ANOVA For Affiliative Thinking Style ANOVA For Approval Thinking Style ANOVA For Conventional Thinking Style ANOVA For Dependent Thinking Style ANOVA For Avoidance Thinking Style ANOVA For Oppositional Thinking Style ANOVA For Power Thinking Style ANOVA For Competitive Thinking Style ANOVA For Perfectionistic Thinking Style ANOVA For Achievement Thinking Style ANOVA For Self—Actualizing Thinking Style Summary of Results from One Way ANOVA Tests MANOVA Tests Results Size of K-12 School Systems Levels Taught Areas Taught Responses to "Have you taken any supervisory classes or seminars?" Page 46 47 48 48 50 53 57 57 58 59 60 60 61 62 63 63 64 65 66 67 93 93 94 94 Chart D1. D2. D3. D4. D5. D6. D7. D8. D90 D10. D11. D12. Dotplot Dotplot Dotplot Dotplot Dotplot Dotplot Dotplot Dotplot Dotplot Dotplot Dotplot Dotplot For For For For For For For For For For For For LIST OF CHARTS Humanistic-Helpful Thinking Style Approval Thinking Style Dependent Thinking Style Oppositional Thinking Style Competitive Thinking Style Achievement Thinking Style Affiliative Thinking Style Conventional Thinking Style Avoidance Thinking Style Power Thinking Style Perfectionistic Thinking Style Self—Actualizing Thinking Style Page 88 88 88 89 89 90 9O 91 91 92 92 92 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background for the Study The recommendations for reform of teacher education during the past decade has led to many reports challenging our present educational system. In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education released A Nation at Risk, one of the first reports to challenge the educational system. A Nation at Risk influenced many reports from diverse national commissions, all calling for reforms in the nation’s schools (Green, 1987). The reports differed in tone and suggested strategies but agreed that reforms in teacher education were necessary. In response to the many reports on teacher education reform, the Music Educators National Conference (MENC) formed the Task Force on Music Teacher Education in 1984, at the request of then president Paul Lehman. The Task Force was given the responsibility of preparing a report that could lead music teacher preparation into the next decade (Music Educators, 1987). The Task Force proposed that elementary and secondary school music educators work together with the nation’s college music and music education professors. With this cooperation, new ideas could flow between the university methods course and the cooperating teacher. The Task Force stated: The new partnership for music teacher education recognizes that all courses and practical experiences leading to certification in music teaching - whether coordinated or taught by the school music educator, or the college music and music education professor - are important resources from which the prospective 1 2 music teacher will draw in the future. Each of the members of the partnership must perform vital roles in the long-term development of excellent music educators if this model for change is to be effective. (p. 13) The most recent education reform report is America 2000. In this report, which attempts to state the nation’s goals in education, music and teacher education are all but ignored. Karl Glenn, the past president of MENC, writes: I am disappointed, frustrated, and dismayed at the lack of attention given to music and the other arts in the "America 2000" education strategy of the president and the nations governors. In Track One of America 2000, the "five core" subjects of English, math, science, history, and geography are singled out to receive American Achievement Tests with recognition in those subject areas offered by Presidential Citations for Educational Excellence. In all of this, I ask, "What happens to students that achieve in music and the other arts, vocational studies, foreign languages, and a host of other subject areas not considered to be one or the five core subjects. ("Congress," 1992, p. 22) Such criticism of the educational system and lack of support for music education has had an impact upon teacher education. In an attempt to develop support and political strength for music education, the MENC has become allied with the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, Inc. (NARAS) and the National Association of Music Merchants (NAMM) (Glenn, 1991). In hope of improving teacher education, many teacher training institutions are experimenting with 3 selective admission policies and extended teacher preparation programs (Cleary, 1987). The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education supports the growth of professional studies for in- depth study because "it is the professional studies component that transforms the educated individual into a professional teacher." (cited in Cleary, 1987, p. 2). As an integral part of professional studies, student teaching is generally considered to be the most valued aspect of teacher training (Lortie, 1985; Nosow, 1975). However, the relationship between student teaching and other components of teacher training is often dubious (Hauwiller, 1988-89). Student teaching placements are often made randomly and little effort and few resources are directed toward promoting connections between the university and the school. Cooperating teachers need a strong sense of the university curriculum, and university people need feedback and other input from the schools. Zeichner and Tabachnick reported that this relationship is frequently missing (1981). Despite the many criticisms of student teaching, there is a recent trend to increase the emphasis on clinical experiences (Barnett, 1975; Tabachnick, 1980). The Association of Teacher Educators states the purposes of field-based experiences are to emphasize experimentation and the continuous explanation of educational possibilities (cited in Cleary, 1987, p. 23). Researchers in teacher education have urged an increased emphasis on student teaching, with most of the student’s time in a teacher-education program being spent in classrooms working with 4 children and their teachers (Lortie, 1975; Gallegos, 1972; Peck and Tucker, 1973). On the other hand, Salzillo and VanFleet’s assessment is that attempts by universities to improve public education through better teacher preparation is questionable: The largest unvalidated segment of professional education programs is the student teaching area. The only function of student teaching which has been identified by research studies is one of socialization into the profession and into existing arrangements of the schooling bureaucracy. To our knowledge, no study has shown conclusively that student teaching has any unique educational component other than assimilation. Teacher education institutions are, at least partially, defeating their own purposes when student teaching is allowed to become simply an exercise in adapting new personnel into old patterns. (1977, p. 28) A few researchers support this assertion by suggesting that the more time students spend in the field, the more conservative and rigid they become (Lacey, 1977). Boy and Reese (1977) concluded that student teachers become significantly more conforming and impersonal in their views by the end of the experience, and that the bureaucratic socialization of student teachers is evident. The evidence supports the contention that the cooperating teacher does influence the behavior of the student teacher (Seperson and Joyce, 1973; Dispoto, 1980; Johnson, 1969; Yee, 1969). Seperson and Joyce also concluded that the influence of the cooperating teacher was felt during 5 the very early weeks of student teaching rather than being the result of a slow and cumulative process. The student-teacher/cooperating-teacher relationship seems critical, for it is the cooperating teacher upon whom the student teacher must depend for guidance and a favorable evaluation. Furthermore, it is the cooperating teacher who has established the bureaucratic structure of the music program within which the student teacher must operate (Templin, 1979). The ability of the cooperating teacher to fulfill his/her supervisory responsibilities may be influenced by their thinking style variables (Myer, Kennedy, & Cruickshank, 1979). It is assumed that university and public school personnel should possess similar thinking styles in order to create a smooth transition between the university classroom and field experience. However, Cleary (1987) concluded that cooperating teachers exhibit a more conventional thinking style than university supervisors. A few researchers suggest that the study of teachers’ thinking styles might prove to be the most significant variable in classroom teaching (Webb, 1971). The impact of universities and public schools on the socialization of teachers has received a great deal of attention. Zeichner (1978) found that student teachers are more rigid, more authoritarian, less flexible, and less responsive to pupil needs at the conclusion of their training. It. now has become commonly accepted within the teacher education community that students become increasingly more progressive or liberal in their attitudes towards education during their stay at the 6 university and then shift to opposing and more traditional views as they move into student teaching (Zeichner, & Tabachnick, 1981). Statement of the Problem An examination of the literature in music teaching did not reveal any studies that addressed the thinking styles of cooperating music teachers and higher education music method teachers. However, student teaching in general, and the influence of the cooperating teacher on the student teacher, have been researched widely. Overall, only a small percentage of research in music education addresses student teaching. The problem to be studied is to determine if thinking styles between music cooperating teachers and university/college music methods teachers are different. Please note that hereupon both university and college music methods teachers will be referred to as university music methods teachers. Need for the Study Research suggests that the student teaching experience should be a continuation of university training (Hauwiller, 1988-89). However, it can be concluded from observations and research that most student teaching programs are not accomplishing what they were designed to do (Ervay, 1985). Ervay stated that "the influence of a cooperating teacher - good or bad - far outweighs any educational program on the college or university campus" (p. 38). Zeichner (1980) pointed out that, "what students appear to learn during field-based experiences is often in conflict with the expressed intentions of those in both the schools 7 and universities those experiences are often miseducative rather than helpful" (p. 51). Current attacks upon teacher education have created a need for empirical evidence related to improving the development of student teachers throughout the student teaching practicum experience. University music methods teachers and cooperating teachers have the complex task of molding effective music educators. There was no evidence found in the current body of literature which examines relationships between university music methods teachers and cooperating music teachers. This study will aid in the understanding of the relationship between the university music methods course and practical field experience. Results from such a study may be very beneficial to university music teacher training programs, cooperating music teachers, and the music education profession. Purpose of the Study The purposes of the study were to compare the thinking styles of a selected sample group of cooperating music teachers and university music methods teachers and to denote any differences between thinking styles. Data was collected and analyzed to answer the following questions. 1) To what extent are the thinking styles of cooperating music teachers and university music methods teachers oriented toward: A. a humanistic-helpful thinking style? 2) 8 B. an affiliative thinking style? C. an approval thinking style? D. a conventional thinking style? E. a dependent thinking style? F. an avoidance thinking style? G. an oppositional thinking style? H. a power thinking style? I. a competition thinking style? J. a perfectionistic thinking style? K. an achievement thinking style? L. a self-actualizing thinking style? Are there significant differences between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding: A. a humanistic-helpful thinking style? B. an affiliative thinking style? C. an approval thinking style? D. a conventional thinking styles? E. a dependent thinking style? F. an avoidance thinking style? G. an oppositional thinking style? H. a power thinking style? I. a competition thinking style? J. a perfectionistic thinking style? 9 K. an achievement thinking style? L. a self-actualizing thinking style? Hypotheses During the course of this study, the following 12 hypotheses, stated in null form, were examined. Hypothesis 1 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientations toward a humanistic-helpful thinking style. Hypothesis 2 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward an affiliative thinking style. Hypothesis 3 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward an approval thinking style. Hypothesis 4 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a conventional thinking style. Hypothesis 5 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a dependent thinking style. 10 Hypothesis 6 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward an avoidance thinking style. Hypothesis 7 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a oppositional thinking style. Hypothesis 8 There is no significant differences between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a power thinking style. Hypothesis 9 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a competitive thinking style. Hypothesis 10 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a perfectionistic thinking style. Hypothesis 11 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward an achievement thinking style. 11 Hypothesis 12 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a self-actualization thinking style. Limitations of the Study This study was limited to instrumental and vocal music methods teachers from universities and colleges with an undergraduate music education certification program in the state of Michigan. All methods teachers in the state were to be contacted to participate in the study. Only experienced vocal and instrumental public school cooperating teachers who supervised student teachers twice during the past 5 years were considered for this study. Procedures for Study The primary purpose of this study was to compare selected areas of thinking styles between university music methods teachers and experienced public school music cooperating teachers. As the first step in identifying the population for the study, a letter was sent to all university music education Chairpersons in the state of Michigan. The Chairpersons were asked to send a list of their methods instructors and a list of qualified cooperating teachers used by their institution. All university music methods instructors in Michigan were to be invited to participate in the study. Only cooperating teachers that have supervised student teachers at least twice during the past 5 years were invited to participate. Each university and public school teacher was 12 asked to complete the Level 1: Life Styles Inventory (Lafferty, 1980) to measure 12 dimensions of thinking styles. The test instrument, Level 1: Life Styles Inventory (See Appendix A), contains 240 short words and phrases related to orientation toward 12 thinking styles. The instrument was self administered by cooperating teachers and university music methods instructors in the research sample and produced an individual thinking style profile for each member of the research sample. Thinking style profiles of cooperating teachers and university music methods instructors were averaged separately on each thinking style dimension to obtain mean and standard deviation scores. The means were subjected to a one-way analysis of variance to locate significant differences in thinking style profiles. Additionally, a multivariate one-way analysis of variance was used to investigate whether there was a difference between the two groups on the 12 scales collectively. Each hypothesis was tested for significance at the .05 level. Demographic variables such as age, sex, years of public school teaching experience, years of university teaching experience, and participation in any supervising classes or seminars were obtained through a demographic data questionnaire. (See Appendix A) Definitions Humanistic helpful thinking style - A thinking style characterized by: A. A focused concern for the growth and development of people. 13 Appreciation of the strengths in others, and belief in their potential for improvement. Optimism regarding what people can accomplish. The willingness to assist others with self-improvement. The ability to inspire and motivate others. (Lafferty, 1989, p. 13) Affiliative thinking style - A thinking style characterized by: A. B. C. D. A tendency to value relationships above all else. A need to build relationships that are meaningful and reciprocal. Strong, well-developed interpersonal skills. A tendency to motivate others using genuine praise and friendliness. (Lafferty, 1989, p. 18) Approval thinking style - A thinking style characterized by: A. D. Low self—esteem. Preoccupation with the opinions of others. An over-concern with being "popular" and well-liked. Difficulties with conflict, negotiation and confrontation. (Lafferty, 1989, p. 22) Conventional thinking style - A thinking style characterized by: A. B. D. A tendency to view rules as a source of comfort and security. A preference for staying unseen and unnoticed. Reduced initative. A preoccupation with appearing average, "normal," and like everyone else. 14 E. A reduction in originality F. Feelings of security within a bureaucracy. (Lafferty, 1989, p. 26) Dependence thinking style - A thinking style characterized by: A. An over-concern with pleasing people, and not questioning others or taking independent action. B. A passive attitude. C. A tendency to be easily influenced. D. A lack of self-respect, which results in feeling unable to accomplish things. (Lafferty, 1989, p. 30) Avoidance thinking style - A thinking style characterized by: A. A strong tendency to deny responsibility for one’s own behavior. B. Lack of attention to tasks and people. C. Fear of failure. D. Need to defend self-worth. E. Need to avoid taking chances. (Lafferty, 1989, p. 34) Opmsitional thinking style - A thinking style characterized by: A. The ability to ask tough, probing questions. B. A tendency to seem aloof and detached from people. C. A need to look for flaws in everything. D. A tendency to make others feel uncomfortable by being negative and cynical in attitude. (Lafferty, 1989, p. 38) Power thinking style - A thinking style characterized by: A. A high need for power, status, prestige, influence, and control. 15 B. A tendency to dictate, rather than guide the actions of others. C. An aggressive and possibly vengeful attitude. D. A tendency to be threatened by perceived attempts to undermine authority. (Lafferty, 1989, p. 42) Competition thinking style - A thinking style characterized by: A. The association of self-worth with winning and losing. B. A need for recognition and praise from others. C. A "win-lose" orientation that distorts perspective and goals. D. A feeling that failure is unacceptable. (Lafferty, 1989, p. 47) Perfectionistic thinking style - A thinking style characterized by: A. A tendency to attach self-worth to accomplishment of tasks. B. Repetitive, sometimes ritualistic behavior. C. Low self-esteem. D. A tendency to place excessive demands on self and others. E. A preoccupation with detail that distorts perspective and judgment. (Lafferty, 1989, p. 51) Achievement thinking style — A thinking style characterized by: A. A focus on achieving a standard of excellence. B. The knowledge that individual effort counts. C. A preference for setting and accomplishing realistic, attainable goals, rather than goals imposed by others. 16 D. A belief in the benefits of asking for and giving honest feedback. (Lafferty, 1989, p. 56) Self-actualizing thinking style - A thinking style characterized by: A. Concern for self development. B. Strong instincts and intuition. C. Relative freedom from feelings of guilt or worry. D. Realistic optimism about people and things. E. An energetic, exciting approach to life. F. A strong desire to know about and experience things directly. (Lafferty, 1989, p.61) Cocmerating Teacher - A public or private school teacher who supervises a student teacher on a daily basis for one term or semester. Overview The remainder of this study is comprised of four chapters, references, and the appendices. Chapter II contains a review of literature. It includes literature in the fields of teacher education and music education. Chapter III includes a detailed description of the procedures. Chapter IV consists of the analysis of data, and Chapter V, the summary, discussion, conclusions, and recommendations for future research. The appendices contain documents pertinent to the study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Educators widely assume that the student teaching experience is a necessary and useful component in a teacher education program (Silberman, 1970; Nosow, 1975; Guyton, 1989). Because of this widespread assumption of the value of student teaching, there is a recent trend to increase the emphasis on clinical experiences in pre-service programs (Barnett, 1975; Tabachnick, 1980). While this assumption seems plausible, several research reports reveal contradictory findings regarding the value of student teaching (Hoy, 8r. Rees, 1977; Salvillo, & VanFleet, 1977; Zeichner, 1980). Most criticisms of student teaching center around the argument that field-based experiences are conservative institutions which serve merely to socialize prospective teachers into established patterns of school practice. Dewey (cited in Tabachnick, 1979-80, p. 27) argued that teaching was an intellectual as well as an active occupation. He urged teacher educators to reject the concept of apprenticeship in favor of the concept of laboratory teaching. Dewey stated that apprentices try to learn how to do what their master does; technique becomes an end in itself. In 1938, Dewey pointed out that "it is a mistake to assume that any experience is intrinsically desirable, apart from its ability to evoke a certain quality of response in individuals." What is learned in the student teaching experience is often in conflict with the goals of the university teacher education program. The Association of Teacher 17 18 Educators (1973) reaffirms Dewey’s thoughts: The clinical study of teaching is a continuous exploration and examination of educational possibilities in particular settings under varying conditions. It is not a static exercise in the demonstration of established ways. It is instead a constant quest for productive curricular plans and imaginative teaching strategies through studied experimentation, coordinated analytical assessment, and the consideration of alternative approaches. (p. 27) In research conducted by Tabachnick, Popkewitz and Zeichner (1979—80), university and public school personnel supported the goals and statements of the Association of Teacher Educators. However, the researchers’ analysis of the student teaching process, including techniques of teaching, identified teaching behaviors that contradicted the cooperating teacher’s stated goals and beliefs. In support of the previous study, a review of field-based experiences concluded that they are neither all good or bad (Zeichner, 1980). Instead, "field-based experiences seem to entail a complicated set of both positive and negative consequences that are often subtle in nature." To better understand music education field-based experiences, Brand (1982) researched the influence of student teaching on the classroom management beliefs and skills of music student teachers. He used the Behavior Management Skills Inventory to measure the subjects’ classroom management skills, and the Beliefs on Discipline Inventory to determine the subjects’ classroom management beliefs. The 47 subjects 19 were tested at the beginning and conclusion of their student teaching experience. Brand found that the student teaching experience did not affect the classroom management beliefs and skills of the student teachers. The results contradict other research that supports the existence of student teacher socialization into existing teaching patterns. Brand states: It is possible that music education majors are entering student teaching with a more realistic view of music teaching and schools, and therefore, their beliefs and expectations concerning classroom management are more congruent with their cooperating teachers at the start of student teaching. (p. 263) In order to improve the quality of the student teaching experience, research needs to examine how the student teaching experience can be a continuation of university training instead of an assimilating agent. Much more needs to be known about the socialization of student teachers. Therefore, close examination of cooperating teachers in relationship to university training becomes increasingly important. To aid an awareness of this relationship, this study compared the thinking styles of a selected sample of cooperating music teachers and university music methods teachers. Differences between these thinking styles are described in chapter four. For purposes of providing a thorough discussion of the many topics within the field of teacher education and student teaching, the review of literature is organized into four areas: (a) Pre-Service 20 University Training; (b) Cooperating Teachers; (0) Influence of Field Based Experience; and (d) Thinking Styles and Education. Pre-Service University Training The ability of the university to prepare the student for field experience is crucial to the entire teacher education process. To make music education more vital in the future, Hoffer (1987 ) suggested that the content of music and music education methods courses must be practical, broad in scope, and up-to-date. Hoffer stated: The concern here is not only for the number of credit hours earned, but also for the quality of study represented by these credits. It is surprising and disappointing to consider the number of important areas of music in American society today that are largely ignored in the teacher preparation programs of many universities. (p. 28) The reports, A Nation at Risk (1983), The Condition of Teaching (1983), and Action for Excellence (1983), only briefly mentioned the importance of teacher education and methods courses. However, political leaders and speakers of national forums on improving education began to state that the problem with our educational system begins in teacher training courses (Brand, 1984). This has led politicians to the idea of certifying teachers with little or no methods courses and student teaching. In 1984, New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean supported a plan which would require a teacher to only hold a bachelor’s degree in a content area, pass a test in a content area, and undergo a one-year, state supervised internship in a public school (Brand, 1984). 21 In an analysis of literature on pro-service teacher training, Koehler (1985) concluded that experienced teachers do not feel colleges and universities prepare teachers well. In addition, student teachers may feel that they owe ideological and methodological allegiance to cooperating teachers rather than to their undergraduate preparation programs (Dispoto, 1980; Karmos & Jacko, 1977). It has also been found that student teachers have been observed imitating cooperating teachers who do not display effective teaching behaviors (McIntyre, 1984). Student teachers may look to cooperating teachers for methods of instruction instead of their university methods courses. This often results in the student teacher becoming more negative in their interactions with students. This situation occurs because student teaching experiences can be difficult and emotionally trying (Veenman, 1984). Veenman characterized this initial, emotional charged period as one of "reality shock" and argued that day to day responsibilities and difficulties tend to replace theoretical concerns. To support the previous study, Browne and Hoover (1990) developed a study to examine the degree to which student teachers reported using teaching strategies and materials deemed important by their university instructors. Eighty-six elementary education student teachers served as subjects for this study. A Teaching Strategies Survey was developed in consultation with four professors who taught the elementary methods courses taken by subjects. After many revisions, 30 teaching strategies were used on the Teaching Strategies Survey which reflected strategies emphasized in university courses. This survey was administered to the student teachers, asking them to 22 rate whether they used the 30 strategies daily, weekly, monthly, or not at all. Results from the research concluded that most of the student teachers did not report employing a wide range of strategies and materials reportedly taught in their methods classes. Browne and Hoover presumed that the student teachers are influenced more by cooperating teachers. Karmos and Jacko (1977), Seperson and Joyce (1973), and Zeichner (1980) all concurred with this hypothesis. Cooperating Teachers Selection of Cooperating Teacher§ Yoder and Arms (1981) reported that the one consistent ingredient in teacher education programs is increased field experience. As a result of these increased field experiences, more public and private school teachers are being asked to supervise student teachers. The cooperating teacher has a major part in determining if the field experience will be positive and successful. Evidence also exists to support the views that student teaching is the most valued aspect of teacher education programs (Nosow, 1975; Appleberry, 1979) and that the cooperating teacher has great influence on the student teacher during the experience (Karmos and Jacko, 1977; Dispoto, 1980). However, the major criterion for the selection of cooperating teachers is their willingness to work with student teachers (Guyton, 1989; Grimmett and Ratzlaff, 1986). Grimmett and Ratzlaff, reviewing American and Canadian literature, concluded: 23 Two consistent findings across the studies in both countries are that the role of the cooperating teacher is poorly defined and that teachers generally are unprepared for the task of student teaching supervision. (p. 42) Applegate and Lasley (1982) studied the problems that cooperating teachers confront. Drawing on a sample of 172 cooperating teachers in ten different programs, they identified six major problems. Although the problems identified derive more from cooperating teachers’ expectations of the student teacher than from their execution of the supervisory rule, the most significant problem statement focused on the lack of clear goals and objectives for the student teaching experience. In 1982, only 12 states required a program on supervision and or certification for cooperating teachers (Haberman and Harris, 1982). Evidence exists that training cooperating teachers for their roles is effective. Classroom teachers with special training showed positive changes in cognitive development growth and active listening, use of different teaching models (Thies-Sprinthall, 1984) and increased self- knowledge, sense of autonomy, and self-direction (Thies-Sprinthall, 1986). These findings indicate the need to train cooperating teachers for their roles. Guyton (1989) states: Generally, cooperating teachers are poorly trained to handle the task of supervising field experience students. Supervision is a complex task different from teaching and even the best teacher may not be a good cooperating teacher (p. 55). 24 Because of the influence cooperating teachers have on student teachers, it is obvious that there is a great need for the training of cooperating teachers. Influence of the Cooperating Teacher In his 1978 review of literature, Zeichner concluded that practical experiences in schools are not necessarily beneficial. It cannot be taken for granted that more time spent in schools will automatically make better teachers. According to him, many studies do report that student teachers change thinking styles by the end of their experience. Zeichner states: Probably the most clear and consistent finding from the research is that the cooperating teacher has a tremendous impact on the attitudes and behaviors of student teachers, an effect which in some cases is not desirable. On the other hand, the university supervisor seems to have little or no effect. (p. 59) In 1967, Yee measured the attitudes of 124 student teachers and their 124 cooperating teachers and college supervisors with a modified version of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI). Yee agreed with Zeichner’s (1978) findings that the ”cooperating teacher more often exerted the predominant influence over student teacher attitudes." Traditionally, a student teacher is supervised by a cooperating teacher and university supervisor. Within this triad, the student teacher usually is responsible to both the cooperating teacher and the university supervisor. Yee (1967) reported that this situation can often lead to a certain element of tension, as the cooperating teacher 25 and university may influence the behavior and attitudes of the student teacher differently. McIntyre and Morris (1980) found that much of the research on the student teaching triad examines the cooperating teacher’s influence on the student teacher. According to Karmos and Jacko (1977 ), student teachers view their cooperating teachers as having the most significant influence on their student teaching experience. This influence includes both attitudes and behavior. Johnson (1969) found that the attitudes of student teachers merged toward those of their cooperating teachers as the student teaching experience progressed. Zeichner (1979) suggested that this merging of student teacher attitudes toward those of the cooperating teachers is a general phenomenon. In another study, Funk and Long (1982) conducted research that was designed to examine who is the most "significant other" for the student teacher. The data gathering instrument in this study was a questionnaire divided into two parts: (a) A listing of seven persons to be ranked from most significant to least significant, and (b) a semantic differential of 27 bipolar adjective pairs to be rated on a seven point differential scale. One hundred eighty-five Florida State University student teachers representing twenty different subject areas of teacher preparation were the subjects for this study. Results from the questionnaire were similar to the findings of Karmos and Jacko (1977). Student teachers overwhelmingly named the cooperating teacher as their most significant other. Of the 185 subjects, 130 or 70% ranked the cooperating teacher first. The second place ranking for most significant other was most frequently a peer or 26 relative. University personnel were seldom selected as having significant other status. Other studies examine the cooperating teacher’s influence on the student teacher’s actual teaching performance and behavior. A study by Zevin (cited in McIntyre and Morris, 1980, p. 194) concluded that student teachers make significant movement toward the teaching model displayed by their cooperating teacher. Seperson and Joyce (1973) also provided evidence that student teachers adopt the teaching style of their cooperating teacher. Seperson and Joyce (1973) conducted research on the question of teaching styles of student teachers, as related to those of their cooperating teachers. The 19 subjects in this study were teacher candidates in the preservice teacher education program at Teachers College, Columbia University. Samples of the candidates’ teaching behavior were tape recorded, and the tape recordings were coded according to the Conceptual Systems Manual. Samples of their teaching behavior were obtained prior to working with their cooperating teachers; one sample was taken early in the semester when they were with their cooperating teachers, one sample was taken halfway through the semester, and two more samples of behavior were obtained during the second semester. In addition, three samples of the cooperating teachers behavior were obtained during the semester. Seperson and Joyce then made correlations between the student teachers’ behavior at the pre- teaching level, the "early" student teaching level, and the "later" student teaching level with the recorded behaviors of the cooperating teachers. 27 With regard to related teaching styles, the correlations represented substantial evidence that the teaching behavior of the student teachers had moved from no or negative associations with the behavior of the cooperating teacher prior to student teaching, to a more significant relation in a number of dimensions by early in student teaching. This relationship was maintained throughout student teaching. This evidence supports the contention that the cooperating teacher substantially influences the behavior of the student teacher. A 1978 study by Boschee, Prescott, and Hein directly contradicts the findings in the previous study by Seperson and Joyce (1973). In the Boschee et a1. study, 50 student teachers were given the What is Your Eductional Philosophy? test during the week prior to student teaching and during the last week of the 12-week period. The cooperating teachers were administered the same test during the first two weeks of the student teaching semester. Boschee et al. found that the educational philosophy of a cooperating teacher does not significantly influence a student teacher assigned to him/her for 12 weeks of experience in the elementary or secondary school classroom. Results of this investigation are contradictory to the findings as noted in earlier studies (Yee, 1967; Seperson and Joyce, 1973). Emans (1983) studied the relationship between cooperating teachers and college supervisors. Often the university/college supervisor is also the music methods teacher. Emans concluded that a strong tendency exists for two members of a three member group to form a coalition and isolate the third member. Since the college supervisor is a member of the group for only a few hours a week while 28 the student teacher and the cooperating teacher are members for a much longer period of time, the college supervisor may be more likely to be isolated than either of the other two. As Zimpher, DeVoss 8: Nott (1980) describe the situation: Since our study showed that student teachers almost exclusively modeled the teaching of the cooperating teachers, criticism by the supervisor implied criticism of the teacher. Moreover, the limited number of observations that the university supervisor was able to make during the experience gave the student teachers and cooperating teachers grounds for doubting the validity of the supervisor’s criticism. (p. 13) The culminating effect of this triadic arrangement seems to be that college supervisors have little real influence on the student teacher and may possibly be a disruptive force in the student’s progress in learning (Lipton 8: Lesser, 1978). Influence of Field-Based Experience A group of studies have employed field study methodologies to examine the development of teaching perspectives during field based experiences. These studies (Hibson, 1976; Tabachnick, 1980; Tabachnick et al., 1980) have provided fairly consistent data about the impact of field-based experiences on the teaching perspectives of student teachers. These studies indicate that field-based experiences contribute to the development of utilitarian teaching perspectives. Zeichner (1980) states that during field experience, students spend 29 a great deal of time trying to get the class through the required lesson on time in a quiet and orderly manner. This becomes the major criterion for accepting or rejecting a teaching activity. If a technique or teaching activity solves the immediate problem at hand in a quiet and orderly manner, it is evaluated as good for that reason alone. Within this perspective, technique becomes an end in itself rather than a means towards some educational purpose. Thoughtful and reflective teaching gives way to conservative and utilitarian teaching. Institutional structures of teacher education becomes coercive with the students passively conforming to the conservative norms of school bureaucracies. According to this view, the more time that students spend in the field, the more conservative and rigid they become (Zeichner, 1980). Tabachnick (1980) engaged in research that examined changing teaching perspectives during field experience. Forty-four intern teachers, working with low socio-economic status children, were observed and interviewed during the early part of their intern experience, and again near the end of their experience. All interns were observed in classrooms or working with children either teaching, assisting teachers, or in periods other than regular class times such as directing a play. All interviews were transcribed from tapes while observations were recorded in observation logs. This study showed that after the intern experience, the students found reasons to accept teaching behavior previously thought to be ineffective or inappropriate. At the beginning of the field experience, the interns thought they could offer the low-income children a opportunity to become educated, so that they could enjoy a wider choice 30 of life chances. They also expected to change teachers and teaching for the better. By the end of the experience, interns justified teaching acts similar to ones they had found inappropriate before. Some interns allied themselves with teachers. More commonly, interns spoke about rejecting punitive and inflexible teaching, but at the same time they used such techniques in classrooms. Roy and Rees (1977 ) investigated the bureaucratic socialization of student teachers. Roy and Rees stated: Bureaucratic organizations attempt to mold role ideology and role performance of personnel through a variety of procedures and mechanisms designed to make individual beliefs, values, and norms correspond with those of the organization. This process is sometimes referred to as bureaucratic socialization, the organization’s attempt to induce consensus between newcomers and the rest of the organization. It seems reasonable to expect that as student teachers begin to teach in secondary schools they will begin to encounter the pressures of bureaucratic socialization. (p. 23) Data were collected from a sample of 112 secondary college seniors from a New Jersey state college as they assembled for an orientation meeting just prior to the beginning of their student teaching. The test instruments used included the Work Environment Preference Schedule, Pupil Control Ideology, and the Bplxgclis Dogmatism Scale. Immediately after the nine-week student teaching experience in secondary schools throughout New Jersey, the respondents were contacted by mail and r e<.1.uested to return a follow-up of tests identical to the first group. 31 Results from this study showed student teachers had a significantly more bureaucratic orientation after student teaching. Apparently, the school bureaucracy quickly begins to impress upon student teachers the value of conformity, impersonality, tradition, subordination, and bureaucratic loyalty. Hoy and Rees concluded that regardless of all the talk of change and innovation which often occurs in professional education courses, it seems that secondary schools in general begin almost immediately to mold new teachers into roles devised to maintain stability. In a similar study, Dispoto (1980) investigated affective changes associated with student teaching. Fifty-five student teachers were asked to complete four attitude test instruments. The test instruments were: The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. Hogan Empathy Sca_l§, Short—Form Dogmatism Scale and the Defining Issues Test. The student teachers all showed very similar attitude changes during the course of the semester. Attitudes toward children and school work definitely became less favorable, open-mindedness and empathy tended to decrease, and conventional attitudes tended to increase. Dispoto concluded that the student teaching experience was associated with undesirable changes in attitudes. Teacher Thinking Research has suggested that specific classroom teaching procedures are related to personality variables held by the teacher. In a review of literature, Clark and Lampert (1986) described how the research on teacher thinking has "broadened the knowledge base of 32 teaching, particularly with respect to the complexity of teaching, our understanding of what teachers know, and our knowledge of methods of inquiry and reflection on teacher thinking." The value of this research for teacher education programs is that it provides insights into the mental processes of teachers, giving student teachers another view of the teaching process. Walters and Stivers (1977) found that the level of the teacher’s psychological development was an accurate predictor of teacher effectiveness. After testing a large sample of preservice teachers (N=319) using the Erickson Sysjem of Identity Formation, the authors concluded that the level of psychological development was the best predictor of effective classroom teaching. In regard to student teacher supervision, Thies-Sprinthall (1980) found a significant relationship between the quality of supervision and psychological development. The sample group consisted of 29 pairs of student teachers and their cooperating supervisors. The study examined student teachers and their classroom supervisors. The goal was to examine aspects of supervision which may relate to effective versus ineffective performance. Thies-Sprinthall found that supervisors who were at the modest levels of psychological development may mis- perceive or misunderstand the teaching performance of more developmentally advanced student teachers. Sprinthall and Thies-Sprinthall (1983) found that teachers react according to their psychological maturity. Teachers’ behaviors consistently associated with high cognitive development are described as flexible, responsive, adaptable and empathic. Such teachers use a wide 33 variety of teaching models in the classroom and employ different teaching strategies according to pupil needs. The teaching ability of such teachers measures up to the critical requirement for cooperating teachers as described by Copas (1984). The ability of the cooperating teacher to fulfill his/her supervisory responsibilities may be influenced by personality variables held by that teacher. Myers, Kennedy, and Cruickshank (1979) investigated the relationship between selected teacher personality variables and the self-reported problems experienced by teachers. Ih_e_ Teacher Problemg Checklist and Edwards Personality Inventory were administered to 451 teachers. This study identified eight relationships between personality traits and problems reported by teachers. For example, some teachers had an observed linkage between personalities needing high acceptance and certainty with expressed discipline and time management concerns. Therefore, cooperating teachers who had undesirable personality variables brought certain teacher problems into the student teachers’ classroom. Webb (1971) studied the concept of teacher thinking styles as perhaps the most significant variable in the classroom. The sample consisted of 91 eighth-grade students who were put into three groups identified as being either insecure, having school problems, and problem free. The teachers were rated as either sensitive or less sensitive. The test instruments used included The Mooney Problems Checklist and The Student Attitude Test, developed specifically for this study. The findings from the research indicate that a relationship does exist between the students groups and the teacher’s thinking style. Students 34 who were classified as having school problems were more affected in educationally negative ways by less sensitive teachers. Murray (1972) conducted research on the effect of the teacher’s level of self-actualization on his/her students’ perception of expressed concern. The test instruments used were Shostrom’§ Personal Orientation Inventory to measure self-actualization and Rats Student Estimate of Teacher Concern which measures students’ perceptions of teachers. Murray concluded that "students perceive self-actualizing teachers as more concerned than non-self—actualizing teachers." Murray states: Teachers who will make the most significant difference must be more than competent technicians; they must also be people who know something about themselves and others, who possess interpersonal competencies as well as pedagogical skills. In addition to helping student teachers develop particular teaching strategies, we are charged also with the responsibility for assisting them in learning to use themselves effectively. (p. 386) The dogmatic teacher is often characterized as being closeminded, intolerant and arrogant. Some researchers feel that the dogmatism of prospective teachers should be a serious consideration of all educators (Shaver et al., 1974). Weaver and Segrest (1985) investigated interns in secondary education, physical education, and vocational education, and the levels of dogmatism of their supervising teachers. The change in the level of dogmatism among interns during the internship was also investigated. The authors concluded that the majority of interns change 35 very little in dogmatism during a one-quarter internship. They do suggest that a study covering the first year of teaching, or a year-long internship might serve as a more reliable measure. Thomas and Carroll (1985) conducted research on the reasons students seek to enter the teaching profession and to assess personalities of these prospective teachers. This project tested 548 students using the Teacher Motivation Opestionnaire and the California F-Scale. The research findings indicated higher levels of authoritarianism in prospective teachers in the under-25 and over-35 age groups. Potential secondary teachers were determined to be more authoritarian than either potential elementary or college teachers. Cleary (1987) studied the relationship of thinking styles between cooperating teachers and university supervisors. The Level 1: Life Styles Inventory was administered to 31 Ball State student teacher supervisors and 122 cooperating teachers. The test instrument contains 240 words and short phrases related to attitudes, behavior, needs, values, and view of oneself in relation to others. To produce thinking- style profiles of cooperating teachers and university supervisors, twelve thinking styles were measured: Humanistic-Helpful, Affiliative, Approval, Conventional, Dependence, Avoidance, Oppositional, Power, Competitive, Perfectionistic, Achievement and Self-Actualization. The test was analyzed with a one-way analysis of variance to determine if significant differences in thinking existed. A multivariate one-way analysis of variance was used to obtain information on whether the two groups differed collectively. 36 The significant findings from this research indicate that cooperating teachers exhibit more conventional and dependent thinking than university supervisors. Cleary states: A conventional and dependent thinking style would also indicate that cooperating teachers feel a greater need to comply with the wishes of authority figures and are less likely to take risks or be creative. If the student teaching experience is to include significant work on curricular innovations and experimentation, the use of such people is questionable. Teacher education institutions thus appear to defeat some of their own purposes. In 21) Cleary suggests that cooperating teachers be screened before and during supervisory assignments to ensure that the student teacher receives effective supervision. The Level 1: Life Stylefis Inventory or comparable test instruments could be used to screen cooperating teachers. Summary The cited literature revealed that most teacher educators agree that the student teaching experience is an important part of teacher education programs. The continuous exploration of new teaching possibilities has been identified as a necessary component to successful teaching. Conservative and dogmatic teaching styles are of concern to teacher educators. Researchers have suggested that cooperating teachers can have a greater influence on the student teacher than undergraduate 37 preparation programs, yet a current concern in teacher education is teacher training courses. Therefore, the selection of cooperating teachers should be based on experience and ability instead of availability. The literature is generally supportive of the notion that relationships do exist between teaching effectiveness and thinking styles of classroom teachers. Relationships also exist between supervisory practices and the belief system of the cooperating teacher. Based on the literature search in student teaching, no research has been conducted to determine the relationship between cooperating teachers and university methods teachers. Furthermore, research on student teaching in music has not been prevalent. The conclusions generated by this research will attempt to address several of the key questions regarding these issues. Chapter III Procedures For The Study Introduction The primary purpose of this study is to investigate the thinking styles of music cooperating teachers and university music methods instructors in the state of Michigan. This chapter will contain a discussion of the selection and characteristics of the population, instrument selection, procedures for implementation of the study, and the data analysis techniques. Description of Population The general population of interest for this study includes: (a) music methods teachers from universities and colleges with an undergraduate music education certification program in the state of Michigan, and (b) experienced music cooperating teachers in the state of Michigan. To represent the general population of Michigan cooperating music teachers, only teachers who have supervised student teachers at least twice during the past five years were invited to participate. This study population of music educators was open to all grade levels in the areas of secondary, middle school/junior high, vocal, band, orchestra, elementary general, and a combination of music levels. All university music methods instructors in the state of Michigan were hoped to be invited to participate in the study. The total pool of universities and colleges contacted were 27. The target population for this study was 40 university music methods teachers and 60 music cooperating teachers. 38 39 Instrumentation One test instrument and one demographic data survey were used in this study to obtain the necessary data. To measure cooperating music teachers and university music methods instructors’ thinking styles, the Level 1: Life Styles Inventory was used. The Level 1: Life Styles Inventory and demographic data survey were self-administered by both cooperating music teachers and university music methods instructors. The Level 1: Life Styles Inventory contains 240 word and short phrases related to attitudes, behavior, needs, values, and view of oneself in relation to others (See Appendix A). The test was developed by J. Clayton Lafferty at the Human Synergistics Inc. in Plymouth, Michigan. Level 1 is a self-administered and self-scoring instrument which generates data that can be interpreted by respondents either independently or with the assistance of a consultant. The instrument has been administered on a system-wide basis in various types of organizations (e.g., business firms, schools, banks, and police departments) and to respondents in a variety of different roles (e.g., key executives, middle managers, engineers, teachers, salespersons, and students). It has been used as a tool for diagnosing organizations and has provided the base for various types of change efforts, including programs to improve problem solving, leadership styles, and stress management (Cooke and Lafferty, 1981). Each respondent is asked to use one of three responses for each word or short phrase. The three responses to choose from are: (a) a "2" if the word or phrase is like you most of the time, (b) a "1" if the 40 word or phrase is like you quite often, and (c) a "0" if the word or phrase is essentially unlike you. Responses to the 240 words and short phrases are tabulated to produce a score for 12 different thinking styles. The 12 thinking styles are: (a) Humanistic-Helpful, (b) Affiliative, (0) Approval, (d) Conventional, (e) Dependence, (f) Avoidance, (g) Oppositional, (h) Power, (i) Competitive, (j) Perfectionistic, (k) Achievement, and (l) Self—Actualizing. Each of the thinking styles is measured by 20 items from the Life Styles Inventory. The responses assigned to the 20 items are summed to derive the respondent’s score for each thinking style. The higher the score, the greater the respondent’s orientation toward a particular thinking style (Cooke and Rousseay, 1983). In 1980, Elmers and Lafferty conducted a study to test the reliability of the Life Styles Inventory (Forsythe, 1988). The results indicated a very high level of reliability. The reliabilities of the Life Styles Test were also reported as acceptable by Cooke and Lafferty (1981) and Johns (1989). Validity tests were assessed on the Life Styles Inventory on three different occasions by: (a) Lafferty and Cooke in 1981, (b) Lafferty, Long, Morris and Horian in 1981, and (c) Cooke and Rousseau in 1983 (Forsythe, 1988). All three tests summarized that the Level 1: Life Styleg Inventory is a valid instrument for measuring thinking styles. The study population was given a demographic data survey along with the Life Style§ Inventory. Demographic variables such as age, sex, years of public school teaching experience, years of university teaching 41 experience, and any participation in supervisory classes or seminars were obtained (See Appendix A). Administration Procedures A letter (Appendix B) was sent to all university/college education Chairpersons in the state of Michigan requesting names of their music methods instructors and cooperating teachers. Only cooperating teachers who have supervised at least two student teachers during the past five years were requested. The Level 1: Life Styles Inventory and the demographic survey were mailed to each of the university music methods instructors and cooperating music teachers identified by the university/college music education Chairpersons. The test and survey were accompanied by a cover letter (Appendix C) providing subjects with the purpose and need for the study and directions for completing the questionnaire. The letter was endorsed by Dr. Robert Erbes, Chairperson of Music Education area, Michigan State University, and the researcher. Data Analysis Procedures Hypotheses The following hypotheses, stated in null form, were examined during this study: Hypothesis 1 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientations toward a humanistic-helpful thinking style. 42 Hypothesis 2 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward an affiliative thinking style. Hypothesis 3 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward an approval thinking style. Hypothepis 4 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a conventional thinking style. Hypothesis 5 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a dependent thinking style. Hypothesis 6 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward an avoidance thinking style. Hypothesis 7 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a oppositional style. 43 Hypothesis 8 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a power thinking style. Hypothesis 9 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a competitive thinking style. Hypothesis 10 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a perfectionistic thinking style. Hypothesis 11 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward an achievement thinking style. Hypothesis 12 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a self-actualization thinking style. Data Analys_i_§ Procedure To examine the twelve hypotheses in this study, a One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used. The one-way ANOVA involves the analysis of each independent thinking style with the two sample groups (music methods instructors and cooperating music teachers). The ANOVA determined if the variation among the two sample 44 groups on each thinking style were significantly greater than the variation we would expect to see given the amount of variations within the groups. The ANOVA produced an E—Statistic to calculate significance, using the .05 level of probability. In addition to using the one-way ANOVA, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to calculate significant differences collectively. The MANOVA indicated whether or not significant differences exist between the two sample group’s means on all twelve thinking styles considered collectively. Again, the .05 level of probability was used. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA The general population for this study included: (a) univeristy and college music methods instructors from institutions that offer an undergraduate music education certification program in the state of Michigan, and (b) experienced music cooperating teachers in the state of Michigan. Only cooperating teachers who have supervised student teachers at least twice during the past five years were invited to participate. One hundred twenty music educators from the state of Michigan, or 66.00 percent of the sample population, responded to the Level 1: Life Styles Inventory and the demographic data questionnaire. Seventy- six cooperating teachers, or 63.00 percent responded, and forty-four university methods teachers, or 71.00 percent responded. Of the 76 cooperating teachers that responded, 27 were female and 49 were male. Of the 43 university methods teachers that responded to the demographic data survey, 13 were female and 30 were male (Please note that one university methods teacher did not return the demographic data survey). For the purposes of this study, it was determined that the size of the return was sufficiently large enough for all planned statistical procedures. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample The subjects in this research project have been asked to respond to several demographic items. These items were used as indicators of sample characteristics. Table 1 shows the age of the sample population. 45 46 Table 1 Age of Sample Population Cooperating Teachers University Teachers Age N Percentile N Percentile 21 - 25 0 0 0 O 26 - 30 1 1 0 0 31 - 40 31 41 14 33 41 - 50 33 43 15 35 51 - 60 11 14 10 23 61 and over 0 0 4 9 47 Table 2 presents the level of education that the cooperating teacher and university methods teachers have completed. Table 2 Level of Education Completed for Sample Population Cooperating Teachers University Teachers Education N Percentage N Percentage Bachelor’s Degree 17 22 0 0 Master’s Degree 57 75 21 49 Specialist Degree 1 1 O 0 Doctorate Degree 1 1 22 51 48 Table 3 presents the mean, median, minimum, and maximum number of years cooperating teachers and university methods teachers have taught in the public schools. Table 3 Years Taught in the Public Schools Variable N Mean Median Min Max Cooperating 76 18.303 18.000 5 34 University 43 8. 195 7.000 0 25 Table 4 presents the mean, median, minimum, and maximum number of years that cooperating teachers and university methods teachers have taught at the university level. Table 4 Years Taught at the University Level Variable N Mean Median Min Max Cooperating 76 0. 592 0.000 0 13 University 43 14.02 10.000 1 34 49 For more information on demographic data for cooperating teachers, see Appendix E. Scoring the Thinking Style Scaleg Each of the twelve thinking styles are measured by 20 words or short phrases from the Life Styles Inventory. A three-response format is used for each of the words or phrases. The responses are as follows: (a) a "2" is placed by each word or phrase which is like the respondent most of the time, (b) a "1" is placed by each word or phrase which is like the respondent quite often, and (c) a "0" is placed by each word of phrase which is essentially unlike the respondent. The responses assigned to the 20 items are summed to derive the respondent’s score for each thinking style. The higher the score, the greater the respondent’s orientation toward a particular thinking style. It should be noted that the scales to measure the scores have been adjusted to represent how the general population actually sees themselves. For example, a score of 30 on the Affiliative scale is in the 50th percentile, compared to a score of 9 on the Power scale which is also in the 50th percentile. The percentile score allows the researcher to score each thinking style against those of 9,207 other individuals (Lafferty, 1989). 50 ANALYSIS OF DATA Table 5 presents the summary of means, standard deviations, and medians of cooperating teachers and university methods teachers’ responses to the 12 thinking styles represented in the Level 1: Life m Inventory. See Appendix D for dotplot charts of each of the twelve thinking styles. Table 5 Analysis of 12 Thinking Styles Variable - Humanistic-Helpful N Mean St. Dev. Median Cooperating 76 32.486 4.804 34.000 University 44 32.864 4.825 34.000 Variable - Approval N Mean St. Dev. Median Cooperating 76 13.118 5.762 12.000 University 44 13.727 5. 128 13.5000 Variable - Dependent N Mean St. Dev. Median Cooperating 76 14.382 5.374 14.000 University 44 14.932 5.555 15.000 51 Variable - Oppositional N Mean St. Dev. Median Cooperating 76 6.039 4.485 4.500 University 44 5.500 3.825 4.500 Variable - Competitive N Mean St. Dev. Median Cooperating 76 10.895 5.093 11.000 University 44 8.500 4.370 7.500 Variable - Achievement N Mean St. Dev. Median Cooperating 76 31.776 5.837 32.500 University 44 31.318 5.273 32.000 Variable - Affiliative N Mean St. Dev. Median Cooperating 76 31.645 6.341 33.000 University 44 31.432 6.421 33.000 Variable - Conventional N Mean St. Dev. Median Cooperating 76 14.066 4.954 13.000 University 44 14.386 4.510 14.000 52 Variable - Avoidance N Mean St. Dev. Median Cooperating 76 5.355 4.885 4.000 University 44 4.545 3.481 3.500 Variable - Power N Mean St. Dev. Median Cooperating 76 6.092 4.814 5.000 University 44 3.568 3.022 2.500 Variable - Perfectionistic N Mean St. Dev. Median Cooperating 76 18.632 5.174 19.000 University 44 16.955 5.274 16.000 Variable - Self-Actualizing N Mean St. Dev. Median Cooperating 76 29.553 6.430 30.500 University 44 29.000 5.51 1 29.000 Mean scores show that the university/college methods teachers and cooperating teachers gave essentially equal responses to the following thinking styles: Humanistic-Helpful, Approval, Dependent, Oppositional, Achievement, Affiliative, Conventional, Avoidance, and Self- Actualizing. Cooperating teachers showed considerably stronger preferences for Competitive, Power, and Perfectionistic thinking styles. 53 Table 6 presents the means, percentile scores, minimum scores, and maximum scores for the twelve thinking styles of the sample population. Table 6 MeansL Percentile Scores, Minimum Scores, and Maximum Scoresrfor Thinking Styles Variable - Humanistic-Helpful Mean Percentile Min. Max. Cooperating 32.487 66 18 39 University 32.864 68 19 40 Variable - Approval Mean Percentile Min. Max. Cooperating 13. 1 18 51 4 30 University 13.727 55 4 22 Variable - Dependent Mean Percentile Min. Max. Cooperating 14.382 46 5 29 University 14.932 50 5 27 CI U1 54 Variable - Oppositional Mean Percentile Min. Max. Cooperating 6.039 42 0 20 University 5.500 37 0 16 Variable - Competitive Mean Percentile Min. Max. Cooperating 10.895 41 2 23 University 8. 500 3 1 0 19 Variable — Achievement Mean Percentile Min. Max. Cooperating 31.776 55 17 40 University 31.318 52 19 40 Variable - Affiliative Mean Percentile Min. Max. Cooperating 31.645 58 12 40 University 31.432 57 17 40 Variable - Conventional Mean Percentile Min. Max. Cooperating 14.066 50 5 28 University 14.386 53 5 23 Cooperating University Mean 5.355 4.545 55 Variable - Avoidance Percentile Min. 52 O 46 0 Max. 21 15 Cooperating University Mean 6.092 3.568 Variable - Power Percentile Min. 50 O 30 O Cooperating University Mean 18.632 16.955 Variable - Perfectionistic Percentile Min. 41 7 31 9 Max. 30 26 Cooperating University Mean 29.553 29.000 Variable - Self-Actualizing Percentile Min. 58 13 55 18 Max. 40 40 Percentiles of the 12 thinking styles indicate that university music methods teachers scored higher than cooperating teachers on only four thinking styles. The university music methods teachers showed slightly stronger preferences for Humanistic-Helpful, Approval, Dependent, and Conventional thinking styles. Cooperating teachers 56 scored higher than university methods teachers on the other eight thinking styles. The results of this study will now be presented in light of each hypothesis tested. One-way analysis of variance tests were conducted with group responses to individual thinking styles. The ANOVA test determines if the variation among the two sample groups on each thinking style is significantly greater than the variation we would expect to see given the amount of variations within the groups. The ANOVA test produces an E-Statistic to calculate significance, using the .05 level of probability. Hypothesis 1 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientations toward a humanistic - helpful thinking style. Based on the data, Hypothesis 1 is accepted. In Table 7, the one- way analysis of variance results reveals no statistically significant differences between cooperating music teachers and university music methods teachers. An E-probability of .680 was not found to be significant at the .05 level. 57 Table 7 ANOVA For Humanistic-Helpful Thinking Style Source df SS MS E Ratio E Between Groups 1 4.0 4.0 .17 .680 Within Groups 118 2732.2 23.2 TOTAL 119 2736.1 p < .05 Hypothesis 2 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward an affiliative thinking style. Based on the data presented, Hypothesis 2 is accepted. In Table 8, the one-way analysis of variance results reveals no statistically significant differences between cooperating music teachers and university music methods teachers. An E—probability of .860 was not found to be significant at the .05 level. Table 8 ANOVA For Affiliative ThinkingyStyle Source df SS MS E Ratio E Between Groups 1 1.3 1.3 .03 .860 Within Groups 118 4788.2 40.6 TOTAL 119 4789.5 p<.05 58 Hypothesis 3 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward an approval thinking style. Based on the data presented, Hypothesis 3 is accepted. In Table 9, the one-way analysis of variance results reveals no statistically significant differences between cooperating music teachers and university music methods teachers. An E-probability of .563 was not found to be significant at the .05 level. Table 9 ANOVA For Approval Thinking Style Source df SS MS E Ratio E Between Groups 1 10.3 10.3 .34 .563 Within Groups 118 3620.7 30.7 TOTAL 119 3631.0 2 < .05 Hypothesis 4 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a conventional thinking style. Based on the data presented, Hypothesis 4 is accepted. In Table 10, the one-way analysis of variance results reveals no statistically 59 significant differences between cooperating music teachers and university music methods teachers. An E—probability of .725 was not found to be significant at the .05 level. Table 10 ANOVA For Conventional Thinking Style Source df SS MS E Ratio E Between Groups 1 2.9 2.9 .12 .725 Within Groups 118 2715.1 23.0 TOTAL 119 2718.0 p < .05 Hypothesis 5 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a dependent thinking style. Based on the data presented, Hypothesis 5 is accepted. In Table 11, the one-way analysis of variance results reveals no statistically significant differences between cooperating music teachers and university music methods teachers. An E—probability of .594 was not found to be significant at the .05 level. 60 Table 1 1 ANOVA For Dependent Thinking Style Source df SS MS E Ratio E Between Groups 1 8.4 8.4 .29 .594 Within Groups 118 3492.7 29.6 TOTAL 119 3501.2 p < .05 Hypothesis 6 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward an avoidance thinking style. Based on the data presented, Hypothesis 6 is accepted. In Table 12, the one-way analysis of variance results reveals no statistically significant differences between cooperating music teachers and university music methods teachers. An E-probability of .336 was not found to be significant at the .05 level. Table 12 ANOVA For Avoidance Thinking Style Source df SS MS E Ratio E Between Groups 1 18.3 18.3 .93 .336 Within Groups 118 2310.3 19.6 TOTAL 119 2328.6 p<.05 61 Hypothesis 7 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a oppositional thinking style. Based on the data presented, Hypothesis 7 is accepted. In Table 13, the one-way analysis of variance results reveals no statistically significant differences between cooperating music teachers and university music methods teachers. An E-probability of .505 was not found to be significant at the .05 level. Table 13 ANOVA For Oppositional Thinking Style Source df SS MS E Ratio E Between Groups 1 8.1 8.1 .45 .505 Within Groups 118 2137.9 18.1 TOTAL 119 2146.0 p < .05 Hypothesis 8 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a power thinking style. Based on the data presented, Hypothesis 8 is rejected. In Table 14, the one-way analysis of variance results reveals statistically significant differences between cooperating music teachers and fifv ‘C‘Afl l" m'll‘ 1- a. 62 university music methods teachers. An E-probability of .002 was found to be significant at the .05 level. Table 14 ANOVA For Power Thinking Style I Source df SS MS E Ratio E 1 Between Groups 1 177.5 177.5 9.83 .002 . Within Groups 118 2131.2 18.1 TOTAL 119 2308.7 p < .05 Hypothesis 9 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a competitive thinking style. Based on the data presented, Hypothesis 9 is rejected. In Table 15, the one-way analysis of variance results reveals statistically significant differences between cooperating music teachers and university music methods teachers. An E-probability of .010 was found to be significant at the .05 level. 63 Table 15 ANOVA For Competitive Thinking Style Source df SS MS E Ratio E Between Groups 1 159.8 159.8 6.82 .010 Within Groups 118 2766.2 23.4 TOTAL 119 2926.0 p < .05 Hypothesis 10 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a perfectionistic thinking style. Based on the data presented, Hypothesis 10 is accepted. In Table 16, the one-way analysis of variance results reveals no statistically significant differences between cooperating music teachers and university music methods teachers. An E-probability of .092 was not found to be significant at the .05 level. Table 16 ANOVA For Perfectionistic Thinking Style Source df SS MS E Ratio E Between Groups 1 78.4 78.4 2.89 .092 Within Groups 118 3203.6 27.1 TOTAL 119 3282.0 p<.05 64 Hypothesis 11 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward an achievement thinking style. Based on the data presented, Hypothesis 11 is accepted. In Table 17, the one-way analysis of variance results reveals no statistically significant differences between cooperating music teachers and university music methods teachers. An E-probability of .669 was not found to be significant at the .05 level. Table 17 ANOVA For Achievment Thinking Style Source df SS MS F Ratio F Between Groups 1 5.8 5.8 0.18 .669 Within Groups 118 3750.7 31.8 TOTAL 119 3756.6 p < .05 Hypothesis 12 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a self-actualization thinking style. Based on the data presented, Hypothesis 12 is accepted. In Table 18, the one-way analysis of variance results reveals no statistically significant differences between cooperating music teachers and 65 university music methods teachers. An E-probability of .634 was not found to be significant at the .05 level. Table 18 ANOVA For Self-Actualizing Thinking Style Source df SS MS E Ratio E Between Groups 1 8.5 8.5 0.23 .634 Within Groups 118 4406.8 37.3 TOTAL 119 4415.3 p<.05 66 The analysis of variance for each of the 12 research hypotheses is summarized in Table 19. Table 19 Summary of Results from One Way ANOVA Tests Variable 88 MS F Ratio F Humanistic-Helpful 4.0 4.0 0.17 .680 Affiliative 1.3 1.3 0.03 .860 Approval 10.3 10.3 0.34 .563 Conventional 2.9 2.9 O. 12 .725 Dependent 8.4 8.4 0.29 .594 Avoidance 18.3 18.3 0.93 .336 Oppositional 8. 1 8. l 0.45 .505 Power 177.5 177.5 9.83 .002 Competitive 159.8 159.8 6.82 .010 Perfectionistic 78.4 78.4 2.89 .092 Achievement 5.8 5.8 0. 18 .669 Self-Actualization 8.5 8.5 0.23 .634 p<.05 The results of Pillais, Hotellings, Wilks, and Roys multivariate analysis of variance tests (MANOVA) are presented in Table 20. The MANOVA indicates whether or not significant differences exist between .wvww 67 the two sample groups’ means on all twelve thinking styles considered collectively. Again, the .05 level of probability was used. Table 20 MANOVA Testflesults Test Name Value Approx. E Hypth. DF Error DF E Pillais .13647 1.40922 12.00 107.00 .173 Hotellings .15801 1.40922 12.00 107.00 .173 Wilks .86353 1.40922 12.00 107.00 .173 Roys .13647 p < .05 Table 20 indicates that no significant differences exist between cooperating music teachers and university music methods teachers group’s means on all twelve thinking styles when considered collectively. Summary The data from the Level 1: Life Styles Test was used in testing the 12 hypotheses set forth in this study. ANOVA techniques were used to calculate an E—Statistic on each independent thinking style. ANOVA results showed that significant difference exist between cooperating music teachers and university music teachers in the variables of power and competitive thinking styles. Thus, Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12 were accepted. Hypotheses 8 and 9 were rejected. 68 Multivariate analysis of variance tests were conducted to investigate whether there was a difference between cooperating music teachers and university methods teachers on the twelve thinking styles considered collectively. Analysis of total group responses using Pillais, Hotellings, Wilks, and Boys MANOVA tests did not result in identification of significant differences between the two sample groups. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION Summary The purposes of this study were to compare the thinking styles of a selected sample group of cooperating music teachers and university music methods teachers and to denote any differences between thinking styles. Data was collected and analyzed to answer the following questions. 1) To what extent are the thinking styles of cooperating music teachers and university music methods teachers oriented toward: A. a humanistic-helpful thinking style? B. an affiliative thinking style? C. an approval thinking style? D. a conventional thinking style? E. a dependent thinking style? F. an avoidance thinking style? G. an oppositional thinking style? H. a power thinking style? I. a competition thinking style? J. a perfectionistic thinking style? K. an achievement thinking style? L. a self-actualizing thinking style? 2) Are there significant differences between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding the above 12 thinking styles? 69 7O Authorities in the field of education state that teachers’ thinking styles are an important variable in classroom teaching. Thinking styles are viewed as a combination of values, leading to attitudes and thus, to behaviors that have consequences for the individual’s perceptions of his/her relations to the environment (Lafferty, 1989). These factors contribute to self-concept - the intellectual, social, psychological, and physical image that people have of themselves. Thinking styles and self-concept are two components that determine behavior. If the student teaching experience is to be successful, then the thinking patterns, and their behavioral consequences, should be somewhat similar between university methods teachers and cooperating teachers. Similar thinking styles will help create a smooth transition between the university classroom and practical field experience. For this study, the population consisted of university and public school music educators in the state of Michigan. The sample population of 183 music educators was provided by university music education Chairpersons in the state of Michigan. A letter (Appendix B) was sent to all music education Chairpersons from universities and colleges with an undergraduate music education certification program in the state of Michigan, 27 in total. Of the 27 letters, 16, or 59% returned a list of their school’s music education methods teachers and experienced cooperating teachers. Only the names of cooperating teachers who have supervised at least two student teachers during the past five years were requested. The entire state of Michigan was well represented by the sample population. Cooperating teachers in both urban and rural 71 school districts from the upper and lower peninsula participated in this study. Two instruments were used to provide the necessary data. To measure thinking styles, the Level 1: Life Styles Inventory, developed by Lafferty (1980), was used. To gather demographic information, a demographic data survey was developed. The Life Styles Inventory measures twelve different thinking styles: Humanistic—Helpful, Affiliative, Approval, Conventional, Dependence, Avoidance, Oppositional, Power, Competitive, Perfectionistic, Achievement, and Self-Actualizing. These twelve styles were identified partly on the basis of Maslow’s (1954) research on human needs. Maslow’s distinction between lower-order and higher-order needs led to the identification of two general types of life styles - "security" and "satisfaction" styles. The security styles are Conventional, Dependence, Oppositional, Avoidance, and Power; the satisfaction styles are Humanistic-Helpful, Affiliative, Perfectionistic, Achievement, and Self-Actualizing. The remaining two styles - Approval and Competitive - are motivated by both lower—and higher-order needs and are oriented toward security as well as satisfaction (Cooke, 1981). These instruments and a supportive cover letter were mailed to each member of the sample population. One hundred twenty music educators responded. Therefore, 66% of the sample population was used in the study. The analysis of data included the use of the ANOVA technique to test for significant differences between university music methods teachers and cooperating music teachers. Hypotheses 1-12 were tested 72 by the one-way Analysis of Variance. Each hypothesis was tested for significance at the .05 level. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to determine whether or not significant differences exist between the two sample group’s means on all twelve thinking styles considered collectively. Again, the .05 level of significance was used. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and Minitab Data Analysis Software were used to analyze the data collected from this study. The data was analyzed on an IBM P82, model 55 computer. Findings In this study, 12 hypotheses, stated in null form, were examined. The hypotheses were: liypothesis 1 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientations toward a humanistic-helpful thinking style. Hypothesis 2 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward an affiliative thinking style. Hypothesis 3 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward an approval thinking style. 73 Hypothesis 4 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a conventional thinking style. Hypothesis 5 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a dependent thinking style. Hypothesis 6 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward an avoidance thinking style. Hypothesis 7 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a oppositional style. Hypothesis 8 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a power thinking style. Hypothesis 9 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a competitive thinking style. 74 Hypothesis 10 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a perfectionistic thinking style. Hypothesis 11 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward an achievement thinking style. Hypothesis 12 There is no significant difference between music cooperating teachers and university music methods teachers regarding orientation toward a self-actualization thinking style. ANOVA techniques resulted in E values which were not significant for 10 of 12 thinking styles. Thus, Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12 were accepted. Significant difference was found between cooperating music teachers and university music teachers in the variables of power and competitive thinking, therefore rejecting the related null hypotheses 8 and 9. No significant differences existed between university music methods teachers and cooperating music teachers on the twelve thinking styles scales considered collectively. Multivariate analysis of variance utilizing Pillais, Hotellings, Wilkes, and Boys methodologies did not result in significant differences between the two sample groups at the .05 level of significance. 75 Conclusions A premise for this study was that to improve the quality of the student teaching experience, this experience must be a continuation of university training instead of an assimilating agent. Yee (1969) concluded that the cooperating teacher and university faculty may influence the behavior and attitudes of the student teacher differently. Cooperating teachers and university faculty should have the same educational philosophy or at least have an understanding of each other’s philosophy to provide for a successful student teaching experience. In the literature review, I reported that a strong tendency exists for two members of a three member group to form a coalition and isolate the third member (Emans, 1983). The results reported in this study support findings that cooperating teachers have a greater tendency to isolate the university from the student teaching process. Data results indicate that cooperating teachers have a significantly greater power thinking style than university music methods teachers. Regarding the power thinking style, Lafferty (1989) stated: The Power scale measures our tendency to associate our self-worth with the degree to which we can control and dominate others. Individuals who seek power are motivated by a need to gain prestige, status and influence: they achieve false, temporary feelings of self-worth by striving to be "in charge" at all times. Power-seekers typically lack confidence in others, and believe that force, intimidation and coercion are necessary to get results. Power—oriented motives prevent the formation of 76 healthy relationships: in fact, those who consistently seek power tend to experience an increasing sense of alienation from others. The true sense of "power" that comes from knowing how to do the job, from being respected by others, and from getting results is not what is measured on this scale. Rather, the Power style is characterized by a need to control merely for its own sake, to establish feelings of self-importance. (p. 42) Cooperating teachers with a high power thinking style, and who feel threatened by the university, may dictate rather than guide the actions of the student teacher. A cooperating teacher who has a high power thinking style may feel that he/she is more knowledgeable than the university methods teacher. If the student teaching experience is to include work on curricular innovations and experimentation, the use of such narrow guidance is questionable. This type of supervision could only isolate the university from the student teaching process. The analysis of variance conducted on the competitive thinking style indicates statistical significant differences between university music methods teachers and cooperating music teachers. The significant relationship indicates that the cooperating teachers have a much greater competitive thinking style than university teachers. Regarding the competitive thinking style, Lafferety (1989) stated: The Competitive scale measures our need to establish a sense of self-worth through competing against and comparing ourselves to others. While it is largely encouraged and accepted as a measure of success, competitive behavior is not an effective predictor of achievement in business, sports, or life in general: 77 in fact, people who come out ahead in competitive situations focus on performance excellence, or the process of doing well, rather than on the end result of winning. (p. 47) Perhaps cooperating teachers who have a higher combined power and competitive thinking style may be preoccupied with being seen as superior to others. This preoccupation could inhibit the cooperating teacher from accepting alternative teaching techniques. Unfamiliar teaching techniques may be seen as a threat to the cooperating teacher’s unquestioned authority. This is of special concern since studies indicate that: (a) cooperating teachers have a large impact on the attitudes and behaviors of student teachers, and (b) field-based experiences contribute to the development of utilitarian teaching perspectives in the student teacher. A high competitive and power thinking style could contribute to this utilitarian teaching instead of more thoughtful and reflective teaching. The findings presented in this study indicate that the student teaching process requires modification. The student teacher will be better served if positive communication exists between the university and cooperating teacher. Cooperating teachers who feel threatened by the university and control all aspects of the student teaching process must be confronted. Perhaps screening of all cooperating teachers would help identify such teachers. Cooperating teachers who need to control the entire student teaching process can negatively effect student teachers’ learning. Results from this study suggests that a number of experienced Michigan cooperating teachers lack confidence in others and need to establish a 78 sense of self-worth through competing and comparing against others. The teachers maybe more inclined to be in charge of the student teaching process while ignoring methods and practices used at the university. It is the contention of this researcher that the results from this study are significant for the training of prospective music educators in the state of Michigan. Music cooperating teachers must become aware of the teaching methods taught at the university and avenues by which they can be incorporated into their supervisory practices. 0f the 76 cooperating teachers that responded, only 9 teachers (12%) stated that they had a class or seminar that focused on supervisory skills. With the cooperating teacher becoming more aware of the university, the university music methods teacher must develop an understanding of the teaching techniques, concerns, and needs of music cooperating teachers. This new awareness between university music educators and public school music teachers would open new lines of communication and improve the student teaching experience. To open new lines of communication, university/college music education departments must take the leadership role in organizing and implementing seminars for cooperating music teachers and university/college music methods instructors. These seminars should be mandatory for all music cooperating teachers. The focus of the seminar should be on open discussion of teaching techniques that are stressed in the music methods class and techniques used by the cooperating teacher. This type of seminar would assist the cooperating teacher to 79 feel less threatened by the university, thus creating a smooth transition between the university methods class and the field experience. Strategies for supervising student teachers must be incorporated into public schools through in-service training programs, workshops, or seminars sponsored by the university. It is very important that public school teachers and university/college faculty participate in these activities. Through these seminars the needs and concerns of the student teaching process can be addressed. The concerns for the student teaching process can be best summarized by statements made by The Michigan Education Association, Guyton (1984), and Applegate and Lasley (1982). The Michigan Education Association (MEA) has expressed concerns about the nature of student teaching in their 1993 Platform and Resolutions publication. The MBA recommends public schools develop guidelines for the qualifications and training of cooperating teachers and college coordinators of student teachers. They also support a reduced teaching load for cooperating teachers and the development of standards for schools receiving student teachers (MEA, 1992). Guyton (1989) suggests that cooperating teachers are poorly trained in supervisory practice. He states that even the best teacher may not be a good cooperating teacher. In 1982 Applegate and Lasley reported that one of the most significant problems that cooperating teachers face is the lack of clear goals and objectives for the student teaching experience. I conclude that these problems could be addressed and solved by involving both the higher education institutions and public schools in student teaching seminars or workshops. Supervisory classes or 80 seminars should be included in the process of screening, selecting, and preparing the public school music teacher to become a cooperating teacher. Through this process, student teachers will be better prepared to enter the profession of music education. Recommendations for Future Research The results from this study suggest the following recommendations: 1. Research efforts should be developed to replicate this study with populations of music educators from other states to determine and compare thinking styles. 2. Studies should be designed to establish experimental groups of cooperating music teachers who have been trained in supervisory practices and determine its effects. 3. Research efforts should focus upon clearly defining what type of music supervisory classes or seminars are being taught, or should be taught. 4. This study should be replicated with the same population with the inclusion of other teaching areas. This would focus on any differences between music educators and teachers in other areas of education. APPENDICES APPENDIX A LEVEL 1: LIFE STYLES INVENTORY AND DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX B COVER LETTER TO MUSIC EDUCATION AREA CHAIRPERSONS Life Styles Inventory‘” Pleasestarthereandwoncdowntheoolurnns. (Usepenoilorballpoint penzpress hard.) APPENDIX A Instructions - Corsidereadlwordorphraseseparately. . Beasopenandaoouateaborflyoursettaspossibte 0 Usea"2"'dthemdistlkoyoumostotthetinu. - Usea“t"ilthewordisflkeyouquiteoflen. e Usea“0°°iithewordisessenttatty untike you. ___Mnanistic __developsothers ___thin|sotothers _witlingtotaketimewithpeople __.thoughttul _makesothersthink __erioysteaching __seesothersasbasicallygood («themselves others _-moerstanding __supportivootothers _goodteaeher _enioyssettlingdspmes ____oonsiderate _poputarteader __tmstedbyothers __,soughtoutbyothersior __enoourages others __krms people's needs _good I'stener _req>ects oonfidenoes .__seelsapproval' Irorn needsothers‘epproval __._ _agreeswitheveryone HIorgives WW9. ___needsby tobelilned . Msynparheuc' vagiemdmoenah _ __msetlnotsooeptedbyothers everyone ' __..generoustoatautt ___spoitspeoplewith __dependeriontamily _doesdingsiorq:provdody Wrens andtnends __,_lriendyalthetune _over-optirnlstic __upsetbyoonftia magnum” it's ___.aooeptsothers° _'_umpsiobeliked _thinlsintennsot _naive vabeseasily mothersthink _____over-cautious _seIl-doubting _:easiy influenced by ___seys what's expected riends ,___verytactlul ___oompaant _reactsratherthan agoodiolower ____eagertoplease ___._easuy‘ tooled _prediclable. . ___doesthnngs‘ bythebook _modes _apologetic _veryr_especttdto _seelshelptrornothers supenors .__.dependentonothers _obeystoowilfingty _rneek __worriesalot ____resenttut __stubborn _oonoernedwith __doeen'teooeptcritioismwetl . status ._unteeling ___hard to impress ___critical at others _opposes things indirectly behindlheirbaols “negative ____suspicious __distmstsothers __neveropposesamhority direofly ____oomplaining _s|0vvtoiorgiveawrong __blamesotherstor ___snobbish . mmistakes ___proud.setl»sutflciem __triestobetoo _strongneedtowin _everythingisad\al|enge soooesstm ”Mummers _trieshardtoirnpross ___getsupsetover _overestimatesabilityl\ others losing ___boasttut _egotistical ___rnakessnap indinedtobereddess pdgmems __thinlsontyolsett ___Iikestobeseenand __expeotstobe atwayshastoberight . noticed admiredbyothers ___selt-assenive __builds self up __oon __tries to maintain a sense at selltoothers superiority __ ambitious high level 0! aspiration enjoys planning _ enjoys difficult tasks realistic achieving _.cnthusiastic thinks Ior sell ___Iikes tests that rque skill _eni0ys a challenge _..__seL<. own goals _honest and direct in (eel IngS usually thinls ahead _good analytic skills __._eams others' confidence. respect explores most alter- nativesL belore acting 81 teams Irorn mistakes. and corrects shares responsibility well __goes to the heart of the matter resultsoriented leader 82 __oooperaive .__lriendly _.ho|plu __pleasnm __'.dolomaac. new ._'nstm‘ned __too mned with looking 900d M _oonservative _vely conventional _bnse. uneasy __.sell«deprooiatiw __not aggressive __oasly W __ hols W __hard. W —_b°esv _._dominating __ vengeful and mean ___little confidence in people __hosti|e. aggressive __dictatorial __m suggestions made by __believes.in loroe _abrupt __seldom admits mistakes _believesinaction.nol __tendstobe __seem5lobedriventosucceed words perfectionistic __practical __tries hard to prove sell _de-ernphasizes leelings Mk9 __sternbutlair __doesn'tseemtoneedothers ‘__oonpetent _lohor;et‘:l direct, almost be inditterent V _otten seems unfriendly ._lool6 lor challenges __.pet's'rstent. enduring _ shrewd and calailative .____seeks recognition __.__respeded and well- energetic. active __ unique and indepen- wereative and original thinker "Mud dent in thought __sell-respecting _spontaneous __open about sell _communi‘cates ideas eaSlly __ optimistic and realistic ___good leader __,:ren§ws how people ___.not easily upset _.__likes responsibility _ _very alive kind of ' .____.sound guogrnent __ high personal lnk‘gllifl "earthy" person __oonlident. relaxed _____ very aware ol own _____nondelenswc exciting to know lcclings DEMOGRAPHIC DATA DIRECTIONS: Please check the appropriate response to the following questions and fill in the blanks where appropriate. 1. What is your sex? 2. What is your age? Male 21 - 25 Female 26 - 30 31 - 40 3. What level of education have you completed? 41 - 50 51 - 60 Bachelor's Degree 61 and over Master’s Degree Specialist Degree Doctorate Degree Other 4. How many years have you taught in the public schools? 5. How many years have you taught at the university level? Answer questions 6-9 only if you are a cooperating teacher. 6. What size is your total K—12 school system? _ 50,000 and over _ 3,000 - 3,499 _ 20,000 - 49,999 _ 2,500 - 2,999 __ 10,000 - 19,000 _ 2,000 - 2,499 _ 5,000 - 9,999 _ 1,500 - 1,999 _ 4,500 - 4,999 __ 1,000 - 1,499 _ 4,000 - 4,499 __ 500 - 999 _ 3,500 - 3,999 _ Below 500 7. Which levels do you teach? 8. What areas do you teach? _ Elementary _ Band __ Junior High/Middle School _ Orchestra/Strings _ High School _ General Music __ Choral _ Other Music Classes (theory, piano, etc.) __ Non-Music Classes 9. Have you taken any supervisory classes or seminars? If so, list them. __ Yes _ No Answer the following question only if you teach music methods. 10. List the type(s) of methods classes that you teach. 83 APPENDIX B September 14, 1992 Dear Colleague: I am a music education doctoral candidate at Michigan State University presently studying selected areas of thinking styles between university music methods instructors and public school music cooperating teachers. An important part of that research is determining how university music methods instructors and music cooperating teachers view themselves professionally and personally. It is hoped that the results from this study will provide music cooperating teachers and university music educators information for improving the student teaching process. This letter comes to you to ask for your help in obtaining the names of the music methods instructors at your institution and a list of music cooperating teachers that have supervised music student teachers from your school. The study population of music methods instructors and music cooperating teachers is open to all levels of instruction, including secondary, middle school/junior high, vocal, band, orchestra, and elementary general. Only submit the names of cooperating teachers who have supervised at least two student teachers during the past five years. I want to assure you that all results will be treated with strict confidence and all participants will remain anonymous. Your identity will not be used in any way in the dissertation or in any subsequent published materials. Please use the enclosed sheet to list the music methods instructors and music cooperating teachers. A self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience. I hope you will find it possible to respond within two weeks from the time received. If you have any questions regarding the study, please feel free to contact me at (517) 627-8995, or my major advisor, Dr. Robert Erbes, Department of Music Education, Michigan State University (517) 355-7658. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Robert T. Stroker Dr. Robert Erbes Ph.D. Candidate Area Chairman, Music Education 84 85 LIST OF MUSIC METHODS INSTRUCTORS AND MUSIC COOPERATING TEACHERS NAME OF UNIVERSITY OR COLLEGE 1. Please list all college or university music methods instructors who teach at your school. (include secondary vocal, instrumental, and general music instructors) 2. Please list all music cooperating teachers that have supervised student teachers at least twice during the past five years. Include the name of the school district with the teachers name. (include all grade levels in the areas of secondary, middle school, vocal, band, orchestra, elementary general, and a combination of music levels) Cooperating Tegcher School District APPENDIX C COVER LETTER TO COOPERATING TEACHERS AND UNIVERSITY METHODS TEACHERS 87 October 16, 1992 Dear Colleague: Many music educators are concerned and interested in improving the effectiveness of the student teaching process. A study of the relationship of thinking styles between university music methods instructors and music cooperating teachers may provide music educators with information for improving the student teaching process. My research focuses directly upon the relationship of selected areas of thinking styles between music cooperating teachers and university music methods instructors. The general population of interest for this study includes all university or college music methods teachers in the state of Michigan. This letter comes to you to ask for your help by completing and returning the enclosed Level 1: Life Styles Inventory, and a short demographics questionnaire. The Life Styles Inventory and questionnaire will only take 20 minutes to complete. All results will be treated with strict confidence and all participants will remain anonymous. Your identity will not be used in any way in the dissertation or in any subsequent published materials. If you would like a copy of the results of the final report, please return the enclosed form with this questionnaire. A self—addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience. I hope you will find it possible to respond within two weeks from the time received. If you have any questions regarding the Level 1: Life Styles Inventory, or questionnaire, please feel free to contact me at (517) 627- 8995, or my major advisor, Dr. Robert Erbes, Department of Music Education, Michigan State University (517) 355—7658. Thank you for taking the time to fill out these questionnaires. Sincerely, Robert T. Stroker Dr. Robert Erbes Ph.D. Candidate Area Chairman, Music Education I would like a copy of the results of this study. Name Address APPENDIX D DOTPLOT CHARTS FOR TWELVE THINKING STYLES APPENDIX D APPENDIX CHART D-1.--Dotplot for Humanistic-Helpful Thinking Style. T Cooperating 20.0 24.0 28.0 32.0 36.0 40.0 J. _L JL T T T T University 20.0 24.0 28.0 32.0 36.0 40.0 000000 ...... T Cooperating T T University 3.5 7.0 10.5 14.0 17.5 21.0 APPENDIX CHART D-3.--Dotplot for Dependent Thinking Style. 000000000000 000000000000 T T Cooperating 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 + . o 4+- +- + ~0- University 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 88 89 APPENDIX CHART D-4.--Dotplot for Oppositional Thinking Style. 12.0 9.0 ~0- T T Cooperating +- 16.0 20.0 +- i- T University 12.0 15.0 APPENDIX CHART D-5.--Dotplot for Competitive Thinking Style. d!- n 12.0 10.5 -li- Cooperating 16.0 20.0 24.0 T T University 90 APPENDIX CHART D-6.--Dotplot for Achievement Thinking Style. T T T T T T Cooperating 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 T T T T T T University 20.0 24.0 28.0 32.0 36.0 40.0 APPENDIX CHART D-7.-—Dotplot for Affiliative Thinking Style. T T T T Cooperating 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 ........ T T T T T T University 91 APPENDIX CHART D-8.-—Dotplot for Conventional Thinking Style. ..... T T T T T T Cooperating 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 T T T T T University 7.0 10.5 14.0 17.5 21.0 24.5 APPENDIX CHART D-9.--Dotplot for Avoidance Thinking Style. ** O. O. O. T T T T T Cooperating 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 T T T T T T University 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 92 APPENDIX CHART D—10.--Dotplot for Power Thinking Style. T T T T T T Cooperating 0 O 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25 0 T T T T T T University 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 APPENDIX CHART D-11.--—Dotplot for Perfectionistic Thinking Style. 0000000000000 T T T T T T Cooperating 5 0 10.0 15 0 20.0 25 0 3O 0 T T T T T University 10.5 14.0 17.5 21.0 24.5 28.0 APPENDIX CHART D-12.--Dotplot for Self-Actualizing Thinking Style. T T T T T T Cooperating 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 1 T T T T T University 20.0 24.0 28.0 32.0 36.0 40.0 APPENDIX E DEMOGRAPHIC DATA FOR COOPERATING TEACHERS APPENDIX E APPENDIX TABEL E-1.--Size of K-12 School Systems Size N Percentile 50,000 and over 2 2.89 20,000 - 49,999 5 7.24 10,000 - 19,000 3 4.34 5,000 - 9,999 13 18.84 4,500 - 4,999 7 10.14 4,000 - 4,499 5 7.24 3,500 - 3,999 4 5.79 3,000 - 3,499 6 8.69 2,500 - 2,999 6 8.69 2,000 - 2,499 9 13.04 1,500 - 1,999 3 4.34 1,000 - 1,499 3 4.34 500 - 999 3 4.34 Below 500 0 0.00 Note: Only 69 Cooperating Teachers, or 91% responded to this question. APPENDIX TABEL E-2.--Levels taught Level( 3) N Percentile Elementary 5 6.75 Junior High/Middle School 7 9.45 High School 16 21.62 Elementary/Junior High 5 6.75 Elementary/High School 2 2.70 Junior High/High School 25 33.78 Elementary/Junior High/High School 14 18.91 Note: Only 74 Cooperating Teachers, or 97% responded to this question. 93 94 APPENDIX TABLE E-3.--Areas Taught Area( 3) N Percentile Band 19 26.02 Orchestra/Strings 1 1.36 General Music 2 2.73 Choral 8 10.95 Band/Orchestra 8 10.95 General/Choral 11 15.06 Band/General 1 1.36 Band/Choral 3 4.10 Band/Non—Music Class 6 8.36 Band/General/Choral 2 2.73 Band/Other Music Classes 2 2.73 General/Other Music 1 1.36 General/Choral/Other Music 1 1.36 Band/Choral/Other Music/Non-Music 1 1.36 Band/Choral/Other Music 1 1.36 Choral/Other Music 3 4.10 Band/Choral/Non-Music 1 1.36 Band/General/Other Music/Non-Music 1 1.36 General/Non-Music 1 1.36 Note: Only 73 Cooperating teachers or 96% responded to this question. APPENDIX TABLE E-4.--Responses to "Have you taken any supervisory classes or seminars?" Response N Percentile Yes 9 12.32 No 64 87.67 Note: Only 73 Cooperating Teachers or 96% responded to this question. APPENDIX F THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS’ (UCRICHS) APPROVAL FOR TESTING APPENDIX F MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH EAST LANSING .0 MICHIGAN 0 4.814-1046 AND DEAN Of THE GRADUATE SCHOOL October 9, 1992 T0: Robert Stroker 204 Music Practice Bldg. RE: IRB 6‘: 92-481 TITLE: A COMPARISON OF SELECTED AREAS OF THINKING STYLES BETWEEN MUSIC COOPERATING TEACHERS AND UNIVERSITY MUSIC METHODS TEACHERS CATEGORY: Exempt REVISION REQUESTED: um APPROVAL DATE: October a, 1992 The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this project is complete. Iampleasedtoadvisethattherightsandwelfareofthehumanwbjectsappeartobeadequatelyprotectedand methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project including any revision listed above. UCRIHS approvalisvalidforonecalendaryear,beginningwiditheapprovaldateshownabove. Investigators phnningtocondnueaprojectbeyondoneyearmustseekupdatedcerfificafion. Requectforrenmdapprovalmet be accompanied by all four of the following mandatory assumes. l. Thehuman mbjectsprotocolisthesemeasinpreviousatudiea. 2. There have been no ill effects suffered .by the subjects due to their participation in the study. 3 Therehavebeennocomplaintsbythesubjectsortheirreprecentativesrelatedtotheirparficipationinthe study. 4. Therehasnotbeenachangeintherecearchenvironmentnornewinformationwhichwmildindicategreater risktohumansubjectsthanthatassumedwhen theprotocolwasinitiallyreviewedandapproved. There rsa maximum offourmch expedited renewals pomble. Investigatorswishingtocontinueaproject beyond that time need to submit it again for complete review. UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior to initiation of the change. Investigators must notify UCRIHS promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving hum subjects during the course of the work. If we can be of any future help, please do not hesitate to contact us at (517) 355-2180 or FAX (517) 336-1171. Sincerely, David E. Wright, Ph.D. UCRIHS Chair DEW1pjm 95 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution APPENDIX G LETTER OF PERMISSION FROM HUMAN SYNERGISTICS human synergistics 39819 Plymouth Rood F1 mouth, Michigan 48170-4290 lelephone 313/459-1030 Fowmile 313/459-5557 February 23, 1993 Mr. Robert T. Stroker 105 Old Mill Pond Road #10 Grand Ledge, MI 48837 Dear Mr. Stroker: This letter is in reference to the use Of our Life Styles Inventory: Self- Description (Lafferty, J .C. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics, 1971, 1973, 1987, 1989) in your dissertation. I am pleased to confirm that you have permission to use this survey for the collection of data for your doctoral dissertation. You may include in your dissertation copyrighted materials from the inventory (i.e., style descriptions, the life styles profile) provided that you notify Human Synergistics in advance and use appropriate references and copyright notices in presenting such materials. We look forward to receiving a copy of your completed dissertation. Sincerely, Kay/C /) V2373”??? Kathryn D. Sockow Copyright Administrator /kds cc: Edgar Johns 96 REFERENCES References Abel, F. J., Ausel, D., Hauwiller, J. G., 8: Sparapani, E. F. (1988—89). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Cooperating Teachers. Action in Teacher Education, _1_Q(4), 42-46. Alvermann, D. E. (1981). The Possible Values of Dissonance in Student Teaching Experiences. Journal of Teacher Education, gas), 24-25. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (Feb., 1983). Educating a Profession: Profile of a Beginning Teacher. Washington, D.C. Applegate, J. H., & Lasley, T. J. (1982). Cooperating Teachers’ Problems with Preservice Field Experience Students. Journal of Teacher Education, _3_I_3_(2), 15-18. Association of Teacher Educators. (1973). Guideline; to Clinical Experiences in Teacher Education. Washington D.C.: Association of Teacher Educators. Axelrod, J., 8: Freedman, M. B. (1973). The Impact of College on Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Barnett, D. C. (1975). The Emergence of New Concepts for Teacher- Education Field Experience. Interchange, §(1), 44-48. Beasley, W. W., & Henry, A. M. (1982). Supervising Student Teacherg The Professional Way. Terre Haute, IN.: Sycamore Press. Boschee, F., Hein, D. D., & Prescott, D. R. (1978). Do Cooperating Teachers Influence the Educational Philosophy of Student Teachers? Journal of Teacher Education, age), 57-61. Bowman, N. (1978). Student Teacher Supervision, Practices and Policies. Action in Teacher Education, _1_(1), 62-65. Brand, M. (1986). Methods Class-Key to Improving Music Teacher Education. Music Educators Jourrgl, 3(8), 26-28. Brand, M. (1984). Music Teacher Education Challenge and Response. Music EducatorLIournal, 11(3), 43-46. Brand, M. (1982). Effects of Student Teaching on the Classroom Management Beliefs and Skills of Music Student Teachers. Journal of Regarch in Mu§ic Education, §_Q(4), 255-265. Browne, D., 8: Hoover, J. H. (1990). The Degree to Which Student Teachers Report Using Instructional Strategies Valued by University Faculty. Action in Teacher Education, _1_2(1), 20-24. 97 98 Burnsed, V. (1982). Student Teachers On Their Own. Music Educators Journal, May, 45-46. Campbell, L. P., 8; Willamson, J. A. (1973). Practical Problems in the Student Teacher Cooperative Teacher Relationships. Education, 93(2), 168-169. Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching. (1983). Condition of Teaching: State by State Analysis. Princeton, N.J. Carter, M. K., Mc Rae, S. W., Genis, L. A., Bauer, E., West, W. L., Simon, M., 8:. Baldwin, G. A. (1980). Point of View: Improving the Student Teaching Experience. Music EducatorsfiJournal, §_6(9), 46-51. Clark, C., & Lampert, M. (1986). The Study of Teacher Thinking: Implications for Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, §1(5), 27-31. Cleary, M. J. (1987). A Comparison of Selected Areas of Thinking Styles Between Cooperating Teachers and University Supervisors. (Doctoral dissertation, Ball State University, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International. Clemson, R., &. McTighe, J. (1990). Teaching Teachers To Make Connections: A Challenge for Teacher Educators, Action in Teacher Education, EU), 55-60. Congress Adds Arts to America 2000. (1992, Feb.). Music Educators Journal, p. 21. Cooke, R. A., & Lafferty, J. C. (1981). Level I: Life Stfle Inventory - _A_r_1 _I_n_strument for Assessing and Changing the Self-Concept of Organizational Memberg (Report No. A-OOl). Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics. Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1982). Factor Structure of Level I: Life Styles Inventory (Report No. A-004). Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics. Copas, E. M. (1984). Critical Requirements for Cooperating Teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, _3_5(6), 49—54. Corbett, H. D. (1980). Using Occupational Socialization Research to Explain Patterns of Influence During Student Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 3_1_(6), 11-13. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books. Dispoto, R. G. (1980). Affective Changes Associated with Student Teaching. College Student Journal, 13(2), 190-195. Easterly, J. L. (1978). Mutual—Choice Placement-A Humanistic Approach. Action in Teacher Education, 1(1), 49—53. 99 Education Commission of the States Task Force on Education for Economic Growth. (1983). Action for Excellence: A Comprehensive Plan to Improve Our NatioILs; Schoolg. Denver, CO. Edgar, D. E., &. Warren, R. (1969). Power and Autonomy in Teacher Socialization. Sociology of Education, §i_2(4), 386-399. Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher ThinkingLA Study of Practical Knowledge. Nichols Publishing: New York. Emans, R. (1983). Implementing the Knowledge Base: Redesigning the Function of Cooperating Teachers and College Supervisors. Journal of Teacher Education, 811(3), 14-18. Erbes, R. (1971). Student Teaching: Satisfaction or Frustration. Music Educators Journal, §_8_(1), 40-43. Ervay, S. (1985). Campus-Field Compatibility in Student Teaching "Needed: Structured Activities in Early Field Experience Programs." Action in Teacher Education, 1(3), 37-42. Fenton, W., & Rudgers, G. (1988). The Cooperating Teacher: A Critical Link to Music Education’s Future. Music Educatorg Journal, 13(9), 35-37. Fields, G. (1988). A Field-Based Approach to Improving Teacher Supervisory Skills. Action in Teacher Education, 10(1), 43-54. Friebus, R. J. (1977). Agents of Socialization Involved in Student Teaching. Journal of Educational ResearchJ 19(5), 263-268. Funk, F. F., & Long, B. (1982). The Cooperating Teacher As Most Significant Other: A Competent Humanist. Action in Teacher Education, 4(2), 57-64. Gallegos, A. (1972). Teacher Training: The Realities. Journal of Teacher Education, 23, 43-46. Garland, 0., & Shippy, V. (1991). Improving the Student Teaching Context: A Research—Based Program for Cooperating Teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 1_3(1), 37-41. Garner, A. (1971). The Cooperating Teacher and Human Relations. Education, 3(2), 99-106. Gibson, D. R. (1972). Professional Socialization: The Effects of a College Course Upon Role-Conceptions of Students in Teacher Training. Educational Research, 111(3), 213-219. Glassberg, S. 8: Sprinthall, N. A. (1980). Student Teaching: A Developmental Approach. Journal of Teacher Education, _3_1_(2), 31-38. 100 Glenn, K. (1991). The Fight for Our Children’s Future. Music Educators Glickman, C. D. (1981-82). Supervising the Developing Teacher. Action in Teacher Education, 3(4), 7-16. Goldsberry, L. (1988). Three Functional Methods of Supervision. Action in Teacher Education, 10(1), 1-10. Green, Joslyn. (1987). The Next Wave: A Synopsis of Recent Eduction Reform Reports. Denver, Colorado: Education Commission of the States. Grimmett, P. P., & Ratzlaff, H. C. (1986). Expectations for the Cooperating Teacher Role. Journal of Teacher Education, _31 (6), 41-54. Guyton, E. (1989). Guidelines for Developing Educational Programs for Cooperating Teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 11(3), 54-58. Haberman, M., & Harris, P. (1982). State Requirements for Cooperating Teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, (13(3), 45-47. Henry, M. (1983). The Effect of Increased Exploratory Field Experiences Upon The Perceptions and Performance of Student Teachers. Action in Teacher Education, §(1), 66-70. Hoffer, C. R. (1987). Tomorrow’s Directions in the Education of Music Teachers. Music Educators Journal, 7_3(6), 27-31. Horowitz, M. (1968). Student Teaching Experiences and Attitudes of Student Teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 19(3), 317-324. Hoy, W. K., 8: Rees, R. (1977). The Bureaucratic Socialization of Student Teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(1), 23-26. Jacko, C. M., & Karmos, A. H. (1977). The Role of Significant Others During the Student Teaching Experience. Journal of Teacher Education, 18(5), 51-56. Johns, E. F. (1989). The Reliability of the Life Styles Inventory (Report No. A-002). Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics. Johnson, J. S. (1969). Change in Student Teacher Dogmatism. Journal of Educational Research, Q6), 224-226. Joyce, B. R. & Seperson, M. A. (1973). Teaching Styles of Student Teachers as Related to Those of Their Cooperating Teachers. Educational Leadership, 131(2), 146—151. Kaltsounis, T. & Nelson, J. L. (1968). The Mythology of Student Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, Z_9_(2), 277-281. 101 Koehler, V. (1985). Research on Preservice Teacher Education. Journal 91 Teacher Education, 36(1), 23-30. Lacey, C. (1977). The Socialization of Teachers, London: Matheon. Lafferty, J. C. (1989). Life Styles Inventory: Self-Description. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics. Lafferty, J. C. (1989). Level 1: Life Styles Interpretation Manual. Plymouth, MI: Human Synergistics. Lafferty, J. 0., Long, H., Morris, G., & Horian, L (1980). Item Frequency and Distribution Level I: Life Styles inventory (Report No. A-003). Plymouth MI: Human Synergistics. Lamb, R. W., (1970). Factors Affecting Cooperating Teacher Influence Upon Student Teacher Attitude and Role Perception. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arizona, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International, 21, 4600 A. Lane, J. M., 8: Morrow, J. E. (1983). Instructional Problems of Student Teachers, Supervising Teachers and College Supervisors. Action 31. Teacher Education, 6(1), 71-78. Leslie, L. L. (1971). Matching Student Teachers with Cooperating Teachers: A Fruitful Effort? Journal of Teacher Education, 22(3), 303-309. Limpton, A., & Lesser, E. (1978). Teacher Training at Stony Brook: A Model for Conflict. Journal of Teacher Education, 22(6), 57-60. Lortie, D. C., (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lyman, L., Morehead, M. A., & Water, 8. (1988). A Model For Improving Student Teaching Supervision. Action in Teacher Education, EU), 39-42. MacDonald, J. B., & Zaret, E. (1971). Student Teaching: Benefit or Burden? Journal of Teacher Education, 22(1), 51-58. Mahlios, M. C., Martin, M. W., & Wedman, J. M. (1990). Effect of Orientation, Pedagogy and Time on Selected Student Teaching Outcomes. Action in Teacher Education, QM), 15-24. Mahlios, M. C. (1982). Effects of Pair Formation on the Performance of Student Teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 4(2), 65-70. Mark, M. L. (1986). Contemporary Music Education. London: Collier Macmillan Publishers. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row. 102 McDonald, F. J. (1977). Research and Development Strategies for Improving Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 28(6), 29-33. McIntyre, D. J. (1984). A Response to the Critics of Field Experience Supervision. Journal of Teacher Education, 25(3), 42-45. McIntyre, D. J., & Morris, W. R. (1980). Research on the Student Teaching Triad. Contemporary Education, 51(4), 193-196. McKibbin, M., & Joyce, B. (1980). Psychological States and Staff Development. Theory into Practice, 19(4), 248-255. Morris, J. R. (1974). The Effects of the University Supervisor on the Performance and Adjustment of Student Teachers. Journal of Educational Research, fl(8), 358—362. Music Educators National Conference. (1987 ). Music Teacher Education: Partnership and Process. Reston, Virginia: Music Educators National Conference. Myers, B., Kennedy, J. J., & Cruickshank, D. R. (1979). Relationship of Teacher Personality Variables to Teacher Perceived Problems. Journal of Teacher Education, Em), 33-40. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation st Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Nosow, S. (1975). Students’ Perceptions of Field Experience. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1_6(6), 508-513. Peck, R., & Tucker, J. (1973). Research on Teacher Education. In R. Travers (Ed.), The Second Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand Mcnally. Platform and Resolutions. (1992, December). MEA Voice, p.15. Popkewitz, T. S., Tabachnick, B. R., 8!. Zeichner, K. M. (1979). Dulling the Senses: Research in Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, £6), 52-59. Popkewitz, T. S., Tabachnick, B. R., 8c Zeichner, K. M. (1979—80). Teacher Education and the Professional Perspectives of Student Teachers. Interchange, QM), 12-29. Reinhartz, J. (1978). Improving Student Teaching Instructional Effectiveness. Action in Teacher Education, 1(1), 3. Salzillo, F. E. Jr., & Van Fleet, A. A. (1977). Student Teaching and Teacher Education: A Sociological Model For Change. Journal of Teacher Education, 2_8_(1), 27-31. 103 Shaver, J. P., Low, W. B., & Richards, H. E. (1974). The Authoritarianism and Dogmatism of Prospective Social Studies Teachers. Social Education, gm), 561-565. Sprinthall, N. A., 8r Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1983). The Teacher as an Adult Learner: A Cognitive-Developmental View. In G. Griffin (Ed.) Staff Development, (p. 13-35) Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. Tabachnick, B. R. (1980). Intern-Teacher Roles: Illusion, Disillusion and Reality. Journal of Education, 162(1), 122-137. Tabachnick, B. R., & Zeichner, K. M. (1981). Are The Effects of University Teacher Education Washed Out by School Experience. Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 7-13. Templin, T. J. (1979). Occupational Socialization and the Physical Education Student Teacher. Research @artefly, §Q(3), 482-493. Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1980). Supervision: An Educative of Mia-Educative Process. Journal of Teacher Education, 31(4), 17-20. Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1984). Promoting the Developmental Growth of Supervising Teachers: Theory, Research Programs, and Implications. Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 53-60. Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1986). A Collaborative Approach for Mentor Training: A Working Model. Journal of Teacher Education, _3_7(6), 13-200 Thomas, W. P., & Carroll, J. (1985). Authoritarian Personality Tendencies and Student Motivations for Entering the Teaching Profession. High School Journal, 33(3), 135-139. Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 54(2), 143-178. Walter, S. A., & Stivers, E. (1977). The Relation of Student Teachers’ Classroom Behavior and Eriksonian Ego Identity. Journal of Teacher Education, 23(6), 47-50. Weaver, A. M., & Segrest, B. (1985). Dogmatism of Teachers and Their Supervising Teachers. High School Journal, 68(3), 129-134. Webb, D. (1971). Teacher Sensitivity: Affective Impact on Students. Journal of Teacher Education, 22(4), 455-459. Wink, W. L. (1970). The Relationship of Self-Concept and Selected Personality Variables to Achievement in Music Student Teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 13(3), 234—241. Yee, A. H. (1969). Do Cooperating Teachers Influence the Attitudes of Student Teachers? Journal of Educational Psychology, 39(4), 327-332. 104 Yoder, W. G., 8: Hall, B. W. (1981). Student Teacher Supervisors Can Be Educated. The Teacher Educator, 13(4), 39-44. Ziechner, K. M. (1978). The Student Teaching Experience. Action in Teacher Education, 1(1), 58-61. Zimpher, N. L., deVoss, G. G., 8c Nott, D. L. (1980). A Closer Look at University Student Teacher Supervision. Journal of Teacher Education, QM), 11-16. Zeichner, K. M. (1980). Myths and Realities: Field-Based Experiences in Preservice Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, HICHIGQN SIR I \l mmm qu‘nimir’imlfliiliflf 31293008