$31... 1 .KuVaQ...:E:t;21 1.} J... _ Itvmmuoflhv 3... Hutu; . ._ . nannywé...» 3:75.. . 53...: irfianue .16 ’59. h. .3. _ 3:1 KB I. .. at 0.x: «Ha-bi 42.x...3 $2. .1 :3... , w: v\ .. v..rac.:2~= ‘15: kt o in... via kn: 1M! . .fixlr ..5 :22...» a......:..: :2. . 3 r. . .. . .E $4 .:. xi”. 1%. 1. a . , , v. «2‘... mafia"...unannmaargtbfi a. i... . . . 1?. w I ~ :54. 3955.0396} 9an ravth. :31... u Had H; . L. . .v m}. 3.0.4 3.. t. ‘1snfianaum. n ”Maui hr. ,. ...,..n_.§ ... . _+5.E.......w......%§.. é. m. . a”... ....3........é..n . avaréfi a... 4...... 54...... swing.“ .. .v.... . .x.31 .. .. .. . t0- .5 . ,. 1 .3: as .t are u 1.3.... . r: ._ a Léfivfi .1. 1‘ is... 3.3. .~ Jun. a v 9.3.95”... .. an... .w..2.....+.£;£a§m&$u .....a......%£.. .. Thaéfifi. 33.... ...r..3..:,.:a.. .3 a...» a... @H.M..._éfi.._fi. . .5 an .. c C513... A. L? . ..v..0.t..:a~ at» Rania.“ a. .‘ v: w. . . . rfihmwflwx otLN-mata ; . 4 , , a... gcwuaqums. .hrm . . \wukao: “\smmawhfi 19.33”“? .Jvd..r...§ ; 3,15. : ‘ ..\ :2... , 31:93.. (-05.3354; z. . . , x... . v . 3:72-5: 3...... V1 a“... a....fifiwfim”.mm,.,...,..wmu.....,..w$..¢ 3:. . i x )u . . . ,, ”wk: awn an hmfi..&e..§.fi. 1 EV .vavqo I?! vitril‘rF-‘I. 1.12.1 .vvt..7\_:...‘rsr. v..=..~.r....r.?_.vtv . a v .y‘:vv...laxi , . 1: V :5. haw; mh~n$$oxmfig . va .3: $§¢I§ sarSPtx. 1 31.1. ix..l.7....:21. 1.. 0 in: liobt... stuff. .. s 1... . A. 1.342%... . . «rater... 53.4.92353413311 a. axilfkg 7... ca :3? . <3»: I 3:... VEHL '31:. ‘a : it: stfinnhn: v . . 1...: .,.:vv . Y: :59... . IC“ we «what? t3:¥:r%::191,1\ Hts-w . #an .2. iii-3.x. a . . , a. .... v . . , . d. 9... .a r a...) $3.7; . u...:.............. , _ flunk... 1 .... e... x. .m 2.1 ¥ :2 .3 .13... . kanlv.§.x v . L. ta... u 171Lrfifi #3 1.1:: 3.... 1.. u. 33...!“ V..v7’..1w:-.§ . l .17 i1 '3‘! 2.11089 .L... 13...: l?))):l., axtlt:7..avir :37 at.» I .1... 1.52.1, .‘lila. : (A. .31 \:::I18.1: .luv.3.1..: . v una: N v 1.2.3... duafutc 06).. .H 1 . . git-{9.13.5113 1.3.2.. 1.1 ‘: v 3.5 vrktte 3!... :5: 153% Influx.“ : unnvnfl-9w‘:~.~)!>hL-1x , aDtt:3yaruuxxar...f . . ,. . u .. .. 9‘. no. nah-CH .v uv 9.. :afifi. .ravuawuav‘vth 3.1:...2... 11334:... 3!. t1 v51! at! 0 ”fix. t!).xav1v.:tvl 1 91).»II 71 ‘13-... 1.31.31: w L: 3. IV v+am-1.k.~i?:w+€t&nn 25.7 a 3&1)“. 1:. .Iy>.‘:.avr) 0.5.5.7).-bt1nzz.‘ :3. i 1.;th IHI-él-vax vrsuis‘xr .nttvku‘kt . aunta... :v-xidfi-J151tlt 1r: 1’. un: aayv1y9aluolv1. . 3.; v:ia$¢i\.v)iivfl ta}: X pv‘wai axluv Eat-:3 3:351): ' t. 7.. x :1“ l! Otvasc-i I". 3.3.2.:va 78....53127201 I21»? Patti-viii iri§i§fi|¢wtczr$ I? NPfxfirn ifta’ciVanflvtuulfi ‘7 v J15. a 55.71.: a Path: Misgv rQfifinlatt‘D?! tits. :31 .H 1 it an. . Etna .1vq01'591v‘t Vi i1l1asefl~itra i7 .117...- v.sa-‘11\t‘? .i..v)é! \. z n 1.. . «'31.. .3. AN: ‘73:...l ro$$701§ «I; ur‘iafififitvk’?.’l» l u) 1.2:.) 3:- \x. ._ . 216...] 3...: s Otrlaa: Itiranzs 1in7mI17 t; 30 J! v; 3.: ‘7! ilk-7...: .A 3:... tar” >0}? ‘3‘ 21:3: . 5:1,;1) ‘15 15.. 0:1)! 11': 2.11163. .3. "Hit? 3:1. alxfiflw:1;xz u I... Il’nlsatflutilsitliolsi | V n s}: It zxa‘1.v.fi at? moribqizzi t... :1. zI'tI, ‘- . “ V :3 .. ..71E.v..a&‘! tuliau.v Isn‘asttttliha n n.2, vi..- 7333; 1.. to»... 2.. .3st h... :9 I I 27.. :ahhn: v. Marsh!“ 7... B. v! v Li... , . v... v ‘2... ha...rva’w-.va.vd 1 .. . 2:, -.I.v..2:. Ezra? , “3.7.; 1. tr}! « 09:!) , a ?. ¢$~3laui i 3: flax; baa 1' ‘ b; I". . i I 9. u I. €43! 3.2;...» .2; «3?. o 2;, xvi): :xIP,.x:X§II'€LucvlL.V xs‘xnvulvvlhbyt. 1.1-: 13391516 1V:v-!3.l. 2.x...vxw71v‘uou... y - 3:...gulcvfltes‘vrnulvov.xl;.ne ‘arguavvvnvval’v.1.....«1‘3175e; va‘ 757:...Wv31 Itlufifl wavavliv :1er 3.1.0.1.!54 ‘l.vt¢.fi swbtva?flflw?1.: 1.. oviqatvnaix...‘ 'I‘,"<." “ 1’ ‘ .; '1 \ 7.. II; I“): 1:13. . . 1?: tn...“ fwx’na ‘ JvVQE‘sv y‘axuv villi; 11.. .. 1;... v... 319...? . Q a... v .5... a: 3.. av: _ StagOanni: . . . Egg I\I‘I ts s:7!-..1$ilt€lt IS: 69.1.34»: llfiihiv‘ttelrl.vlit|::‘vu{F’Iauy‘aq‘attfilflnflt’w‘pn’tlzz 0. 3.15.:- .1} . 9):. 1.1115113. >x..I$..3~.,.fvahvva.vs 1'; 1191‘: Aklfivni-xsasbfis .Ciz.tranf.:r..-1.é$.>~ . : Exit-2v: 12...; . c~ 1......) ‘91 a. , .xv - .2: . is. w: .u . . 7 = .. 1 ii... . « . v atvaux... , VI» .vzr‘fi..1.‘! .Xr| a}. ; utfiiav :3 . .1131...“ , . . . (I?! . .5). . n 5.65.. ungriuVI: Iv: #V0 3‘ t?»b)§ - ) ‘~D§ft£t .n’;fplf¥ft£t.ir v7.jt:t$\71.al.w313.3Dr.it. 9. i» ‘ .C!,¥|}1I{§vl: .:--I lit» ‘13‘ .l a L .vw‘.lrfi.}1y?1‘z.. tiriivsiénz... as. 1 oni C ...:.~ « ..\xi Nix, . (.xhx. 5.3.)... .3‘ 34\ . _ .xavlavnvvurvtlhr 5 «usuuait.‘1...i;s :s..: .v .5). ‘.x\\\l\z 9'. .\L t. h|.‘2.‘|w. I.»v..:.1. at? 1L1. \ a..\.\..sd.\..o\. 0:). ‘«.>L:‘sl:..)lfolsnu.bh. I: ,7, acriuriix. I ..:.v)b..ll....{ . .2... . . 3:33.; .. .v\... .. L. , ~ . . .1 I. ... . $122.52- ‘8... 7.7.1.. «53.. : w .59.. :3. v-l?’:.} .Iuyeltnr, «fitégn v; ., mm} 3 m1unmmnnmm L 3 00989 5636 This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE RELATIONSHIP OF CONFIDENCE FOR TEACHING TO SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENT TEACHERS presented by Theodore J. Czajkowski has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed D degree in Degartment of Elementary Education /X;e A y / Major professor [hm Segtembe: 9. 1968 0-169 r f \ fie?” :JAN I 1993 fr 757,— '3 1 LIBRARY Michigan State [River-sky ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP OF CONFIDENCE FOR TEACHING TO SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENT TEACHERS By Theodore J. Czajkowski The purpose of this study was to explore the sa— lience of a specific measure of self—regard——confidence in one's teaching abi]ities——as a variable in the profes— sional education of elementary teachers. Specifically, the investigation was designed to determine relationships between confidence for teaching and student teacher effec- tiveness and personality dimensions. One hundred twenty—four female elementary educa- tion students attending Michigan State University were used as subjects. The Confidence Level Inventory for Teaching (CLIT) was administered to them prior to and at the end of student teaching to measure confidence level for teaching. The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI), the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, and the Edwards l Theodore J. Czajkowski Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) were administered prior to student teaching in methods classes. Additional variables studied were academic standing and perceived strengths and weaknesses as prospective teachers. Super— vising teacher ratings on a modified form of the Confi— dence Level Inventory for Teaching were used to measure performance in student teaching. Performance ratings were obtained after ten weeks of student teaching. Seven null hypotheses were tested using these variables. The following conclusions were supported: 1. Confidence level for teaching prior to student teaching as measured by the CLIT was positively related to supervising teacher CLIT ratings of performance in student teaching. 2. No relationship was found between confidence level for teaching as measured by the CLIT and attitudes toward children and school work as measured by the MTAI. 3. Confidence level for teaching as measured by the CLIT was related to open—closed mindedness as 2 Theodore J. Czajkowski measured by the short form of the Rokeach Dogma— tism Scale. The correlation had a substantial positive value indicating that high confidence level for teaching was associated with relative closed—mindedness. High and low confidence level for teaching groups did not differ on most needs as measured by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. The high confidence group indicated a higher dominance need and a lower succorance need than the low confi— dence group. No relationship was found between confidence level for teaching and academic standing as represented by university grade-point average. Measures of confidence level for teaching differ when taken prior to student teaching and at the end of student teaching. Average increases in confidence level for teaching were substantial. High and low confidence level subjects did not differ in patterns of perceived strengths and 3 Theodore J. Czajkowski weaknesses in five strength categories and four weakness categories. In one category, personal characteristics, low confidence subjects mentioned more weaknesses than high confidence subjects. High confidence students tended to list more strengths than weaknesses while low confidence students tended to list more weaknesses than strengths. THE RELATIONSHIP OF CONFIDENCE FOR TEACHING TO SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENT TEACHERS K) 0 . - Theodore J. Czajkowski JH‘ A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Elementary Education 1968 @570 3 f7 3 «/J«- 6? ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Dr. W. Robert Houston, chairman of the guidance com- mittee, whose patient and thoughtful guidance was a source of encouragement throughout my doctoral program. His personal interest and professional knowledge con— tributed greatly to the completion of this study. Sincere gratitude is extended to the members of the guidance committee who influenced me personally and professionally in many ways. Dr. W. Vernon Hicks has been a source of inspiration and leadership since I was an undergraduate student in the STEP teacher education program. Dr. Ann G. Olmsted's advice and professional guidance have greatly influenced my professional aspira- tions. Association with Dr. Richard L. Marquard as col— league and friend has been very rewarding. I am also greatly indebted to Dr. James D. Hoffman whose guidance and friendship have been a constant source of inspiration to me. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . Significance of the Study. The Problem. Hypotheses Summary of Procedures. Plan of Presentation II. PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY The Teacher Preparation Program. Selection of the Study Population. Description of the Study Population. Collection of the Data Statistical Analysis III. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA. Page ii 14 15 I7 22 23 23 28 33 38 65 69 Table of Contents/Continued Chapter Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Summary. . VI. VII IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . Summary. Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . Conclusions. Implications . Implications for Further Research. . . . . APPENDICES I. TETRACHORIC CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS (rt ) FOR CLIT ITEMS II. NON-STANDARDIZED INSTRUMENTS BIBLIOGRAPHY iv Page 69 7O 71 73 74 75 77 82 87 87 91 92 94 98 101 106 116 Table 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES DISTRIBUTION OF AND REASONS FOR SUBJECT MORTALITY . AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY POPULATION. MARITAL STATUS DISTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . DISTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY POPULATION BY ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME. DISTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY POPULATION BY COMMUNITY TYPE. DISTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY POPULATION BY TYPE OF ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOLS ATTENDED. DISTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY POPULATION BY COLLEGES ATTENDED DISTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY POPULATION BY GRADE-POINT AVERAGE PRODUCT—MOMENT CORRELATION BETWEEN CLIT SELF—RATING AND CLIT SUPERVISING TEACHER PERFORMANCE RATING. PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION BETWEEN CLIT SELF—RATING AND MTAI SCORES PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION BETWEEN CLIT SELF—RATING AND ROKEACH DOGMATISM SCALE SCORES. Page 32 34 34 35 35 36 37 38 7O 71 72 List of Tables (Continued) Table 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. COMPARISON OF HIGH AND LOW CONFIDENCE GROUP MEAN SCORES ON THE EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE. PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION BETWEEN CLIT SELF—RATING AND GRADE—POINT AVERAGE . MEAN OF THE DIFFERENCES AND OBTAINED "t" VALUE FOR PRE- AND POST—CLIT SELF-RATINGS EXAMPLE COMMENTS OF PERCEIVED STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AS PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS IN SELECTED CATEGORIES . . . NUMBERS OF HIGH AND LOW CONFIDENCE SUBJECTS IDENTIFYING PERCEIVED STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AS PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS IN SELECTED CATEGORIES NUMBERS OF HIGH AND LOW CONFIDENCE SUBJECTS RESPONDING WITH MORE STRENGTHS THAN WEAKNESSES. MORE WEAKNESSES THAN STRENGTHS AND EQUAL NUMBERS OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES. vi Page 74 75 76 77 80 82 THE RELATIONSHIP OF CONFIDENCE FOR TEACHING TO SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE OF STUDENT TEACHERS Chapter I INTRODUCTION For several decades educational researchers have attempted to identify salient personality variables and other characteristics which may be related to teacher ef— fectiveness in the classroom. Among these have been var- iables identified with the personal dimension of the teacher, such as personality characteristics, personal and social adjustment, interests, attitudes, needs, and values. The efforts of David Ryansl and A. S. Barr2 and their 1David G. Ryans, Characteristics of Teachers (Wash— ington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1960). 2Arvil S. Barr, “Wisconsin Studies of the Measure— ment and Prediction of Teacher Effectiveness: A Summary of Investigations," Journal of Experimental Education, XXX (September, 1961), pp. 5—156. 1 associates illustrate the many projects that have been undertaken. The results often have been meager, some— times confusing, and occasionally contradictory. Get— zels and Jackson concluded: Despite the critical importance of the problem and a half—century of prodigious re— search effort, very little is known for cer— tain about the nature and measurement of teacher personality and teacher effective— ness. The regrettable fact is that many of the studies so far have not produced signif— icant results. Many others have produced only pedestrian findings. . . . What is needed is not research leading to the reiter- ation of the self—evident but to the dis— covery of specific and distinct features of teacher personality and of teacher effective— ness. However difficult the task may be, the rewards in increased educational productivity through more explicit selection of teacher education candidates make continued exploration worthwhile. Many of the studies of teacher effectiveness suffer from generality——teachers with many characteristics to teach all ages of children from varying backgrounds. Perhaps a major cause for frustrated efforts lies in the lack of explicit control variables. The 3J. W. Getzels and P. W. Jackson, “The Teacher's Personality and Characteristics,” Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. N. L. Gage (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1963), p. 574. present study is designed to investigate one aspect of teacher personality—~confidence in one's teaching ability -—and the relation of this area to other personality var— iables and student teacher performance. Significance of the Study One feature of personality that has received very little attention in studies of teacher education students and teachers is confidence. Webster defines confidence as, "Belief in one's own abilities; self—confidence. re— liance on one's own powers.”4 A noted educational psychol— ogist contends that, "Confidence is believed to be a factor in developing capacity to respond to reality.”5 People often discuss confidence almost "matter of factly” as be— ing important to the performance of athletes. entertainers. and others. Confidence seems intuitively supported as 4Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition (Cleveland and New York: The World Publishing Co., 1962). p. 307. 5Percival Symonds, The Ego and the Self (New York: Appleton—Century—Crofts. Inc., 1951). p. 40. having an important relationship to performance when. in fact. very little empirical evidence supports such a no— tion. Mink's discussion of professional role identity appears to offer theoretical support for exploring fea- tures of personality that may be related to performance.6 He adapted Allport"s7 paradigm. which appears in Figure l. to illustrate the relationship between role expectations. personality. and role performance. The paradigm illus— trates the intervening function of personality in the per— ception of role expectations. conception of role. role ac— ceptance or rejection. and resulting role performance. Role performance as depicted by the paradigm is interpreted in the following manner: An employee not only reSponds passively to role expectations but also acts upon the expectations. Final role performance is a product of the inter- action between person and the situational context.8 6Oscar G. Mink. ”Educating the Professional——Some Issues.” Journal of Teacher Education. XIX. No. 2 (Summer 1968). p. 203. 7Gordon W. Allport. Pattern of Growth in Personal~ ity (New York: Holt. Rinehart. and Winston. 1961). p. 185. 8Mink. OE. Cit.r p. 202. .>uHHmc0mHom on Qofiumaom :H maomll.a musmflm .Uuw .mosam> wamum o>HuHEmoo mm>Huoz cam mpooz mCOHuHmommHQ mopsufluu< ucoEmuomEmB meuHommmo P COHuoonmm D so Guacamomuom A oucmumouom A coapmoocoo coflumuoomxm oaom oaom oaom 1 oaom _ Eoumxm Hmfloom Eoumxm Hafioom on» as was :H HOH>m£om Acofluo< How moHUHHmHucouomv mQOADQHHomwum NBHAANZO mmmm The theoretical relationship posited in the para- digm has relevance for this study. Role conception is in- fluenced by role expectations and the individual's person— ality. Role conception and personality interact to deter- mine role acceptance or rejection. If the role is accepted. the resulting role performance is a product of the interac— tion between the person and the situational context. Con— fidence in one's ability to perform in a particular role may also be a function of personality and situational con— text. Self~perceived potentialities for acting in a par— ticular role. based on interaction between personality and situational role expectations. would appear to influence one's role performance. Brookover relates a similar theoretical relation— ship in his self—concept theory. the self is the intervening variable be— tween the normative patterns of the social group or the role expectations held by significant others. on one hand. and the learning of the in- dividual [role performance]. on the other. We hypothesize that. for the expectations of others to be functional in a particular individual's behavior. they must be internalized and become a part of the person's conception of himself.9 9Wilbur B. Brookover and David Gottlieb. A Soci— ology of Education (New York: American Book Co.. 1964). p. 469. Based on extensive study of relationships between student self—concept of ability and achievement, Brookover concludes that: the level of school achievement is signifi— cantly related to students' self-perception of their ability and that this selfaconcept of ability is, to some extent at least, a product of expecta— tions which the individual perceives others hold for him.10 Statements about the importance of student teacher confidence can be found in the literature——both histori- cally and recently. Morris in an early work emphasizes the importance of poise and self—confidence to teaching success and concludes, ". . . positive self-feeling is a far greater aid to success [in student teaching] than an attitude of uncertainty and dread."11 More recently Kennedy placed primary emphasis on confidence. "Confidence 12 in oneself is a first essential in the young teacher."' These and similar comments identify opinions that some lOIbid., p. 447. 11Elizabeth H. Morris, Personal Traits and Success in Teaching (New York: Bureau of Publications, Columbia University, Teachers College Educational Series, no. 342, 1929), pp. 62—63. 12Alex Kennedy, The Teacher in the Making (Edin— burg: Oliver and Boyd, Ltd., 1961), p. 3. global characteristic called confidence or self—confidence is important to teaching success. Confidence conceptual- ized in this way is subjective and hardly operational. Tyler measured confidence in student teaching us— ing the Heston Personal Adjustment Inventory.l3 This in— ventory includes a subtest which purports to measure con- fidence (makes decisions readily; confident in judgments; adjusts easily; optimistic; freedom from inferiority feel— ings).l4 Tyler found that confidence scores differenti— ated between successful and unsuccessful student teachers at the .05 level of confidence on two criteria of success: 1) college supervisor ratings on teaching skill; and 2) college supervisor combined ratings of personal relations and teaching skill—~called teaching efficiency.15 Mi- chaelis, in a cooperative follow—up of Tyler's study, elim- inated the confidence subtest from his analysis when it failed to significantly differentiate between high and l3Fred T. Tyler, "The Prediction of Student Teach— ing Success From Personality Inventories," University of California Publications in Education, XI, no. 4 (1954), pp. 233—314. 14 . J. C. Heston, Heston Personal Adjustment Inven- tory (New York: World Book Co., 1949). 15Tyler, op. cit., p. 252. low student teachers using college supervisor ratings as the criterion.16 The confidence subtest of the Heston Personal Ad- justment Inventory is based on a global concept of confi— dence as are the opinions stated above. Using global mea— sures of self—regard in predicting specific types of per— formance has been questioned in the self—concept litera- ture. . . we must point out that self~regard, by either type of definition, may refer to certain traits or areas of functioning, or it may refer to a global attitude toward the total self. Sometimes investigators seem to assume that Specific self-regard measures are interchangable indices of global self—regard. Only by making such an assumption would it seem reasonable to try to relate such self— regard measures to nar— rowly restricted tasks l7 Brookover further questions the utility of gen— eral measures of self-regard. Despite the correlations (which are relatively low) between self—concept, IQ, and achievement, 16John U. Michaelis, "The Prediction of Success in Student Teaching From Personality and Attitude Inven— tories," University of California Publications in Educa— tion, XI, no. 6 (1954), pp. 415—483. 17Ruth C. Wylie, The Self—Concept: A Critical Survey of Pertinent Research Literature (Linclon, Ne- braska: University of Nebraska Press, 1961), p. 244. 10 the question of the theoretical utility of these multi—factor [global] self—concept scales re— mains. It is difficult to understand why a per— son's IQ and academic performance should be simi— larly related to a measure that has been shown to include separate factors such as social status, academic status, physical appearance, anxiety, popularity, and happiness. Perhaps the observed low correlations between scores on such multi— factor self—concept scales and IQ achievement are a consequence of the assumption that "low" self— concept is reflected in lower scores throughout these categories. Such an assumption is not in accord, however, with our position or observa— tions. For example it would not be an incon— gruous situation for a person to define himself as very handsome, well-behaved, popular, happy, and stupid in physics. In this kind of situa- tion, no correlation would be expected between self-concept scores involving these dimensions and physics achievement or IQ. On logical grounds, items which assess specific academic self—conceptions ought to be superior to general self—perception items when school achievement is to be predicted.18 The present investigation was designed to extend an understanding of a specific measure of self-regard—— confidence in one's teaching ability——and its relation to a specific area of functioning—-student teaching. Items which assess confidence for teaching ought to be superior 18Wilbur B. Brookover, and others, Self—Concept of Ability and School Achievement, III, Final Report of Coop— erative Research Project No. 2831 (East Lansing, Michigan: Educational Publication Services, Michigan State Univer— sity, 1967), pp. 22—23. Vl‘l 11 to general or global confidence measures in relating to student teaching performance. The Tyler and Michaelis studies mentioned above represent the extent of available empirical evidence on general confidence and student teaching. The use of the same global confidence measure in these studies produced inconsistent results. LePere and Cox used an earlier form of the Confi- dence Level Inventory for Teaching (CLIT) in their study which compared two different strategies for teaching ele— mentary education professional courses.19 Product—moment correlations between pre—student teaching self—ratings and post—student teaching supervising teacher ratings ranged from -.18 to +.60 with a median correlation of .11.20 Correlations were obtained using the sub-sclaes of the CLIT. No total score correlations were reported. Subse— quent revisions discussed in Chapter II reduced the CLIT from eighty—one to twenty—four items. The revised form used in this investigation has not been used in previous research. 9Jean M. LePere and Richard C. Cox, Training Ele- mentary Teachers: Comparison of Separate and Block Methods Courses (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State Univer- sity Bureau of Educational Research Services, 1964). 2 OIbid., p. 22. 12 Student teachers' anxieties and concerns may be reflected in their self—perceptions of confidence. Un- fortunately, the general paucity of student teaching re— search is also reflected in this area. Garrard's21 thor- ough review of the literature revealed only two empirical studies, one by Travers and one by Thompson. Travers and others administered a sentence comple— tion test to a group of female students (N = 120) before and after student teaching in the elementary grades.22 Data from three of the sentence completion questions indi— cated that student teachers were most concerned with dis— cipline and with being liked by their pupils. Changes in these anxieties between pre— and post—testings were not significant. Thompson conducted a more extensive investigation . . 2 . . of anx1eties of student teachers. 3 He administered a 1 Judy Garrard, Concerns of Student Teachers, A Review of the Literature (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Office of Education, Report No. BR—5—0249—15, April, 1966). 22 Robert M. Travers, W. Rabinowitz, and E. Nemo— vicher, "The Anxieties of a Group of Student Teachers," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXXVIII (1952), pp. 368-375. 23 M. L. Thompson, "Identifying Anxieties Experi— enced by Student Teachers,” Journal of Teacher Education, XIV (1963). pp. 435~439. l3 thirty-five item check list of anxieties to students who were about to complete their student teaching experience. The subjects were asked to indicate which anxieties they had experienced both prior to and during the student teaching period. Elementary student teachers (N = 47) identified the following most frequently as concerns be- fore student teaching: 1) what the critic teacher expected of the student teacher; 2) what the pupils would be like; and 3) subject matter competence. During student teaching they identified the problem of attaining an honest opinion about their teaching from the cooperating teacher and the college supervisor as the single overriding concern. Thompson also reported these important findings: 1) fe— males checked more anxieties than males; 2) more anxieties originated in what had been heard or imagined than from any other source; and 3) much more anxiety occurred before student teaching than during it.24 If anxieties and concerns of student teachers are ‘reflected in their confidence for teaching, the research suggests implications for this study. Thompson's results suggest that reduction of anxieties during student 241bid., p. 439. ”1‘ 14 teaching may be accompanied by increased confidence for teaching. However, Traver's research introduces the pos— sibility that certain important concerns persist and may limit increased confidence for teaching during student teaching. Research concerning confidence as a personality variable related to performance in student teaching could be useful in teacher education. Implications from such a study might provide those interested in teacher selection and prediction of teacher performance with valuable in- sights; they may also suggest an important variable to be considered in teacher preparation. The Problem The purpose of this study was to explore the re— lationship of confidence for teaching to performance in student teaching and to other personal factors that may be related to teaching. The intention was to explore these relationships to determine the salience of confi— dence for teaching as a variable in the professional edu— cation of elementary teachers. 15 W Specifically, this study was designed to test seven hypotheses, each of which is stated in the null form: Hypothesis I--There is no relationship between a student's expressed confidence level for teaching prior to student teach— ing and his performance in student teaching as rated by his supervising teacher. Hypothesis II—-There is no relationship between a student's expressed confidence level for teaching prior to student teaching and his measured attitudes toward children and school work. Hypothesis III-—There is no relationship between a student's expressed confidence level for teaching prior to stu- dent teaching and his measured open—closed mindedness. l6 Hypothesis IV--There is no difference in measured needs of students whose expressed confidence level for teaching is high prior to student teaching and those whose expressed confidence level for teaching is low prior to student teaching. Hypothesis V-—There is no relationship between a student's expressed confidence level for teaching prior to student teach- ing and his academic standing. Hypothesis VI—-There is no difference between a student's expressed confidence level for teaching prior to stu— dent teaching and his expressed confidence level for teaching at the end of student teaching. Hypothesis VII—~There is no difference in perceived strengths and weaknesses of stu— dents whose expressed confidence level for teaching is high prior 17 to student teaching and those whose expressed confidence level for teaching is low prior to stu— dent teaching. Summary of Procedures Population The population included all elementary education students at Michigan State University who: 1) completed the elementary methods block on the campus, Fall term, 1967 (September 15 to December 7); 2) completed student teaching the following term, Winter, 1968 (January 3 to March 15); and 3) on whom complete sets of data were col— lected. One hundred and twenty-four students met the three criteria and were included in the study. Data Collection and Analysis To test the hypotheses posed by this study the following procedures were followed: 18 To test Hypothesis I——The Confidence Level Inventory for Teaching (CLIT) was administered to all students prior to student teaching and used as a measure of confidence for teaching. A mod— ified form of this instrument was completed by the supervising teachers during the last week of student teaching as a rating of performance in student teaching. The scores on these two instru— ments were correlated using the Pearson product- moment statistic to determine the extent of rela— tionship between confidence for teaching prior to student teaching and performance in student teach— ing as rated by the supervising teacher. To test Hypothesis II--The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI) was administered to all students during the first week of their methods courses, Fall term, 1967, which was prior to stu— dent teaching. The score on this instrument was used as a measure of attitudes toward children and school work. This score was correlated with con- fidence level for teaching prior to student teach— ing, as measured by the Confidence Level Inventory 19 for Teaching, to determine the extent of rela— tionship between these two variables. The Pear— son product-moment correlation statistical tech— nique was employed in this analysis. To test Hypothesis III——The short form of the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale was administered to all students during the first week of their methods courses, Fall term, 1967. The score on this in— strument was used as a measure of open—closed mindedness. This score was correlated with the confidence level for teaching prior to student teaching, as measured by the Confidence Level In— ventory for Teaching, to determine the relation- ship between these two variables. The Pearson product—moment correlation formula was used. To test Hypothesis IV—-The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule was administered to all stu- dents during the first week of their methods courses, Fall term, 1967. This instrument as— sesses the relative strength of fifteen "manifest needs” originally conceptualized by Murray as: 20 l) Achievement; 2) Deference; 3) Order; 4) Exhibi— tion; 5) Autonomy; 6) Affiliation; 7) Intraception; 8) Succorance; 9) Dominance; 10) Abasement; ll) Nurturance; 12) Change; 13) Endurance; l4) Hetero- sexuality; and 15) Aggression. Students with high and low confidence for teaching, as measured by the Confidence Level Invgptory for Teaching, were compared using means on each of the fifteen need measures to determine personal differences in needs between these two groups. A "t" test was used to compare means with substantial numerical differences. To test Hypothesis V——Academic standing as represented by grade point average (GPA) was ob— tained from the records of all students prior to student teaching. Grade point average was corre— lated with the confidence level for teaching prior to student teaching as measured by the Confidence Level Inventory for Teaching, to determine the extent of relationship between these two variables. The Pearson product—moment statistical technique was computed for this purpose. 21 To test Hypothesis VI--The Confidence Level Inventory for Teaching was administered to all students again at the end of the student teach— ing experience. Pre—student teaching and post- student teaching confidence level total scores were compared to determine if a significant change occurred as a result of participation in student teaching. A "t" test was used to measure the statistical significance of the mean of the dif— ferences. To test Hypothesis VII——All students responded to a questionnaire before student teaching. In two open—ended items, the student identified his perceived strengths and weaknesses as a prospec- tive teacher. The data from these responses were categorized to determine if differences in per— ceptions existed between students with high and low confidence levels. The Chi-square statistic was employed to determine whether significant dif- ferences existed in categorized responses. 22 Plan of Presentation In Chapter II the research design is outlined, the instruments of the study delineated, the population described, and methods of research discussed. The an— alysis of data is detailed in Chapter III, while the final chapter includes the summary of findings, conclusions, and implications for future research. Chapter II PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY The Teacher Preparation Program The elementary teacher education program at Mich— igan State University involved many varied requirements which may have influenced the results and thus the impli- cations of this study. The program is briefly outlined in the following paragraphs. Basic University College requirements included forty—eight term credits in composition. natural science. social science. humanities. and physical education. All students enrolled in Michigan State University. regardless of major. were required to complete these courses. Ele— mentary education students. in addition. were required to complete additional liberal education courses. Forty-nine term credits in political science. American history. geography. child psychology. physical and biological science. mathematics. English. music. art. and speech were specifically designated as requirements for graduation and elementary teacher certification. 23 24 Each student completed a thirty-six term credit major and two twenty—three term hour minors in approved areas of study. The major was selected from the following fields: English—communication arts. social science. for— eign language. fine arts. and science—mathematics. The two minors were selected from art. science. music. mathe— matics. social science. communication arts. foreign lan- guage. and health and physical education. The requirements for admission to the College of Education as a junior were: 1. Basic University College requirements completed with a minimum grade-point average of 2.00 on a 4.00 scale. 2. At least eighty—five term credits with a minimum grade—point average of 2.00. 3. The student must not have been‘on academic proba— tion for more than one term after attaining sopho— more standing. Professional education requirements included forty-three term credits in educational psychology. 25 children's literature. methods of instruction. student teaching. and social foundations of education. Students were required to participate in a "September experience” prior to the methods courses which involved a one—week observation in an elementary school during the first few weeks of school. No course credit was earned for this experience. The methods courses. including methods of teach- ing science. mathematics. reading. language arts, and common elements of teaching were taught as a unit during one full term of the preparation program. Several in— structors taught the individual content areas of methods but coordinated their efforts to integrate the experience. This professional sequence also included various classroom visitations. observations. and other formal and informal activities planned by the faculty to prepare for the later student teaching experience. Large group lectures and small group discussion sessions involved the students in varied learning experiences. and also demonstrated methods and techniques of instruction appropriate in these differ— ent settings. 26 After successfully completing the methods sequence, students completed a full term of student teaching. Re— quirements for enrollment in student teaching were: Completed all pre—student teaching education courses with at least a 2.00 grade-point average. Completed courses in teaching major with a minimum of a 2.00 grade—point average. Maintained at least a 2.00 grade—point average in all university courses. Approved as a teacher candidate by the Health Service and Dean of Students. Evidenced speech proficiency through examination or specific course requirements. Student teaching was completed in one of the six— teen centers in Michigan. In each center, from one to seventeen school districts cooperated by providing clin— ical facilities. Each prospective teacher spent ten weeks working in a school system under the direction of an ex— perienced teacher called a supervising teacher. This 27 person shared his classroom with the student teacher for the duration of the experience. The supervising teacher assisted the student teacher in planning, teaching, and evaluating progress in these and other teaching functions. He gradually allowed the student to accept more responsibility for plan— ning and implementing the classroom program. The extended close relationship between neophyte and experienced teacher provided substantial opportunity for guiding performance and evaluating competencies of the individual student teacher. The student teacher lived in the community and had broad responsibilities including involvement in civic and community undertakings and after—school work with boys and girls. The student teaching program in each of the resident teaching centers was under the direction of a university staff member who also maintained residence there. In addition to meeting requirements outlined for ad— mission to elementary education and to student teaching, stu— dents met the following requirements for graduation and cer— tification: 1. Completion of a Bachelor of Arts degree including 180 term credits, plus the basic physical educa- tion requirement. 28 2. Completion of one teaching major of at least thirty—six term credits and two teaching minors of at least twenty—three credits each. 3. Completion of forty—nine credits of general-liberal coursework. 4. Completion of student teaching with a pass grade and a recommendation for a Michigan Provisional Teaching Certificate. Selection of the Study Population The students selected as subjects for this study were enrolled in the Elementary Education Methods Block at Michigan State University, Fall term, 1967, and completed student teaching requirements the following term, Winter, 1968. Several criteria guided the selection of this pop— ulation for study: 1. The cooperation of the administration, faculty, and students involved with the teacher education program 29 was a necessary prerequisite to successful study of a large sample using complex testing procedures. Since this study was part of a more comprehensive research project which continued for several years to investigate the total teacher education program at the university,* the cooperation received at all levels was excellent. 2. Sufficient population to insure adequate treatment using selected statistical techniques was necessary to test the hypotheses in this investigation. Two hundred and twenty—one students were enrolled in the Methods Block Fall term. Some of these students did not enroll in student teaching the following term and were deleted from the study. Subject mortality also occurred due to the considerable data that had to be collected on each student while they were on campus and in student teaching resident centers. The original population was of sufficient size to withstand the resulting mortality. * Department of Elementary and Special Education, Michigan State University, Develgpment of Elementary School Teachers, in progress, 1968. 30 The population selected for study was representa- tive of elementary education students at Michigan State University. It was assumed that students in one Methods Block class were representative of ele— mentary education students at Michigan State Uni— versity. No unusual circumstances occurred which negated this assumption. The quality of student work, their participation in classes, and grade distribution were judged by their instructors to be similar to other classes. It is possible that a more representative pOpulation might have been ob— tained if randomly selected from several Methods Block classes. However, this approach could have sacrificed considerable experimental control for a slight potential gain in generalizability. Better experimental control was assumed if selected subjects had a uniform methods experience than if several instructional teams from different terms were involved. Subjects had the same instructors and experiences in methods courses which eliminated possible variation due to extraneous preparation factors. Selection of subjects from several 31 methods classes could have introduced systematic bias due to instructional differences. Losses in precision of statistical analyses were presumed less likely when subjects had more uniform exper— iences immediately prior to student teaching. 5. Accessibility of the study sites was important due to rigid time controls on data collection imposed by the research design. SOme data could be col- lected prior to student teaching during the Methods sequence. In this way all subjects were tested under controlled conditions. Student teaching, however, was completed in sixteen centers scattered over a wide geographical area. Instruments were administered during the last week of student teach— ing to both students and their supervising teachers. Thus, it was necessary to make uniform the data collection process. Of the 221 students who enrolled in the Elementary Education Methods Block, Fall term, 1967, 124 were used as subjects in this study. The number of subjects lost and reasons for mortality are enumerated in Table l. 32 Table l DISTRIBUTION OF AND REASONS FOR SUBJECT MORTALITY Reasons for Mortality Number Of Students Did not enroll in student teaching Winter term. 1968 27 Students did not complete all instruments 17 Supervising teacher did not return completed student teaching rating 52 Male 1 TOTAL 97 Similarity and timing of training experiences were judged to be important criteria in selecting the popula— tion of the study. An early decision to utilize only those students who completed Methods during Fall term. 1967. and student teaching Winter term. 1968. precluded twenty—seven students from being included in the study. For various reasons they chose not to student teach the term immedi— ately following Methods. In addition. seventeen students did not complete one or more of the instruments used in the study. By far the largest number of subjects were dropped because their supervising teacher did not complete 33 and return an assessment of the student teaching exper- ience. Since the study was concerned with student teach- ers. their personal characteristics. and their confidence for teaching. the large number of supervisors who did not reSpond was assumed to have been assigned to a random se- lection of the student population. Thus. other than some loss of power in statistical techniques. it could be assumed that the results were not adversely affected. The reasons for mortality are open to observation. and the extent of the systematic bias they introduce could serve to influence the results of the study. Description of the Study Population All 124 subjects in the study were females. In Table 2. the population of the study is described by age distribution. Almost 93 percent of the subjects fell in twenty to twenty—two age range which could be considered a typical age level for students at this educational level. Table 3 includes a description of the marital status of the subjects. About nine—tenths of the students were unmarried. 34 Table 2 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY POPULATION Age Groups Subjects 20—22 23-29 30-39 40—49 Number 115 4 3 2 Percent 92.74 3.23 2.42 1.61 Table 3 MARITAL STATUS DISTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY POPULATION Marital Status Subjects Single Married Separated Divorced Number 110 14 0 0 Percent 88.71 11.29 0 0 Family income groupings are shown in Table 4. The skewed distribution indicated the majority of subjects came from families with substantial incomes. Two-thirds of the students' family incomes were at or above 510.000. Table 5 includes information on the community back- grounds of the subjects. The population represented a DISTRIBUTION OF THE 35 Table 4 STUDY POPULATION BY ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME Family Income Ranges Subjects Less $5000 $7500 $10000 More Than to to to Than $5000 $7499 $9999 $15000 $15000 Number 3 15 23 37 45 Percent 2.42 12.10 18.55 29.84 36.29 Table 5 DISTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY POPULATION BY COMMUNITY TYPE Type of Community Number Percent Metropolitan center (city of more than 500.000) 7 5.65 Suburban community close to metropolitan center 27 21.77 City (100.000 - 500.000) 18 14.52 Suburban community adjacent to city 11 8.87 Medium sized city (10.000 ~ 100.000) 30 24.19 Small town (2.500 — 10.000) 17 13.71 Rural community (2.500 or less) or on farm 14 11.29 36 broad range of community sizes and types with slightly less than one half of the subjects coming from either suburban communities close to metropolitan centers or medium-sized cities. Home backgrounds of one-fourth of the subjects were small towns or rural communities with populations of 10.000 or less. The distribution of types of elementary and high schools attended is enumerated in Table 6. Most subjects Table 6 DISTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY POPULATION BY TYPE OF ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOLS ATTENDED Schools Elementary High School Attended Number Percent Number Percent Public 101 81.45 108 87.10 Parochial and/or private 14 11.29 16 12.90 Attended both public and parochial and/or private 9 7.26 2 1.61 received all of their pre-college education in public schools with 81 percent attending public elementary schools and 87 percent attending public high schools. About 37 11 percent attended either private or parochial elementary schools and about 13 percent attended private and/or paro- chial high schools. The remainder attended both types of educational institutions. In Table 7 the distribution of the study popula— tion is shown by colleges attended. About 70 percent of the subjects had attended only Michigan State University. About 25 percent spent from one to more than two years at other colleges or universities. and the remaining 5 per— cent attended other institutions for one year or less. Table 7 DISTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY POPULATION BY COLLEGES ATTENDED One year 1—2 Years More than Sub'ects Attended or less at at 2 years 3 only MSU another another at another college college college Number 87 6 24 7 Percent 70.16 4.84 19.36 5.65 Table 8 represents the distribution of the study population on the basis of their grade averages at Michi— gan State University. A clear majority of about 83 percent 38 Table 8 DISTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY POPULATION BY GRADE POINT AVERAGE Grade Point Average Range——4.0 Scale Subject 2.00-2.49 2.50—2.99 3.00—3.49 3.50—4.00 Number 53 50 15 6 Percent 42.74 40.32 12.10 4.84 have grade point averages in the C to B range (2.00—2.99) with only about 17 percent in the B or higher range (3.00— 4.00). Collection of the Data Instruments were selected to measure the specific variables of the study. Test and inventory instruments used in the study were: the Confidence Level Inventory for Teaching. the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. 39 Confidgnce Level Inventory for Teaching (CLIT) The Configgpce Level Inventory for Teaching (CLIT) was developed by Professors Shirley Brehm and Jean LePere of Michigan State University. They described the CLIT as a self—concept instrument designed to assess an individ— ual's confidence for teaching——a measure of self-concept in relation to teaching. Although still in the pre— publication stage. the instrument was tested and revised several times prior to use in this study. Items used in the CLIT were adapted from the Michigan State University Student Teacher Evaluation Form. In the late 1950's admin- istrative and faculty leadership in the Michigan State Uni- versity teacher education program formed a committee to develop a comprehensive student teacher evaluation form. This committee worked for two years to develop an instru— ment which could effectively be used by supervising teachers and student teaching coordinators to evaluate the performance of student teachers. The final form of the evaluation instrument repre— sented the experience and knowledge of the members of the committee. suggestions from appropriate research and 40 literature. and suggestions of supervising teachers and other public school personnel who used and reviewed the various trial forms as they were developed. The eighty— one behavioral aspects of teaching that resulted were judged as valid criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of student teacher performance. In a 1964 research study LePere and Cox1 revised the directions of the instrument and used it as a measure of student teachers' confidence for teaching. They rea— soned that a student teacher's attitude toward his own potential performance in the tasks considered critical in student teaching was g3 facto evidence of his level of confidence for teaching. The assumption underlying this position was that these described behaviors did in fact represent the major aspects of student teaching. and that a student's feeling of confidence toward these areas would indicate his general confidence for teaching. LePere and Brehm subsequently administered the test to several groups of Michigan State University Methods Block students. Each time they used tetrachoric lLePere and Cox. 0 . cit. 41 correlation coefficients2 to determine discrimination values for each item. In March of 1966. Form I of CLIT with eighty—one items was administered to eighty subjects. Fourty—four items survived the item discrimination analy— sis. In October. 1966. the forty—four item Form II of CLIT was administered to 179 subjects. The number of items was further reduced to 24 on the basis of low and inconsistent tetrachoric correlation coefficients with previous results. In March. 1967. the twenty—four item Form III of the CLIT was administered to 126 subjects. Twenty—two of the twenty-four items remained consistent on the basis of 2 tests of statistical significance at the .05 level using r to z transformations. The tetrachoric correlation coefficient is essen— tially an internal consistency reliability measure which determines the extent to which individual items discrim— inate between those who score high and low. Tetrachoric correlation coefficients obtained over the trials of the items mentioned above support the internal consistency of the instrument. They also indicate substantial 2Allen L. Edwards. Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences (New York: Holt. Rinehart and Wins— ton. 1954). pp. 190-93. 42 unidimensionality in the CLIT which is a necessary cri- terion in establishing construct validity.3 In the present study. tetrachoric correlation co- efficients (rt) were calculated for each item on the CLIT. Obtained values were consistent with the values obtained by LePere and Brehm—-ranging from .60 to .86. The rt values for all administrations are included in Appendix I. LePere and Brehm also obtained test—retest data on the 126 subjects studied in the spring of 1967. The Pearson product—moment correlation coefficient for test scores before and after student teaching was .47. A simi- lar analysis was completed on the 124 subjects in this study. The Pearson product—moment correlation coefficient for the population of this study on the CLIT test—retest was .61. In both situations ten weeks lapsed between test and retest. Both groups of subjects also had student teaching experience during the time lapse. The CLIT involved the subject in rating himself on a ten point scale (extreme concern about abilities to extreme confidence about abilities) for twenty—four be- haviorally stated aspects of teaching. The total score 3Wylie. op. cit.. pp. 25—26. 37. 43 was assumed to provide a measure of confidence level for teaching as represented by the twenty—four behaviors that comprise the instrument. A copy of the CLIT is included in Appendix II. The CLIT was revised for use by supervising teachers. After having worked with a student teacher for ten weeks. they were asked to respond in terms of their confidence in their student teacher's performance in each of the twenty—four areas. Again the range of response was one to ten (from extreme concern about the performance to extreme confidence about the performance). A copy of this revised instrument can be found in Appendix II. The CLIT was administered in about ten minutes. Total scores were obtained by summing responses of the subject for all twenty—four items. High scores indicated high confidence for teaching and low scores low confidence for teaching. Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI This instrument was developed at the University of Minnesota to measure teachers' attitudes toward children 44 and school work. Cook. Leeds. and Callis. authors of the instrument designed it to: . . measure those attitudes of a teacher which predict how well he will get along with pupils in interpersonal relationships. and indirectly how well satisfied he will be with teaching as a vocation. The most direct use to which the MTAI can be put is in the selection of teachers for teaching positions. A parallel use is in counseling students about a vocational choice. 4 Development and validation of the MTAI was accom— plished in several phases. First. a group of principals selected 100 "superior” teachers characterized as main— taining good relations with pupils and 100 ”inferior" teachers characterized as maintaining poor relations with pupils. The responses of these 200 teachers to 756 items presented to them in two forms were examined by statisti— cal item analysis. One hundred sixty—four items were se— lected which were believed to differentiate between the superior and inferior teachers. Cross-validation of the inventory was accomplished by testing another group of 100 teachers selected without prior information as to their relations with pupils. Principals'. pupils'. and 4W. W. Cook. C. H. Leeds and Robert Callis. The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory: Manual (New York: Psychological Corp.. 1951). p. 3. 45 observers“ ratings of each of these teacher's affective merit were obtained. Validity coefficients were computed by using correlations between teachers' scores on MTAI and criterion scores. The correlation of MTAI with prin— cipals“ ratings was .45; with pupils' ratings. r = .46; with observers” ratings. r = .49; and with combined cri- teria. r = .60. Finally an empirical scoring key was formulated and 150 items were selected for publication. The split—half reliability was reported as .909 in the manual.5 The MTAI scoring process was developed empiric— ally. Five possible responses to each item range from strongly agree to strongly disagree. "Right” and ”wrong” answers are keyed and weighed based on the results of the validation procedure. Possible total scores range from -150 to +150 with higher scores indicating more favorable attitudes toward children and school work. Studies using the MTAI to preduct student teach— ing effectiveness have produced varied results. Michaelis obtained a correlation of .36 between MTAI scores and rat— ings by trained supervisors for one hundred elementary 5Ibid.. p. 7. 46 student teachers. He concluded the MTAI discriminated ". . . between students with high and low ratings; high scores were associated with high ratings in student teaching."6 Stein and Hardy used two samples of fifty elementary student teachers to correlate MTAI scores with pupil ratings. adviser ratings. and combined ratings.7 Of eight correlations reported. six were significant at or greater than the .05 level. They concluded that stu— dent teacher attitudes were measured by the MTAI with a ". . . fair degree of both validity and reliability.”8 Studies by Sandgren and Schmidt.7 Oelke.lo and Fullerll 6Michaelis. op. cit.. p. 473. 7H. L. Stein and J. A. Hardy. ”A Validation Study of the MTAI in Manitoba.” Journal of Educational Research. L (1957). pp. 321—338. 8Ibid.. p. 326. 9D. L. Sandgren and L. G. Schmidt. "Does Practice Teaching Change Attitudes Toward Teaching?." Journal of Educational Research. XLIX (1956). pp. 673—680. 10M. C. Oelke. ”A Study of Student Teachers' Atti— tudes Toward Children.” Journal of Educational Psychology. XLVII (1956). pp. 193—196. 1 1Elizabeth M. Fuller. ”The Use of Teacher—Pupil Attitudes. Self-Rating. and Measures of General Ability in the Pre—Service Selection of Nursery School—Kindergarten Primary Teachers." Journal of Educational Research. XLIV (1951). pp. 675—686. 47 found no significant relationships between student teacher MTAI scores and critic teacher and/or supervisor ratings. The validation procedure described above and sub— sequent investigations reveal significant relationships between MTAI scores and teacher—pupil relations in the classroom. The research of Leeds12 and Callis13 supported correlations obtained in validating the MTAI. It would appear that the MTAI had some research support as a predictor of student teaching effectiveness. However. contradictory evidence and inconsistent findings limited its utility beyond research uses. Rokeach Dogmatism Scale Milton Rokeach developed the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale as the primary measuring instrument to test his . l4 theory of belief systems. The theory was an outgrowth 2 . . 1 Carroll H. Leeds. ”A Second Validity Study of the MTAI.” Elementary School Journal. LII (1952). pp. 396-405. l3Robert Callis. "The Efficiency of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory for Predicting Interpersonal Relations in the Classroom." Journal of Applied Psychology. XXXVII (1953). pp. 82—85. 14 . . Milton Rokeach. The Open and Closed Mind (New York: Basic Books. Inc.. 1960). 48 of work on the authoritarian personality.15 Generally. it viewed a given personality as an organization of beliefs or expectancies having a definable and measurable struc- ture. This structure refered to the relative "Openness" or "closedness" of a person's belief systems. Rokeach's central thesis was that "we organize the world of ideas. people. and authority basically along the lines of belief congruance."l6 In Rokeach's terms a system was Open to the extent that the person could receive. evaluate. and act on relevant information from the outside on its own intrinsic merits. unencumbered by irrelevant factors in the situation arising from within the person or from the outside.17 Rokeach identified the defining characteris- tics of Open—closed systems as followsla: 15T. W. Adorno et al.. The Authoritarian Person- ality (New York. Harper and Brothers. 1960). l6ROkeaCh. OE. Cit.l p. 395. 17Ibid.. p. 57. 18Ibid.. pp. 55-56. 49 A Belief—Disbelief System Is Open to the extgpt that. with respect to its organ— ization along the belief disbelief continuum. 1. the magnitude of rejection of dis— belief subsystems is relatively low at each point along the continuum; there is communica- tion of parts with- in and between be— lief and disbelief systems; there is relatively little discrepancy in the degree of differentiation be— tween belief and disbelief systems; there is relatively high differentia— tion within the disbelief system; 1. Lsed the magnitude of rejection of dis— belief subsystems is relatively high at each point along the disbelief con— tinuum; there is isolation of parts within and between belief and disbelief sys- tems; there is relatively great discrepancy in the degree of differentiation between belief and disbelief systems; there is relatively little differentia— tion within the dis- belief system; to the extent that. with respect to the organiza— tion along the central—peripheral dimension. 1. the specific content of primitive beliefs (central region) is to the effect that the world one lives in. or the situation one is in at a par— ticular moment. is a friendly one; 1. the Specific content of primitive beliefs (central region) is to the effect that the world one lives in. or the situation one is in at a par- ticular moment. is a threatening one; 50 Open the formal con- tent of beliefs about authority and about people who hold to sys— tems of authority (intermediate re— gion) is to the effect that author— ity is not absolute and that people are not to be evaluated at all) according to their agreement or disagreement with such authority; the structure of be— liefs and disbeliefs perceived to emanate from authority (per— ipheral region) is such that its substructures are in relative com— munication with each other. and finally; Closed the formal con— tent of beliefs about authority and about people who hold to sys— tems of authority (intermediate re— gion) is to the effect that author— ity is absolute and that people are to be accepted and re— jected according to their agreement or disagreement with such authority; the structure of be— liefs and disbeliefs perceived to emanate from authority (per— ipheral region) is such that its substructures are in relative isola— tion with each other. and finally; C. to the extent that. with respect to the time— perspective dimension. 1. relatively broad time perspective. there is a l. relatively narrow. future—oriented time perspective. The short-form of the Rokeach scale used in this in an effort 19 study was develOped by Troldahl and Powell lgVerling C. Troldahl and Frederic A. Powell. "A Short Form Dogmatism Scale for Use in Field Studies.” Social Forces. 44: No. 2 (December. 1965). pp. 211-214. 51 to decrease administration time while maintaining high reliability. Their split—half reliability of .79 for the short-form compared favorably with .84 on the forty—item form. They suggested. "It would seem that the 20—item version could be used without much reluctance."20 This twenty—item instrument required approximately ten minutes to complete. The subject indicated disagree— ment or agreement with each item on a scale ranging from —3 to +3 with the zero point excluded to force responses toward agreement or disagreement. The scale was subse— quently converted. for scoring purposes. to a l to 7 scale by adding a constant of 4 to each item score. A subject‘s score was computed by summing the scale—scores of the twenty items on the test. Higher scores indicated a more closed belief system and lower scores a more open belief system. The scale purports to "measure individual differ— ences in openness or closedness of belief systems” and should also serve to measure a general authoritarianism and general intolerance.” A copy of the short—form of the Rokeach scale is included in Appendix II. 201bid.. p. 213. K. I - 52 Unfortunately. student teaching research using the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale was not available. In the absence of such research. generalizations empirically supported by Rokeach and his associates may be useful. The following differences between relatively closed— and open-minded persons. as measured by the Dogmatism Scale. were supported. 1. Closed— and open—minded persons differed in their ability to synthesize in problem solving situa- tions-—relatively open persons appeared more able to synthesize.21 2. Relatively open—minded persons appeared more able to remember or keep in mind new information neces— sary for operating in a new system; e.g.. problem solving situation with uncommon restrictions. 3. Relatively closed—minded persons appeared more prone to party—line thinking and loyalty to a system.23 21Rokeach. op. cit.. p. 213. 2 . . 2 Ibid. p. 286. 23Ibid.. p. 407. 53 4. Relatively closed—minded persons appeared to be less willing to entertain something unconven— . 24 tional or new. 5. Relatively open- and closed—minded persons dif— fered consistently in the ability to form new belief systems. whether these systems were con— . . 25 ceptual. perceptual. or aesthetic in nature. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule was de— signed to assess the relative strengths of fifteen mani— , 26 . fest needs selected from Murray 5 need system. Fifteen needs were measured by the EPPS. l. Achievement: To do one's best. to be suc— cessful. to accomplish tasks requiring skill and effort. to be a recognized authority. to accomplish something of great significance. to do a difficult job well. to solve diffi— cult problems and puzzles. to be able to do things better than others. to write a great novel or play. 2 . 241bid.. p. 284. 5Ibid.. p. 397. 2 . . . 6H. A. Murray. Explorations in Personality (New York: Oxford University Press. 1938). 54 Deference: To get suggestions from others. to find out what others think. to follow instructions and do what is expected. to praise others. to tell others that they have done a good job. to accept the leader— ship of others. to read about great men. to conform to custom and avoid the uncon— ventional. to let others make decisions. Order: To have written work neat and or— ganized. to make plans before starting on a difficult task. to have things organized. to keep things neat and orderly. to make advance plans when taking a trip. to or— ganize details of work. to keep letters and files according to some system. to have meals organized and a definite time for eating. to have things arranged so that they run smoothly without change. Exhibition: To say witty and clever things. to tell amusing jokes and stories. to talk about personal adventures and experiences. to have others notice and comment upon one's appearance. to say things just to see what effect it will have on others. to talk about personal achievements. to be the center of attention. to use words that others do not know the meaning of. to ask questions others cannot answer. Autonomy: To be able to come and go. as de— sired. to say what one thinks about things. to be independent of others in making deci— sions. to feel free to do what one wants. to do things that are unconventional. to avoid situations where one is expected to conform. to do things without regard to what others may think. to criticize those in posi- tions of authority. to avoid responsibilities and obligations. 10. 55 Affiliation: To be loyal to friends. to participate in friendly groups. to do things for friends. to form new friendships. to make as many friends as possible. to share things with friends. to do things with friends rather than alone. to form strong attachments. to write letters to friends. Intraception: To analyze one's motives and feelings. to observe others. to understand how others feel about problems. to put one's self in another“s place. to judge people by why they do things rather than by what they do. to analyze the behavior of others. to analyze the motives of others. to predict how others will act. Succorance: To have others provide help when in trouble. to seek encouragement from others. to have others be kindly. to have others be sympathetic and understanding about personal problems. to receive a great deal of affection from others. to have others do favors cheerfully. to be helped by others when depressed. to have others feel sorry when one is sick. to have a fuss made over one when hurt. Dominance: To argue for one's point of view. to be a leader in groups to which one belongs. to be regarded by others as a leader. to be elected or appointed chairman of com— mittees. to make group decisions. to settle arguments and disputes between others. to persuade and influence others to do what one wants. to supervise and direct the ac— tions of others. to tell others how to do their jobs. Abasement; To feel guilty when one does something wrong. to accept blame when things do not go right. to feel that personal pain and misery suffered does more good than harm. ll. 12. l3. 14. 56 to feel the need for punishment for wrong doing. to feel better when giving in and avoiding a fight than when having one's own way. to feel the need for confession of errors. to feel depressed by inability to handle situations. to feel timid in the presence of superiors. to feel inferior to others in most respects. Nurturance: To help friends when they are in trouble. to assist others less fortunate. to treat others with kindness and sympathy. to forgive others. to do small favors for others. to be generous with others. to sym— pathize with others who are hurt or sick. to show a great deal of affection toward others. to have others confide in one about personal problems. Change: To do new and different things. to travel. to meet new people. to experience novelty and change in daily routine. to ex— periment and try new things. to eat in new and different places. to try new and differ— ent jobs. to move about the country and live in different places. to participate in new fads and fashions. Endurance: To keep at a job until it is finished. to complete any job undertaken. to work hard at a task. to keep at a puzzle or problem until it is solved. to work at a single job before taking on others. to stay up late working in order to get a job done. to put in long hours of work without distraction. to stick at a problem even though it may seem as if no progress is being made. to avoid being interrupted while at work. Heterosexuality: To go out with members of the opposite sex. to be in love with some— one of the opposite sex. to kiss those of 57 the opposite sex. to be regarded as phys- ically attractive by those of the opposite sex. to participate in discussions about sex. to read books and plays involving sex. to listen to or tell jokes involving sex. to become sexually excited. 15. Aggression: To attack contrary points of View. to tell others what one thinks about them. to criticize others publicly. to make fun of others. to tell others off when disa- greeing with them. to get revenge for in- sults. to become angry. to blame others when things go wrong. to read newspaper accounts of violence. The paired comparison method was used in construct— ing the EPPS. Each need was represented by nine items. The items for each need were paired with items from other needs that had similar average social desirability ratings. Each pair of needs was compared twice in this way. with 210 pairs of items required. The EPPS provided three kinds of scores: scores for each need (the number of times that the need was chosen as being more descriptive than the other needs); a consistency score (agreement in responses on fifteen pairs of items that were identical); and a profile stability score (the correlation between the score profiles for the two halves of the inventory). 27 Allen L. Edwards. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule: Manual. 1959 Rev. (New York: The Psychological Corp.. 1959). p. 11. 58 The forced choice paired-comparison format of the EPPS resulted in total scores for each subject which were constant. and thus the scores were ipsative. An answer to an item represented a forced choice; therefore the num— ber of possible answers to some other variable was de— creased. A discussion of the ipsative nature of the EPPS and a critical analysis of this technique do not fall within the scope of this study. but are ably handled by the reviewers in Buros” Sixth Mental Measurements Year— 2225-28 Test construction was based on the premise that the fifteen needs were normal personality variables; that any pattern or score derived from an individual's answers to the items on the test was a normal pattern or score. and that differences in scores between people could be accounted for by differences among people. The test yields individual scores for each of the variables. and the total set of scores. when considered together. is termed a ”need profile” or ”personality pattern.” 2 . 8The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook. ed. Oscar K. Buros (Highland Park. N. J.: Gryphon Press. 1965). pp. 195—207. 59 To permit interindividual comparisons and to allow for sex differences. centile rank norms (college and gen— eral adult) and T score norms (college only) based on large samples were computed for males and females separ— ately. Split—half internal consistency reliability coef— ficients were reported which ranged from .60 to .87 with a median of .78. One—week retest reliabilities were also . . . 29 quoted ranging from .74 to .87 Wlth a median of .83. Information on validity was sparse and unclear. As one reviewer wrote. ”Validity remains an empirical . . . . . .30 . . question in SpeCified c1rcumstances.’ The ipsative nature of the instrument introduces particular problems . . . . . 31 . . in answering validity questions. At this time the EPPS is primarily regarded as a research tool. Examination of the research using the EPPS reveals that most studies compared needs for two or more teacher classifications. Jackson and Guba compared the needs of male and female teachers with the norms reported in the 29 Edwards. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule: Manual. p. 19. 3 . . 0The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook. op. cit.. p. 195. 3lIbid.. pp. 196—198. 6O manual.32 Teachers differed significantly from the norms with higher deference and lower heterosexuality scores° Elementary females also scored significantly higher on order and endurance needs and lower on exhibition than the norm group. Hamachek and Mori compared the needs of male and female education students.33 Females“ needs were significantly higher than males” on affiliation. succorance. nurturance. and change; males scored higher than females on dominance. aggression. autonomy. and achievement. Comparisons have also been made between EPPS need scores of experienced and inexperienced teachers. Female novices scored significantly higher than veterans on het— erosexuality. exhibition. and change; novices were lower than veterans on endurance. order. and deference.34 Gold- man and Heald found that experience in teaching was 2Phillip W. Jackson and Egon G. Guba. ”The Need Structure of In—Service Teachers: An Occupational Analy- sis." The School Review. LXV. No. 2 (1957). pp. 176—192. 33 . Don E. Hamachek and Tokako Mori. "Need Struc— ture. Personal Adjustment. and Academic Self-Concept of Beginning Education Students.” Journal of Educational 32‘ .search. LVIII. No. 4 (December. 1964). pp. 158—162. 34Jackson and Guba. op. cit. 61 accompanied by increases in order and dominance needs . 35 and a decrease in the need for abasement. Scandrette examined the need patterns of women 36 . elementary and secondary level student teachers. Sig— nificant differences were found. with secondary student teachers higher in autonomy. dominance. and aggression need areas and elementary student teachers higher in affiliation. Southworth found greater needs for abase— ment. affiliation. succorance. and nurturance in early- elementary preference students and greater needs for achievement. aggression. and exhibition in later—elementary preference students when the two groups were compared.37 In summary. the EPPS seemed to indicate differ— ences in need patterns for various categories of teachers 5Harvey Goldman and James E. Heald. “Teachers' Need Patterns and the Administrator." Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. LI. No. 323 (December. 1967). pp. 93—104. 36 . . Onas Scandrette. ”Differential Need Patterns of Women Elementary and Secondary Level Student Teachers." Journal of Educational Research. LV. No. 8 (May. 1962). pp. 376—379. 37Horton C. Southworth. ”A Study of Certain Per— sonality and Value Differences in Teacher Education Majors Preferring Early and Later Elementary Teaching Levels." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Michigan State Univer— sity. 1962. 62 and education students. Need patterns differed signifi- cantly for male and female teachers. experienced and in- experienced teachers. and education students preparing to teach at different levels. No research has related confidence or specifically confidence for teaching. to the EPPS. However the descrip— tions of the fifteen EPPS needs suggest the possibility that some of the needs may be related to confidence. One might expect differences in achievement. autonomy. intra— ception. succorance. dominance. and abasement between high and low confidence groups. Continued research relating the EPPS to classifications of teachers and education stu- dents is certainly supported by previous studies. Administration of Instruments The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. the Rp— keach Dogmatism Scale. and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule were administered to all subjects during the first two weeks of the Methods Block——September 18 through Sep— tember 30. 1967. The MTAI and the Dogmatism Scale were administered in one sitting in small group sessions during the first week. Individual make-up sessions were held to 63 collect data from those students who were absent during the testing periods. The EPPS and a machine—scored answer sheet were distributed to students at the end of the test- ing session. The subjects were directed to complete the inventory privately. take no more than sixty minutes to complete it. and return it before September 30. 1967. The Confidppce Level Inventory for Teaching was administered to all subjects in small group sessions of the Methods Block during the last week of the term-— December 2 through December 9. 1967. The inventory was administered by members of the research team who collected data for the study of the teacher education program at Michigan State University. The revised supervising teacher form of the CLIT was administered during the final week of student teach— ing—-March 11 through March 15. 1968. The post—test ad- ministration of the CLIT for student teachers was also completed at this time. The Resident Student Teaching Coordinators in the sixteen off—campus Student Teaching Centers administered these instruments. Directions for all administrations of instruments and collection of other data were consistent. The proce- dure followed was: 64 At the initial meeting of the Methods Block. Sep- tember 18. 1967. the subjects were asked to coop- erate in a research project designed to obtain information relevant to the Elementary Teacher Education Program at Michigan State University. They were directed to identify all responses with their name and student number. They were informed that information derived was strictly for research purposes and in no case would it be made available to their instructors. student teaching coordinators. or supervising teachers. In any research reports no student would be personally identified. Subjects were reminded of these original comments at each administration and data collection exper- ience to maintain a consistent research format over the two terms. Directions for all instruments were considered self-explanatory. Only procedural questions were answered. All data were collected directly by the investi- gator or other members of the research team. 65 This was done to maintain good faith with the subjects on the point that only members of the research team would handle and/or process data that identified them personally. Instruments administered in the field setting were placed in envelopes which were immediately sealed. and mailed to the research team. Supervising teachers were informed that their reSponses to the CLIT would be available only to the research team and that the results would be used only for research pur— poses. An underlying assumption of this procedure was that a more objective appraisal of the student teacher's performance would result if the supervising teachers re- alized that the results would not appear in student folders or other records. Statistical Analysis Analysis Procedur§§ Used The Pearson product—moment statistic was computed to obtain correlations for testing hypotheses I. II. III. 66 3 . . and V. 8 Assumptions required for the use of the product— moment correlation were that the two variables are contin— uous and that the relationship between the two variables is linear. All relationships were graphed and examined for linearity to support this crucial assumption. The "t" test that the correlation coefficient is equal to zero . . . 39 in the population was used to test each hypotheSis. High and low groups were identified on the basis of their pre—student teaching CLIT scores. These groups were used in analyzing hypotheses IV and VII. The high group was composed of those students whose CLIT scores were in the top 27 percent while the low group was com— posed of those in the bottom 27 percent. Justification for the selection process was discussed by Ebel: 27 per cent provides the best compromise between two desirable but inconsistent aims (l) to make the extreme groups as large as possible and (2) to make the extreme groups as different as possible. Truman Kelley demonstrated that when extreme groups. each consisting of approx— imately 27 per cent of the total group are used. 38James E. Wert. Charles 0. Neidt. and J. Stanley Ahonann. Statistical Mgthods ingEducational and Psycho- logical Research (New York: Appleton—Century—Crofts. Inc.. 1954). pp. 54—89. 39 . . Helen M. Walker and Joseph Lev. Statistical In— ference (New York; Holt. Rinehart. and Winston. 1953). pp. 251—252. .1” ‘I 67 the ratio of the difference in average abili- ties of the groups to the standard error of their difference. i.e.. the degree of uncer— tainty about the size of the real difference is maximum. Means on the fifteen EPPS need sub—scales were compared for the high and low CLIT groups to analyze hy— pothesis IV. The ipsative nature of the EPPS results in non—independence of the sub—scales. It is therefore in— appropriate to use a "t" test for all fifteen mean com— parisons. because the significance level for each succes— sive "t" test would not be the same as the original "t” test. Unfortunately. the appropriate level each should be remains unknown. Because of this unresolved problem. ”t" tests were used only where numerical differences be- tween means were substantial. The results of the EPPS analysis should be considered with this limitation in mind. The analysis of hypothesis VII compared perceived strengths and weaknesses of prospective teachers in the high and low confidence groups. The data were categorized between the responses of the high and low groups. 40Robert L. Ebel. Measuring Educational Achieve— ment (Englewood Cliffs. N. J.: Prentice—Hall. Inc.. 1965). p. 349. 68 Hypothesis VI was analyzed using the differences between pre— and post—CLIT self-ratings on each individual. A "t” test was used to determine whether the mean of the differences varied from zero.41 Significance Level Chosen The five percent level for acceptance or rejec- tion of the null hypothesis was selected as being suffi- ciently rigorous for the conditions of this study. Thus. if the probability was at or less than five times in one hundred that the observed difference or one greater could arise by chance. the hypothesis was rejected; but if the observed difference was of such a magnitude that it or one greater might arise more than five times in one hun- dred through the operation of chance factors. the null hypothesis of no difference was accepted. 41Wilfrid J. Dixon and Frank J. Massey. Introduc— tion to Statistical Analysis (New York: McGraw—Hill. InC.. 1957) I pp. 124—27. Chapter III ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Seven hypotheses were tested in the present study. In the following sections the analysis for each is pre— sented. Hypothesis I There is no relationship between a student's expressed confidence level for teaching prior to stu— dent teaching and his performance in student teaching as rated by his supervising teacher. Confidgnce Level Inventory for Teaching (CLIT) self—ratings were used as the measure of expressed confi- dence level for teaching. Supervising teacher CLIT rat- ings were used as the measure of performance in student teaching. The obtained product-moment correlation is re- ported in Table 9. 69 r"... 70 Table 9 PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION BETWEEN CLIT SELF—RATING AND CLIT SUPERVISING TEACHER PERFORMANCE RATING Product CLIT Mean Standard Moment DeViation . Correlation Self—rating 139.47 25.26 r = .20* Supervising teacher 166.33 28.95 *Significant at .05 level of confidence. The null hypothesis that the population correla— tion equals zero was rejected at the .05 level of confi— dence. The obtained correlation differed from zero in the positive direction. While the result was statistic— ally significant. the correlation of .20 was considered quite low. Hypothesis II There is no relationship between a student's expressed confidence level for teaching prior to stu— dent teaching and his measured attitudes toward children and school work. 7l CLIT self—ratings were used as the measure of con- fidence level for teaching. Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI) scores represented attitudes toward children and school work. The product-moment correlation is reported in Table 10. Table 10 PRODUCT—MOMENT CORRELATION BETWEEN CLIT SELF-RATINGS AND MTAI SCORES Product Instrument Mean Standard Moment DeViation . Correlation CLIT self-rating 139.47 25.26 r = .12 MTAI 53.15 25.08 The obtained correlation indicated a relationship not Significantly different from zero at the .05 level of confidence. The null hypothesis of no relationship was accepted. Hypothesis III There is no relationship between a student's expressed confidence 1.: 72 level for teaching prior to student teaching and his measured open—closed mindedness. CLIT self—ratings were again used to represent confidence level for teaching. Rokeach Dogmatism Scale scores were used as the measure of open—closed mindedness. The product-moment correlation is reported in Table 11. Table 11 PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION BETWEEN CLIT SELF—RATINGS AND ROKEACH DOGMATISM SCALE SCORES Product Instrument Mean Standard Moment DeViation . Correlation CLIT self—rating 139.47 25.26 r = .53* Rokeach Scale 63.19 9.64 *Significant at .05 level of confidence. The null hypothesis that there is no relationship was rejected at the .05 level of confidence. The obtained correlation differed from zero in the positive direction. Students whose self—rating of confidence for teaching was high tended to have a more closed belief system. 73 Hypothesis IV There is no difference in measured needs of students whose expressed confidence level for teaching is high prior to student teaching and those whose expressed confidence level for teaching is low prior to student teaching. High and low confidence group selection was based on pre-student teaching CLIT self-ratings. The highest twenty-seven percent of the study population were compared with the lowest twenty—seven percent. Edwards Personal Prefergpce Schedule scores represented measured needs. Means and standard deviations on the EPPS for high and low confidence groups are compared in Table 12. The null hypothesis of no difference was rejected for two of the needs at the .05 level of confidence. High confidence group means were significantly higher on the dominance scale and significantly lower on the succor- ance scale than low confidence group means. 74 Table 12 COMPARISON OF HIGH AND LOW CONFIDENCE GROUP MEAN SCORES ON THE EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE High Confidence Low Confidence n = 34 n = 34 Need Standard Standard Mean . . Mean . . DeViation DeViation Achievement 12.18 5.11 11.68 3.48 Deference 10.97 3.08 10.97 3.59 Order 9.76 4.13 10.97 5.37 Exhibition 13.76 3.56 14.59 3.01 Autonomy 10.30 3.31 11.55 3.64 Affiliation 18.39 3.94 17.35 3.65 Intraception 18.00 4.44 17.68 4.57 Succorance 12.58 4.29 15 35 4.80* Dominance 14.45 4.83 11.85 4.41* Abasement 13.21 4.77 15.32 4.48 Nurturance 17.73 4.07 16.15 4.51 Change 18.52 4.31 17.85 3.94 Endurance 12.61 4.70 11.15 4.83 Heterosexuality 15.55 5.10 16.12 5.37 Aggression 10.79 4.08 10.06 4.51 *Difference Significant at .05 level of confidence. H othesis V There is no relationship between a student's expressed confidence level for teaching prior to student teach— ing and his academic standing. 75 CLIT self-ratings were used as the measure of confidence level for teaching. University grade-point averages represented academic standing. The Pearson product-moment correlation is reported in Table 13. Table 13 PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION BETWEEN CLIT SELF—RATING AND GRADE-POINT AVERAGE Standard Product Measure Mean . . Moment DeViation . Correlation CLIT self—rating 139.47 25.26 r = .01 Grade—point average 2.62 .39 The null hypothesis that the population correla- tion equals zero was accepted at the .05 level of confi— dence. No relation was found between CLIT self—rating and grade—point average. Hypothesis VI There is no difference between a student's expressed confidence level for teaching prior to student teach- ing and his expressed confidence for teaching at the end of student teaching. 76 Student scores on pre— and post-student teaching CLIT administrations were used as measures of confidence for teaching in analyzing hypothesis VI. The mean of the differences and obtained ”t" value are reported in Table 14. Table 14 MEAN OF THE DIFFERENCES AND OBTAINED "t" VALUE FOR PRE- AND POST—CLIT SELF—RATINGS . Mean of Obtained CLIT Self—ratings Mean Differences "t" Pre—student teaching 139.47 19.12 9.29* Post—student teaching 158.61 *Significant at the .05 level of confidence. The null hypothesis that the mean of the differ— ences equals zero is rejected at the .05 level of confi— dence. A mean increase in CLIT self—ratings of over nine- teen points occurred between pre- and post—measures. 1x. 77 Hypothesis VII There is no difference in perceived strengths and weaknesses of students whose expressed confidence level for teaching is high prior to student teaching and those whose expressed confidence level for teaching is low prior to student teaching. High and low twenty—seven percent CLIT groups re— sponded to open—ended questions asking them to identify and list perceived strengths and weaknesses as prospec— tive teachers before student teaching. Selected cate- gories and sample strength and weakness comments appear in Table 15. Table 15 EXAMPLE COMMENTS OF PERCEIVED STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AS PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS IN SELECTED CATEGORIES Examples of Examples of Category Strength Comments Weakness Comments Personal "patience," "un- "timid." ”shyness.’ Qualities derstanding," "de— "unenthusiastic,” and sire,” ”enthusi— "often worry and Characteristics asm.” "enjoy chil- lack confidence," dren,” ”confi- "uncreative." dence,” “out— "lack self- going" confidence at times.” 78 Table 15 (continued) Category Examples of Examples of Strength Comments Weakness Comments Command of "feel confident "not sure of sub— Subject Matter in subject areas," ject matter back— "know my subject." ground." “fear of "strong in Eng— not knowing enough lish, reading, (subject content)," and science." "content weaknesses," "feel competent ”weak in math and in my knowledge science," "knowledge of subject matter" of subject matter.” Planning and "well—planned ac— "having appropriate Teaching tivities," ”can expectations," motivate children "bring subject down and hold inter— to kids' level," est.” ”prepared "sequencing plans,” in unit and daily "unsure about ex- planning," "usu— pectations,” ”mo— ally explain tivation,“ "getting things in appro— through to all priate terms,” kids," "weak in ”can devise im- oral explanation." aginative activi— ties" Discipline "not worried "not sure how to and about discipline handle discipline Control problems," ”pa— problems," "too tience in hand— permissive with ling problems," children,” ”fear "can maintain of lack of control," comfortable ”might have trouble classroom situa- with misbehaving tion" child.“ Table 15 (continued) 79 Category Examples Examples of Strength Comments Weakness Comments Related "experience with "not enough ex- Experience children," "more perience as a and work in a class— teacher." "unex- Background room than most perienced." "not people have had." enough practical "good background, experiences," working and "lack of experi— travel," ”camp ence." ”I have counseled for no experience three years." teaching." Subjects' responses were analyzed and tabulated according to the selected categories presented in Table 15. Listed responses for each subject were analyzed to determine which categories he mentioned as strengths and which categories he mentioned as weaknesses. If a sub- ject mentioned at least one strength or weakness in a category he was tallied there. Most subjects were tal— lied in more than one strength category and more than one weakness category. and weaknesses in the same category; Some subjects identified both strengths e.g., a personal characteristic mentioned as a strength and another per- sonal characteristic mentioned as a weakness. The result- ing tabulation of perceived strenghs and weaknesses is presented in Table 16. .oocmpflmcoo mo Ho>ma mo. um unmofiwflcmam oocmummMHQ .vm.v mnmovmlfino pocflmu90¥ NH w o m unsoumxomm cam wocwflummxm pwumamm SH Va H m Houucou paw mcHHmHomHQ me me m on mannomme pom mceccmam w h m m kuumz uownflsm wo pcmasoo 80 *wH 0 am om mUHumHkuomHmflo pcm mwfluflamso Hmcowumm ism u av ism u av ism H gr ism u av mocha wocmp msonw mosmp msouo wocmp msouw mucop newcoo 3OQ newcoo swam newcoo 304 lawsoo nmflm mmanomwumo mmmmmcxmmz mcflhwfluqmpH maumcmuum mzehwflucmpH muowflflsm mo H®QEDZ muowflQSm mo HmQEDZ mMHMOUMBfio nmeomqmm ZH mmmmo¢m8 m>HBUmmm0mm mfl mmmwszHm0mmm OZHVEHBZMQH mfiomhmbm NOZHQHWZOU 30d QZ¢ EUHE m0 mMmmEDZ GH THQMB 81 The data in Table 16 indicate similar numbers of high and low confidence subjects in most strength and weakness categories. The null hypothesis of no differ- ence was rejected in one category at the .05 level of confidence. Significantly more low confidence subjects identified personal characteristics as weaknesses than did high confidence subjects. Substantial numbers of both high and low confidence subjects identified per- sonal characteristics as strengths. Further analysis of Hypothesis VII compared high and low confidence group responses in three categories: 1) more strengths than weaknesses mentioned; 2) more weaknesses than strenths mentioned; and 3) equal numbers of strengths and weaknesses mentioned. The results appear in Table 17. The null hypothesis of no difference between high and low confidence reSponses was rejected at the .05 level of confidence. High confidence subjects differed significantly from low confidence subjects in number of strengths versus number of weaknesses mentioned. Those students whose pre-student teaching confidence level was high tended to list more strengths than weaknesses, while low confidence students listed more weaknesses than strengths. 82 Table 17 NUMBERS OF HIGH AND LOW CONFIDENCE SUBJECTS RESPONDING WITH MORE STRENGTHS THAN WEAKNESSESp THAN STRENGTHSp AND WEAKNESSES MORE WEAKNESSES AND EQUAL NUMBERS OF STRENGTHS High Low Degrees Response Confi— Confi- of S 32:; dence dence Freedom q More Strengths than Weaknesses 26 13 2 11.58* More Weaknesses than Strengths 7 13 Equal Strengths and Weaknesses l 8 TOTALS 34 34 *Difference significant at .05 level of confidence. 'Summary The analyses of the hypotheses in this study were examined with the following results: 83 Hypothesis Results There is no relation— Rejected at the .05 level ship between a stu- of confidence. While dent's expressed con— the correlation was low fidence level for (.20), high confidence teaching prior to was related to high rat- student teaching and ing by supervising his performance in teacher. student teaching as rated by his supervis— ing teacher. There is no relation— Accepted. Correlation ship between a stu- not significant at the dent“s expressed con— .05 level of confidence. fidence level for teaching prior to stu— dent teaching and his measured attitudes to- ward children and school work. Hypothesis There is no relation- ship between a stu- dent"s expressed con— fidence level for teaching prior to stu— dent teaching and his measured open-closed mindedness. There is no difference in measured needs of student"s whose ex— pressed confidence level for teaching is high prior to student teaching and those whose expressed confi- dence level for teach— ing is low prior to student teaching. 84 Results Rejected at the .05 level of confidence. Students whose self-rating of con— fidence for teaching was high tended to have a more closed belief system. Rejected at the .05 level of confidence on succor— ance (low confidence group higher) and domin— ance (high confidence group higher) need scales. Accepted at the .05 level on the other thirteen need scales. 85 Hypothesis There is no relation— ship between a stu— dent's expressed con— fidence level for teaching prior to stu- dent teaching and his academic standing. There is no difference between a student's expressed confidence level for teaching prior to student teach— ing and his expressed confidence level for teaching at the end of student teaching. There is no difference in perceived strengths and weaknesses of stu— dents whose expressed Results Accepted at the .05 level of confidence. Rejected at the .05 level of confidence. Confi— dence level was higher at the end of student teaching. Accepted at the .05 level of confidence on five strength and four weakness categories. Rejected at Hypothesis confidence level for teaching is high prior to student teaching and those whose ex— pressed confidence level for teaching is low prior to student teaching. Results .05 level of confidence for weakneSses in per— sonal characteristics category, where more low confidence students iden— tified weaknesses. Re— jected at .05 level of confidence on number of strengths versus number of weaknesses mentioned. High confidence students tended to list more strengths than weaknesses while low confidence stu- dents tended to list more weaknesses than strengths. Chapter IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Chapter IV is organized in five sections. The first section is a summary of the thesis. Limitations of the study are presented in the second section followed by the conclusions. Implications appear in the fourth sec- tion and implications for further research in the final section. w The purpose of this study was to explore the sa— lience of a specific measure of self—regard——confidence in one's teaching abilities——as a variable in the professional education of elementary teachers. Specifically, the inves— tigation was designed to determine relationships between confidence for teaching and student teacher effectiveness and personality dimensions. One hundred twenty—four female elementary education students attending Michigan State University were used as 87 88 subjects. The Confidence Level Inventory for Teaching (CLIT) was administered to them prior to and at the end of student teaching to measure confidence level for teach- ing. The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI), the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, and the Edwards Personal Prefer— ence Schedule (EPPS) were administered prior to student teaching in methods classes. Additional variables studied were academic standing and perceived strengths and weak— nesses as prospective teachers. Supervising teacher rat— ings on a modified form of the Confidence Level Inventory for Teaching were used to measure performance in student teaching. Performance ratings were obtained after ten weeks of student teaching. Seven null hypotheses were tested using these variables. 1. The first hypothesis was concerned with the rela— tionship between CLIT self—ratings and supervising teacher CLIT performance ratings. The obtained product—moment correlation (r = .20) was signifi— cant at the .05 level of confidence. High confi- dence in teaching by the student tended to be re— lated to high rating by the supervising teacher. 89 The second hypothesis dealt with the relationship between CLIT self-ratings and MTAI scores. The obtained product—moment correlation (r = .12) was not significant at the .05 level of confidence. The third hypothesis posited that there was no relationship between CLIT self—ratings and Rokeach Dogmatism Scale scores. The obtained product— moment correlation (r = .52) was significant at the .05 level of confidence. High confidence in teaching by students tended to be related to a closed belief system. Hypothesis four stated that high and low confidence level for teaching groups would not differ on needs as measured by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. A "t“ test analysis indicated that sig— nificant differences occurred at the .05 level on succorance and dominance needs. High confidence subjects scored higher on dominance and lower on succorance . Hypothesis five was concerned with the relation— ship between CLIT self—ratings and university 9O grade—point averages. The obtained product-moment correlation (r = .01) was not significant at the .05 level. The sixth hypothesis stated that there was no dif— ference between pre— and post—student teaching CLIT self-ratings. A "t" test of the mean of the differ— ences revealed a significant difference at the .05 level of confidence. Post-measures were signifi— cantly higher than pre-measures. Hypothesis seven stated that there were no differ— ences between perceived strengths and weaknesses of high and low confidence for teaching groups. A Chi—square analysis supported the null hypothesis in five strength categories and four weakness cate— gories. A significant difference was found at the .05 level in the category where personal qualities were mentioned as weaknesses. Number of strengths mentioned versus number of weaknesses mentioned differed significantly for high and low confidence groups at the .05 level of confidence. High con— fidence students tended to list more strengths 91 than weaknesses while low confidence students tended to list more weaknesses than strengths. Limitations of the Study All subjects were female elementary education stu— dents. All subjects were attending Michigan State Uni— versity and thus may have been influenced by par— ticular requirements and experiences involved in the preparation provided them. The extent to which instruments utilized were re— liable and valid for the purpose of this study limits results and conclusions. Sparse and incon- clusive validity data on the CLIT open it partic- ularly to close scrutiny; while, as discussed in Chapter II, the MTAI, EPPS, and Rokeach Dogmatism Scale are primarily research tools. Control over supervising teacher assessments of student teacher performance was limited to the use 92 of a single instrument. Each student teacher was evaluated by the supervising teacher with whom he worked. Thus, a wide range of supervising teacher expectations and standards may have been reflected in these ratings. Assessment by a single individ— ual or trained observers might have resulted in more reliable measures of student teacher effec— tiveness. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions were supported: 1. Confidence level for teaching prior to student teaching as measured by the CLIT was positively related to supervising teacher CLIT ratings of performance in student teaching. No relationship was found between confidence level for teaching as measured by the CLIT and attitudes toward children and school work as measured by the MTAI . 93 Confidence level for teaching as measured by the CLIT was related to open—closed mindedness as mea— sured by the short form of the Rokeach Dogmatism S9312. The correlation had a substantial positive value indicating that high confidence level for teaching was associated with relative closed- mindedness. High and low confidence level for teaching groups did not differ on most needs as measured by the Ed— wards Personal Preference Schedule. The high confi— dence group indicated a higher dominance need and a lower succorance need than the low confidence group. No relationship was found between confidence level for teaching and academic standing as represented by university grade—point average. Measures of confidence level for teaching differed when taken prior to student teaching and at the end of student teaching. Average increases in confi— dence level for teaching were substantial. 94 7. High and low confidence level subjects did not differ in patterns of perceived strengths and weak- nesses in five strength categories and four weak— ness categories. In one category, personal char— acteristics, low confidence subjects mentioned more weaknesses than high confidence subjects. High confidence students tended to list more strengths than weaknesses while low confidence stu— dents tended to list more weaknesses than strengths. Implications The investigation of confidence for teaching repre— sents a new dimension of teacher education research. The findings of this study suggest possible interpretations of confidence for teaching and its relationship to teacher effectiveness. High Confidence Level Inventory for Teaching self— ratings prior to student teaching may result from a sim- plistic perception of the teaching role. Examination of the CLIT reveals that the items represent rather broad aspects of teacher role. Viewed explicitly, the twenty-four 95 items appear to describe teaching as a composite of general simplified behaviors. Students who are unable to perceive implicit competencies required to perform such general be— haviors may rate themselves spuriously high. More able students may perceive the complexities involved and assess their capabilities more realistically. Students who rate themselves relatively low, whether it be based on simple or complex perceptions of the teaching role, appear to be indicating a basic lack of confidence in their ability to succeed in student teaching. It is possible that more able students fall in the middle range on CLIT self—ratings, because their basis for assessment involves a more accurate perception of what it takes to perform as a teacher. The substantial relationship found between confi— dence for teaching and open—closed mindedness supports similar implications. High CLIT self-ratings were associ- ated with relative closed mindedness. Rokeach's findings imply that relatively closed—minded persons are less able to perceive the complexities of a new system and less able to remember or keep in mind new information necessary for operating in a new system. To the extent that student teaching represents a new system, the relatively 96 closed—minded students would probably be more inclined to global or consistent self-assessment based on incomplete or inaccurate information. Relatively open-minded students would probably be more discriminate and varied in their self—assessment based on relevant perceptions and cues. High confidence for teaching resulting from closed—minded perceptions of the teaching role may indicate less potential for teaching effectiveness. A higher standard deviation of an individual's CLIT item ratings may be indicative of a better understanding of his strengths and weaknesses as a potential teacher. If more able students tend to rate themselves realistically high in some areas and low in others, then it is likely that on the basis of total CLIT score they may not appear as confident as less able students who are more consistent in their self—ratings. The standard deviation of item scores may indicate the validity of self—evaluation and thus provide a more relevant basis for predicting teacher effectiveness. Confidence for teaching could have a curvilinear relationship to measures of teacher effectiveness. If high 97 and low CLIT self—ratings result from less valid percep— tions, then middle range CLIT scores could be better in- dicators of teacher effectiveness. It is likely that prior to student teaching a minimum level of confidence for teaching is desirable. Very high self—ratings may not be desirable if they are based on uncritical or irrelevant information. Perhaps high and low CLIT scores prior to student teaching may reveal students who are less likely to be effective student teachers. If this is the case, confidence for teaching measures may be useful in screen— ing, advising, and placing student teaching candidates. It appears that elementary teacher education stu— dents consider personal characteristics to be more rele— vant to teacher effectiveness than academic ability. No relationship was found between grade—point averages and confidence for teaching. Almost every student responded with personal characteristics when asked to list perceived strengths and weaknesses as a prospective teacher. These findings suggest that prior to student teaching personal characteristics are considered by education students to be more important to success in teaching than past academic performance. 98 Low confidence students mentioned more personal characteristics as weaknesses than did high confidence students. This finding also emphasized the importance that teacher education students attach to personal char— acteristics in assessing their ability to succeed in teaching. Whether extended teaching experience might modify the perceived importance of personal factors is Open to question. The findings of this study support further inves— tigation of confidence for teaching and other personality variables as correlates of teacher effectiveness. Empir— ical examination of the implications and interpretations of these findings could contribute to a much needed body of theory in teacher education. Implications for Further Research This study was designed as an exploratory effort to determine the salience of confidence for teaching as a var— iable in the professional education of elementary teachers. The important function of exploratory studies is to gather 99 and analyze preliminary data to determine fruitful arenas for future research efforts. Further research that would verify and extend the findings of this study could provide useful information for teacher education. Multiple regression analyses combining confidence for teaching with other predictor variables may produce results that would influence candidate selection procedures. Studies of how students with various confidence levels for teaching perform in different student teaching situations may suggest considerations for placing student teachers. Longitudinal studies relating confidence for teaching to performance at pre—service and in—service levels could determine the importance of developing and fostering confidence for teaching in preparation and in—service edu— cation programs. Increased understanding of the factors that influ— ence confidence for teaching is necessary. Mink's discus— sion of professional role identity emphasized the importance of personal and social variables in determining role per— formance.1 Further study of confidence for teaching and role performance should examine the function of various lMink, op. cit. lOO aspects of the situational context and the interaction of personal and social factors. More evidence is needed to better understand the relationship of confidence for teach— ing to personality dimensions. The results of this study warrant further examination of open—closed mindedness, certain manifest needs, and perceived strengths and weak- nesses as correlates of confidence for teaching. Research on the viability of confidence for teach— ing should be extended beyond the limitations of this study. Relationships between CLIT self—ratings and other criteria of student teacher effectiveness should be studied. Repli— cations of this investigation using different subjects in various educational settings would increase the breadth of the evidence. Males, students preparing to teach at dif- ferent levels, beginning teachers, and experienced teachers could be studied. Different educational settings might in— volve other teacher training institutions, various prepara— tion programs, and public schools. Finally, continued revision of the CLIT and further attempts to develop measures of confidence for teaching are encouraged by the results of this study. Factor analysis of the CLIT could provide useful information about the na— ture of the instrument. APPENDIX I TETRACHORIC CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS (rt) FOR CLIT ITEMS APPENDIX I TETRACHORIC CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS (rt) FOR CLIT ITEMS Spring Fall Spring Present CLIT Items 1966 1966 1967 Study N=80 N=179 N=126 N=124 Maintaining reasonable levels of expectations from pupils .71 .81 .72 .71 Gaining confidence and respect of pupils .70 .77 .75 .69 Communicating effec- tively with parents .65 .66 .50 .61 Adjusting appropriately between a permissive and authoritative manner in classroom situations .79 .81 .77 .74 Demonstrating judicious- ness and fairness with all pupils .73 .78 .63 .68 Involving pupils in appropriate decision— making situations .76 .80 .90 .80 Working in such a manner that individual pupils seek help with personal problems .69 .79 .81 .74 102 103 APPENDIX I (Cont.) Spring Fall Spring Present CLIT Items 1966 1966 1967 Study N:80 N=179 N=126 N=124 8. Moving to specific learning activities as group shows readiness .65 .68 .85 .68 9. Consistently reading, studying, and gathering information for teach— ing plans .63 .65 .75 .65 10. Selecting appropriate teaching materials and having them immediately available for use when needed .66 .71 .73 .67 11. Planning thoroughly for short-term (daily) and long—term unit (or project) work .59 .66 .77 .72 12. Considering sequence and continuity of pupil experiences as key factors in learn— ing .79 .80 .88 .86 13. Recognizing individual differences in evalu— ating pupil performance .71 .71 .65 .79 14. Directing and managing daily instruction so that pupils are inter— ested, motivated, and show a desire to learn .78 .73 .88 .76 104 APPENDIX I (Cont.) Spring CLIT Items 1966 N=80 Fall Spring Present 1966 N=179 N=126 1967 Study N=124 15. Developing a question- ing attitude and intel— 1ectual curiosity in pupils .85 16. Developing effective processes of problem solving and critical thinking on the part of pupils .86 17. Working effectively with pupils in small groups .75 18. Recognizing the need for re-teaching at appropriate intervals .74 19. Dealing appropriately with unexpected situa— tions as they develop .70 20. Adapting instruction to changing needs of pupils and class .75 21 Showing persistence in seeking added informa— tion and knowledge from many sources in teaching subjects .68 .84 .83 .69 .76 .78 .76 .54 .82 .92 .78 .85 .83 .93 .63 .75 .81 .74 .78 .76 .77 .62 APPENDIX I (Cont.) 105 CLIT Items Spring Fall Spring 1966 1966 1967 N=80 N=179 N=126 Present Study N=124 22. 23. 24. Seeking help and sug— gestions from special- ists and consultants in subject areas where needed Seeking opportunity to assume responsibility Having a sincere enthu— siasm for the job .62 .71 .79 .76 .76 .51 .69 .61 .57 .65 .80 .62 APPENDIX II. NON—STANDARDIZED INSTRUMENTS* A. CONFIDENCE LEVEL INVENTORY FOR TEACHING For Student Teachers B. CONFIDENCE LEVEL INVENTORY FOR TEACHING For Supervising Teachers C. ROKEACH DOGMATISM SCALE--SHORT FORM *Non—standardized instruments not commonly available are included in this appendix. The commonly available instruments used in this study but not included in this appendix are: Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory Edwards Personal Preference Schedule APPENDIX II-A For Student Teachers CONFIDENCE LEVEL INVENTORY FOR TEACHING by Jean M. LePere, PhD. Shirley A. Brehm, PhD. copyright, 1967 Michigan State University College of Education The following scale is designed to help us discover some of your feelings about a number of teaching areas. The instrument also introduces the beginning student to many facets of classroom teaching. This questionnaire is mod— erately long. We earnestly request your c00peration in answering all items carefully. Make your response to each item below on the answer sheet provided. Use the 10 possibilities for each item on the answer sheet as a numerical scale. 1 is the low end and 10 is the high end. 1 - 2 I feel extreme concern about my abilities in this . area. 3 — 4 I feel greater than average concern about my abilities in this area. 5 — 6 I feel average concern about and have average con— fidence in my abilities in this area. 7 - 8 I feel relatively confident about my abilities in this area. 9 - 10 I feel extremely confident about my abilities in this area. 107 108 APPENDIX II—A (Cont.) WORKING WITH PEOPLE l. Maintaining reasonable 2. levels of expectations from pupils 3. Communicating effec- tively with parents ESTABLISHING CLASSROOM CLIMATE 4. 5. Demonstrating judicious— 6. ness and fairness with all pupils 7. Working in such a manner 8. that individual pupils seek help with personal problems PLANNING FOR INSTRUCTION 9. Consistently reading, 10. studying, and gathering information for teach- ing plans 11. Planning thoroughly 12. for short-term (daily) and long—term (unit or project) work Gaining confidence and respect of pupils Adjusting appropriately between a permissive and authoritative manner in classroom situations Involving pupils in ap— propriate decision— making situations Moving to specific learn— ing activities as group shows readiness Selecting appropriate teaching materials and having them immediately available for use when needed Considering sequence and continuity of pupil ex— perience as key factors in learning APPENDIX II-A (Cont.) 13. Recognizing individual differences in evaluat- ing pupil performance MANAGING INSTRUCTION 15. Developing a question— ing attitude and intel— lectual curiosity in pupils 17. Working effectively with pupils of small groups 19. Dealing appropriately with unexpected situa- tions as they develop COMMAND OF SUBJECT AND TEACHING MATERIALS 21. Showing persistence in seeking information and knowledge from many sources in teaching sub- jects PROFESSIONAL QUALITIES 23. Seeking opportunity to assume responsibility 109 14. 16. 18. 20. 22. 24. Directing and managing daily instruction so that pupils are inter— ested, motivated, and shown a desire to learn Developing effective processes of problem solving and critical thinking on the part of pupils Recognizing the need for re-teaching at ap— propriate intervals Adapting instruction to changing needs of pupils and class Seeking help and sug- gestions from special- ists and consultants in subject areas where needed Having a sincere enthu— siasm for the job APPENDIX II-B For Supervising Teacher CONFIDENCE LEVEL INVENTORY FOR TEACHING by Jean M. LePere, PhD. Shirley A. Brehm, PhD. ' copyright, 1967 Michigan State University, College of Education The following scale is designed to help us discover some of your feelings about your student teacher's performance in a number of teaching areas. It represents many facets of classroom teaching. The questionnaire is moderately long. We earnestly request your cooperation in answering all items carefully. Make your response to each item below on the answer sheet provided. Use the ten possibilities for each item on the answer sheet as a numerical scale with one (1) as the low- est rating and ten (10) as the highest rating. Select the one number that best describes your feelings about your student teacher's performance on each item. Please answer every item. 1 - 2 I feel extreme concern about my student teacher's performance in this area. 3 - 4 I feel greater than average concern about my stu— dent teacher's performance in this area. H " 5 - 6 I feel average concern and have average confidence in my student teacher's performance in this area. 7 - 8 I feel.re1atively confident about my student teacher'Saperformance in this area. 9 - 10 I feel extremely confident about my student teacher's performance in this area. 110 APPENDIX II—B (Cont.) WORKING WITH PEOPLE l. Maintaining reasonable levels of expectations from pupils 3. Communicating effec- tively with parents 111 2. ESTABLISHING CLASSROOM CLIMATE 5. Demonstrating judicious— ness and fairness with all pupils 7. Working in such a manner that individual pupils seek help with personal problems PLANNING FOR INSTRUCTION 9. Consistently reading, studying, and gathering information for teach- ing plans 11. Planning thoroughly for short—term (daily) and long—term (unit or pro— ject) work 4. 10. 12. Gaining confidence and respect of pupils Adjusting appropriately between a permissive and authoritative manner in classroom situations Involving pupils in ap— propriate decision— making situations Moving to specific learn- ing activities as group shows readiness Selecting appropriate teaching materials and having them immediately available for use when needed Considering sequence and continuity of pupil ex— periences as key factors in learning 112 APPENDIX II-B (Cont.) l3. Recognizing individual differences in evaluat- ing pupil performance MANAGING INSTRUCTION 14. Directing and managing daily instruction so that pupils are inter— ested, motivated, and shown a desire to learn 15. Developing a question— 16. Developing effective ing attitude and intel— processes of problem lectual curiosity in solving and critical pupils thinking on the part of pupils 17. Working effectively with 18. Recognizing the need for pupils of small groups reteaching at appropriate intervals 19. Dealing appropriately 20. Adapting instruction to with unexpected situa- changing needs of pupils tions as they develop and class COMMAND OF SUBJECT AND TEACHING MATERIALS 21. Showing persistence in 22. Seeking help and sugges- seeking information and tions from specialists knowledge from many and consultants in sub- sources in teaching sub— ject areas where needed jects PROFESSIONAL QUALITIES 23. Seeking opportunity to 24. Having a sincere enthu— assume responsibility siasm for the job APPENDIX II-C ROKEACH DOGMATISM SCALE--SHORT FORM* DIRECTIONS: You will read below some statements people have made as their opinion on several tOpics. You may find yourself agreeing strongly with some of the statements, disagreeing just as strongly with others, and perhaps uncertain about others. Whether you agree or disagree with any statement, you can be sure that many other people feel the same as you do. We want your personal opinion on each state— ment. When you read each one, first indicate whether, in general, you agree or disagree with it: In column I mark (+) or (—)2 + = agree - = disagree Then indicate how strongly you agree or disagree: In column II mark 1, 2, or 3: Agree Disagree 1. Agree a little 1. Disagree a little 2. Agree on the 2. Disagree on whole the whole 3. Agree very much 3. Disagree very much *No title appeared on instrument used in study. 113 114 APPENDIX II-C (Cont.) 10. 11. 12. 13. In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know what's going on is to rely on leaders or experts who can be trusted. My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he's wrong. There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for the truth and those who are against the truth. Most peOple just don't know what's good for them. Of all the different philosophies which exist in this world there is probably only one which is correct. The highest form of government is a democracy and the highest form of democracy is a govern- ment run by those who are most intelligent. The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something important. I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell me how to solve my personal problems. Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature. It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that life becomes meaningful. Most people just don't give a "damn" for others. To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous because it usually leads to the be- trayal of our own side. 115 APPENDIX II—C (Cont.) 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. It is often desirable to reserve judgment about what's going on until one has had a chance to hear the opinions of those one respects. The PRESENT is all too often full of unhappi- ness. It is only the FUTURE that counts. The United States and Russia have just about nothing in common. In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat myself several times to make sure I am being understood. While I don't like to admit this even to my- self, my secret ambition is to become a great man,like Einstein, or Beethoven, or Shake— speare. Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwhile goal, it is unfortunately necessary to restrict the freedom of certain political groups. It is better to be a dead hero than to be a live coward. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adorno, T. W. and others. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Brothers. 1960. Allport, Gordon W. Patterns of Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1961. Barr, Arvil S. and others. "Wisconsin Studies of the Mea— surement and Prediction of Teacher Effectiveness: A Summary of Investigations," Journal of Experi— mental Education, XXX (September, 1961), 5—156. Brookover, Wilbur and others. Self-Concept of Ability and School Achievement III, Final Report of Coop— erative Research Project No. 2831, East Lansing, Michigan: Educational Publication Services, Mich— igan State University, 1967. Brookover, Wilbur and David Gottlieb. A Sociology of Education. New York: American Book Co., 1964. Callis, Robert. "The Efficiency of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory for Predicting Interpersonal Relations in the Classroom," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXVII (1953), 82—85. Cook, W. W., Carroll H. Leeds, and Robert Callis. The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. New York: Psychological Corp., 1951. Dixon, Wilfrid J. and Frank J. Massey. Introduction to Statistical Analysis. New York: McGraw—Hill, Inc., 1957. Ebel, Robert. Measuring Educational Achievements. Engle— wood, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1965. 116 117 Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1954. Fuller, Elizabeth M. "The Use of Teacher—Pupil Attitudes, Self—Rating, and Measures of General Ability in the Pre—Service Selection of Nursery School- Kindergarten—Primary Teachers," Journal of Educa— tional Research, XLIV (1951), 675-686. Garrard, Judy. Concerns of Student Teachers, A Rgview of the Literature. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Office of Education Report No. BR-5-0249—15, April, 1966. Getzels, J. W. and P. W. Jackson. "The Teacher's Person— ality and Characteristics," Handbook of Research on Teaching, Edited by N. L. Gage, Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1963, 506—582. Goldman, Harvey and James E. Heald. "Teachers' Need Pat- terns and the Administrator," Bulletin of the Na- tional Association of Secondary School Principals, LI, No. 323 (December, 1967), 93-104. Hamachek, Don E. and Tokako Mori. "Need Structure, Per— sonal Adjustment, and Academic Self—Concept of Beginning Education Students," Journal of Educa— tional Research, LVIII, No. 4 (December, 1964), 158—162. Heston, J. C. Heston Personal Adjustment Inventory. New York: World Book Co., 1949. Jackson, P. W. and E. G. Guba. ''The Need Structure of In— Service Teachers: An Occupational Analysis," The School Review, LXV, No. 2 (1957), 176—192. Kennedy, Alex. The Teacher in the Making. Edinburg: Oliver and Boyd, Ltd., 1961. Leeds, Carroll H. "A Second Validity Study of the MTAI," Elementary School Journal, LII (1952), 396—405. 118 LePere, Jean M. and Richard C. Cox. Training Elementary Teachers: Cqmparison of Separate and Block Methods Courses. ‘East Lansing, Michigan: Bureau of Educational Research Services, Michigan State University, 1964. Michaelis, John U. "The Prediction of Success in Student Teaching from Personality and Attitude Inventories," University of California Publications in Education, XI, No. 6 (1954), 415—483. Mink, Oscar G. "Educating the Professional—~Some Issues," Journal of Teacher Education, XIX, No. 2 (Summer, 1968), 201-209. Morris, Elizabeth H. "Personal Traits and Success in Teaching," Teachers College Educational Series, No. 342, New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1929. Murray, H. A. Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press, 1938. Oelke, M. C. "A Study of Student Teachers' Attitudes To— ward Children,” Journal of Educational Psychology, XLVII (1956), 193-196. Rokeach, Milton. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1960. Ryans, David G. Characteristics of Teachers. Washing— ton, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1960. Sandgren, D. L. and L. G. Schmidt. "Does Practice Teach— ing Change Attitudes Toward Teaching?," Journal of Educational Research, XLIX (1956), 673—680. Scandrette, Onas. “Differential Need Patterns of Women Elementary and Secondary Level Student Teachers," Journal of Educational Research, LV, No. 8 (May, 1962), 376—379. 119 Southworth, Horton C. "A Study of Certain Personality Characteristics and Value Differences in Teacher Education Majors Preferring Early and Later Ele— mentary Teaching Levels." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962. Stein, H. L. and J. A. Hardy. "A Validation Study of the MTAI in Manitoba," Journal of Educational Re— search, L (1957), 321-338. Symonds, Percival. The Ego and the Self. New York: Appleton—Century—Crofts, Inc., 1951. Thompson, M. L. "Identifying Anxieties Experienced by Student Teachers," Journal of Teacher Education, XIV (1963), 435—439. Travers, Robert M., W. Rabinowitz, and E. Nemovincher. "The Anxieties of a Group of Student Teachers," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXXVIII (1952), 368—375. Troldahl, Verling C. and Frederic A. Powell. “A Short Form Dogmatism Scale for Use in Field Studies,” Social Forces, LXIV, No. 2 (December, 1965), 211—214. Tyler, Fred T. ”The Prediction of Student Teaching Suc— cess From Personality Inventories," Univeristy of California Publications in Education, XI, No. 4 (1954), 233-314. Walker, Helen M. and Joseph Lev. Statistical Inference. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1953. Wert, James E., Charles 0. Neidt, and J. S. Ahmann. Sta— tistical Methods in Educational and Psychological Research. New York: Appleton—Century—Crofts, Inc., 1954. Wylie, Ruth C. The Self-Concept: A Critical Survey of Pertinent Research Literature. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1961. RIES "11111111111: