UNIQUE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE VOCATIONAL HOME ECONOMICS TEACHER EDUCATOR TO A STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAM COO-R'DINATED BY OTHER TEACHER EDUCATORS (AN EXPLORATORY STUDY) Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DOROTHY FUNK WEST 1970 .m...“........! LIBRARY Michigan Sv ate Umvcrsi . 3' so This is to certify that the thesis entitled UNIQUE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE VOCATIONAL HOME ECONOMICS TEACHER EDUCATOR TO A STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAM COORDINATED BY OTHER TEACHER EDUCATORS (AN EXPLORATORY STUDY) presented by Dorothy Funk West has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Secondary Education degree in I & Currlculum M 5-0 Léil/r professor Date 11/42/70 0-7639 2/14 L NOV 1.3 2,903 ABSTRACT UNIQUE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE VOCATIONAL HOME ECONOMICS TEACHER EDUCATOR TO A STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAM COORDINATED BY OTHER TEACHER EDUCATORS (AN EXPLORATORY STUDY) BY Dorothy Funk West The major purpose of this study was to eXplore the unique contributions of the "specialist" teacher edu- cator in a "generalist" coordinated student teacher pro- gram. The literature reveals the concern among teacher educators about who should provide the college super- vision of student teaching. Therefore this study sought to identify possible gaps in a student teaching program coordinated by education generalists. Twenty-five Michigan State University Coordinators of student teaching and thirty-three Home Economics Super- vising Teachers were interviewed during winter term, 1969. Thirty Home Economics Student Teachers from this term responded to a questionnaire. The instruments for the three groups were developed in parallel form and served four major purposes: (a) to gather data concerning the background characteristics of each group, (b) to obtain Dorothy Funk West recommendations for the future operation of home economics student teaching at Michigan State University, (c) to identify to what extent a group of objectives, classified as unique to home economics student teaching, were pro- vided for student teachers in a generalist coordinated program of student teaching, and (d) to determine the priority of the objectives for student teaching in home economics. As a basis for analyzing the unique contributions of the home economics teacher educator to student teaching, several hypotheses and research questions were explored. The significant major findings from these are: l. Supervising teachers of home economics rated their student teachers higher in achievement of the home economics student teaching objectives.than student teachers rated themselves. Student teachers generally indicated a lack of confidence in their teaching competency and rated themselves low to average on objective achievement. 2. The number of learning experiences provided the student teacher for objective achievement correlated posi- tively with the supervising teachers': (a) completion of a course in supervision of student teachers, and (b) hav- ing graduated from Michigan State University. No signifi- cant correlations were found between the number of learning experiences provided and the supervising teachers': (a) type of home economics program, (b) grade level currently Dorothy Funk West teaching, (c) amount of graduate coursework completed, (d) total number of student teachers supervised, and (e) total number of years taught. A conclusion drawn from these findings was that secondary approved vocational pro- grams did not provide the student teacher with more experi- ences for achievement of the objectives analyzed in this study than did other programs not vocationally approved. 3. Learning experiences were generally provided the student teacher for those objectives rated as high priority for student teaching. This finding raised the question about the uniqueness of home economics student teaching which is different from other subject matter areas. Over 80 per cent of the University Coordinators and Home Economics Supervising Teachers indicated there should be regular contacts between the student teaching super- visory staff and the home economics teacher educators. However, the greatest contribution of the home economics teacher educator was seen as that of information sharing and in-service training rather than that of a college supervisor. Specific problems and recommendations were made by the three groups surveyed and the special contributions of the home economics teacher educator were identified to include: (a) description of the behavioral objectives for home economics student teaching, (b) provision for in- service education to University Coordinators and super- vising teachers, (0) their services as resource persons Dorothy Funk West to secondary schools, (d) the develOpment of cooperative relationships between college subject matter specialists and secondary teachers, and (e) provision for continuous feedback to the student teaching program and to the home economics subject matter specialists. UNIQUE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE VOCATIONAL HOME ECONOMICS TEACHER EDUCATOR TO A STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAM COORDINATED BY OTHER TEACHER EDUCATORS (AN EXPLORATORY STUDY) BY Dorothy Funk West A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1970 PLEASE NOTE: Some pages have small and indistinct type. Filmed as received. University Microfilms wm ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many persons have contributed to the planning, development, and administration of this study. First, I would like to extend appreciation to my thesis advisor, Dr. Henry Kennedy, who so willingly assisted with the thesis. His knowledge and intellectual curiosity gener- ates much enthusiasm among graduate students for further research in student teaching. The interest, support, and assistance from the members of my dissertation committee requires special recognition. This acknowledgment is extended to Dr. Norma Bobbitt, Dr. Beatrice Paolucci, and Dr. Paul Sweany. Acknowledgment is also extended to Dr. Arleen Otto and Dr. Peter Hains for their intellectual sparks during the developmental stages of the research proposal. Appreciation is extended to the State Department of Education, Division of Vocational Education, whose financial support and interest made the study possible. A sincere thanks is due the University Coordi- nators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers who participated in this study. ii Recognition is due to the graduate students who assisted with the project and devoted more than their share of time to the activities of the study. This special recognition goes to Mrs. Dorothy Richardson Towsley, Mrs. Sarah Berglund, and Mrs. Mary Ann Zepp. Acknowledgment is extended to all the research consultants in the College of Education who so willingly assisted with the statistical design and computations. The continuing interest, consideration, and on- going support of my husband, Bradley West, toward all my educational pursuits, deserves greatest and lasting appreciation. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . Background for the Study--Historical Perspective of Home Economics Student Teaching at Michigan State University Need for the Study . . . . . . Purposes of the Study . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . Hypotheses and Questions . . . . Assumptions. . . . . . . . . Limitations. . . . . . . . Theoretical Basis of the Study . . Purposes of Student Teaching . . The Need to Identify a Role for the College Supervisor of Student Teaching . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE. . . . Recent Trends and Issues in Student Teaching . . . . . . . . Patterns of Organization in Student Teaching . . . . . . . . The Role of the College Supervisor in Student Teaching . . . . . . The College Supervisor and the Clinical Professor . . . . . Unique Contributions of the General and Special College Supervisor of Student Teaching . . . . . . . . . College Supervision by the Generalist Teacher Educator. . . . College Supervision by the Subject Matter Teacher Educator . . . Summary of the Related Literature . iv Page ll l6 18 21 23 24 25 27 32 37 38 46 52 63 66 67 72 81 Chapter Page III. PROCEDURES AND INSTRUMENTATION . . . . . 84 Procedures Used . . . . . . . . . 86 Collection of Data . . . . . . . . 87 Description of the Data Gathering Instruments . . . . . . . . . . 90 Description of the Population. . . . . 93 Home Economics Supervising Teachers . . 94 Student Teachers . . . . . . . . 97 University Coordinators . . . . . . 102 Validity and Reliability of the Research Instrument . . . . . . . . . . 107 Scoring . . . . . . . . . . 109 Research Design . . . . . . . . . 110 summary 0 O O O O O O O O O O 115 IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA. . . 117 Testing the Hypotheses . . . . . . . 117 Hypothesis I. . . . . . . . . . 117 Hypothesis II . . . . . . . . . 121 Hypothesis III . . . . . . . . . 125 Hypothesis IV . . . . . . . . . 126 Hypothesis V. . . . . . . . . . 128 Hypothesis VI . . . . . . . . . 130 Research Questions . . . . . . . . 134 Question 1: Priority for the Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives. . . . . . . . . . 135 Question 2: Learning Experiences for Achieving the Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives . . . . 139 Question 3: Recommended Directions in Home Economics Student Teaching. . . 143 Summary of the Findings. . . . . . . 170 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 179 Summary of the Findings and Conclusions . 182 Discussion of the Recommendations and Implications for a Model of a Quality Program in Vocational Home Economics Student Teaching at Michigan State University . . . . . . . . . . 192 V Chapter Page Scope and Sequence of the Undergraduate Curricula of the Home Economics Education Major . . . . . . . . 193 Roles and Functions of the Subject Matter Teacher Educator in Student Teaching . . . . . . . . . . 196 In-Service Education of Supervisory Staff 0 I O O O O O O O O O 200 Administration of Activities Related to Home Economics Student Teaching. . 201 Future Research Needs . . . . . . . 203 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 APPENDICES Appendix A. Contact Letter to Winter Term Home Economics Supervising Teachers. . . . . . . . 214 B. Letter to Winter Term Home Economics Supervising Teachers for Interview Confirmation . . . . . . . . . . 216 C. Interview Guidelines . . . . . . . . 217 D. Contact with College Coordinators Regarding Interview Scheduling. . , . . . . . 220 E. A Supervising Teacher Survey of Opinions and Ideas Related to the Home Economics Student Teaching Experience at Michigan State University . . . . . . . . . 222 F. A Survey of Coordinators of Student Teach- ing: Opinions and Ideas Related to Student Teaching in Home Economics at Michigan State University . . . . . . 236 G. A Student Teacher Appraisal of the Home Economics Student Teaching Experience at Michigan State University . . . . . 249 vi Appendix Page H. Types of Learning Experiences Identified and Number of University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers Who Indicated the Experiences Were Provided for Achieving the Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives . . . . . 261 I. Tables of Complete Responses to the Open-Ended Questions Presented in Chapter IV. . . . . . . . . . . 275 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.1. Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives and Their Priority Rating for Student Teaching as Identified by a National Selected Group of Vocational Home Economics Teacher Educators . . . . 80 3.1. Respondents Participating in the Survey During Winter Term, 1969. . . . . . . 91 3.2. Supervising Teachers' Type of Secondary Home Economics Program . . . . . . . . . 94 3.3. Supervising Teachers' Number of Course Credits Earned Beyond the Bachelor's Degree 96 3.4. Supervising Teachers' Number of Student Teachers Supervised (Including Winter Term, 1969) o o o o o o o o o o o 97 3.5. Supervising Teacher's Years of Experience as a Home Economics Teacher (Including 1968- 1969) o o o o o o o o o o o o o 97 3.6. Grade Level Teaching Experience of Home Economics Student Teachers . . . . . . 99 3.7. Home Economics Student Teachers' Years of Experience in High School Home Economics Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 3.8. Home Economics Student Teachers' Years of Experience as a Member of Future Home- makers of America (FHA) . . . . . . . 101 3.9. Home Economics Student Teachers' Years of Experience as a Member of 4-H . . . . . 101 3.10. University Coordinators' Years of Experi- ence as a Coordinator of Student Teaching . 104 viii 3.12. 4.4. 4.7. Page Number of Different Home Economics Super- vising Teachers University Coordi- nators Have Worked With . . . . . . . 105 Number of Different Home Economics Student Teachers the University Coordinators Have Supervised . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Mean Student Self Ratings and Teachers' Ratings of Achievement of the Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives. 119 Correlation Between the Total Number of Learning Experiences Provided by Home Economics Supervising Teachers and Selected Characteristics of the Super- vising Teacher . . . . . . . . . . 123 Correlation Between Self-Ratings of the Home Economics Student Teachers on Objective Achievement and Selected Back- ground Experiences of the Student Teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Correlation Between Supervising Teachers' Rating of the Home Economics Student Teacher and Selected Background Experiences of the Student Teachers . . . . . . . 127 Correlation Between University Coordinators Total Number of Learning Experiences Provided and Selected Background Charac— teristics of the University Coordinator. . 129 Mean Scores and Correlation Values When Correlating the Home Economics Supervising Teachers' and University Coordinators' Total Number of Learning EXperiences Pro— vided for Achievement of Student Teaching Objectives, and Home Economics Student Teachers' Self-Ratings of Achievement of the Objectives . . . . . . . . . . 131 University Coordinators' and Home Economics Supervising Teachers' Average Priority Rating (High to Low) of the Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives . . 136 ix Table Page 4.8. Number and Percentage of University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers Who Did Not Identify a Learning Experience Related to Achieving Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . 142 4.9. Responses to "What a Student Teacher Should Learn About Most While Student Teaching" as Indicated by University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers . . . . 145 4.10. Responses to: "What are the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Michigan State Uni- versity's Home Economics Student Teachers When They Arrive for Student Teaching?" as Indicated by University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers Summarized . . 147 4.11. Recommendations Regarding Additional Prepar- ational Needs of Home Economics Student Teachers Prior to Student Teaching as Indicated by University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers. . . . . . 150 4.12. Adequacy of the Amount of Time Spent by the University Coordinator with the Student Teachers and the Supervising Teachers as Indicated by Home Economics Supervising Teachers and Home Economics Student Teachers. _. . . . . . . . 152 4.13. Student Teacher's Indication of Wanting to Visit with the College Home Economics Methods Teacher (or Other College Home Economics Education Staff) During Stu- dent Teaching . . . . . . . . . . 156 4.14. Student Teacher's Indication of Wanting to Visit with the University Academic Adviser During Student Teaching . . . . 157 Table 4.15. 4.16. 4.18. 4.19. I.l. Indication of a Need for Greater Communi- cation Contacts with Home Economics Edu- cation Staff as Identified by University Coordinators and Home Economics Supervis- ing Teachers . . . . . . . . . . Recommended Contributions Which Should Be Provided by Home Economics Education Staff to Student Teaching in Home Eco- nomics as Indicated by University Coordinators and Home Economics Super- vising Teachers . . . . . . . . . Satisfying and Dissatisfying Experiences of University Coordinators, with Student Teaching in Home Economics . . . . . Satisfying and Dissatisfying Experiences of Home Economics Supervising Teachers with Home Economics Student Teaching. . . . Satisfying and Dissatisfying Experiences of Home Economics Student Teachers with Student Teaching in Home Economics. . . A Description of the Ideal Experience in Home Economics Student Teaching as Indi- cated by University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers . . . . . Types of Learning Experiences Identified and Number of University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers Who Indicated the Experiences Were Provided for Achieving the Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . Complete List of ReSponses to "What a Student Teacher Should Learn About Most While Student Teaching" as Indicated by Uni- versity Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers. . . . . . . . . xi Page 159 160 163 164 165 168 261 275 Page Complete List of Responses to: "What Are the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Michigan State University's Home Eco- nomics Student Teachers When They Arrive for Student Teaching?" as Indicated by University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers Summarized . . . . . . 278 Complete List of Recommendations Regarding Additional Preparational Needs of Home Economics Student Teachers Prior to Stu- dent Teaching as Indicated by University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 Complete List of Recommended Contributions Which Should be Provided by Home Economics Education Staff to Student Teaching in Home Economics as Indicated by University Coordinators and Home Economics Supervising Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Complete List of Satisfying and Dissatisfying Experiences of University Coordinators, with Student Teaching in Home Economics . . 285 Complete List of Satisfying and Dissatisfying Experiences of Home Economics Supervising Teachers with Home Economics Student Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 Complete List of Satisfying and Dissatisfying Experiences of Home Economics Student Teachers with Student Teaching in Home Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 Complete List of Descriptions of the Ideal Experience in Home Economics Student Teach- ing as Indicated by University Coordi- nators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers . . . 290 xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Michigan State University has one of the largest student teaching programs in the nation. During 1968-1969, for example, over 2,750 teacher candidates were enrolled in student teaching. And of these, eighty-eight were majors in home economics. The Student Teaching Program at Michigan State is an off-campus program that c00perates with some 130 school districts in sixteen geographical centers in both rural and urban communities. However, the centers are more heavily concentrated in the more densely populated areas of the state. Each center is directed by a student teach- ing coordinator who is a full—time College of Education faculty member. The center directors are responsible for the placement and supervision of student teachers in the group of cooperating schools within the geographical range of the center. Although the primary pattern of student teaching supervision at Michigan State utilizes general supervisory personnel (college supervisors who are specialists in the various major teaching fields provide specialized assist- ance when requested) the purpose of student teaching is still to provide the laboratory experience for the develop- ment of competent teachers who can function effectively in the teaching role. Statement of the Problem The overriding aim of this study was to clarify the potential role of the home economics teacher edu- cator in a student teaching program coordinated by college generalists. In order to identify the possible supportive roles of teacher educators of home economics in student teaching, several antecedent problems were explored. A major purpose of the present study was to determine to what extent a group of objectives, identi- fied in an earlier study as unique to home economics student teaching, were provided for in the instruction of home economics student teachers at Michigan State Uni- versity during winter term, 1969. Related purposes were to: (1) analyze the relationship between the student teacher's self-rating and the supervising teacher's rating on the level of achievement of the home economic's student teaching objectives; (2) analyze the relationship between the provision for learning experiences related to the home economics student teaching objectives and selected descriptive characteristics of Michigan State University Coordinators and Home Economics Supervising Teachers; (3) analyze the relationship between the degree of achieve- ment of the selected objectives and specific descriptive characteristics of Home Economics Supervising Teachers and student teachers; (4) analyze the relationship between the provision for learning experiences for achieving the ob- jectives and the self-rating of student teachers in objective achievement; and (5) identify the recommen- dations of University Coordinators, Home Economics Super- vising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers regarding the future role of home economics teacher edu- cators in contributing to quality student teaching eXperiences in home economics at Michigan State Uni- versity. Other problems explored included the identifi- cation of the various types and number of learning experi- ences provided to help the Home Economics Student Teachers achieve the Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Ob- jectives, and the identification of the priority rating for each of the objectives as perceived by the University Coordinators and the Home Economics Supervising Teachers. Background for the Study--Historical Perspective of Home Economics Student Teaching at Michigan State University This study focuses on the present student teaching program in home economics at Michigan State University, and since the present program came about as a result of earlier decisions, it is appropriate to review the his- torical developments prior to 1968. The purpose is to lend perspective to the present organizational patterns of student teaching in home economics. Cleml and Anthony2 reviewed the historical develop- ment of student teaching at Michigan State University and studied various aspects of the full-time, off-campus pro- gram during the first five years of its Operation. Clem in 1958 reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of the pro- gram while Anthony, in 1959, appraised the services rendered to off-campus supervising teachers and centers. Noll3 described the historical developments within the teacher education program at Michigan State University and 1Paul Clem, "A Study of the Michigan State Uni- versity Full-Time Resident Student Teaching Program" (un— published Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1958). 2Hazel Anthony, "An Appraisal of the Services Rendered to Off-Campus Supervising Teachers and Centers by Michigan State University" (unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, University of Pennsylvania, 1961). 3Victor Noll, The Preparation of Teachers at Michigan State University (East Lansing, Mich.: College of Education, Michigan State University, 1968). made frequent mention to the develOpments within student teaching and home economics education. In addition to the already mentioned sources, several personal interviews were conducted with indi- viduals who were either directly or indirectly involved in the program changes to gain information from them. Based upon the information received during the interviews and that obtained from the literature a brief description of the developments in student teaching, as it related to home economics education and this study, is presented. The establishment of student teaching programs in vocational agriculture and home economics at Michigan State College fulfilled a necessary requirement of the Smith- Hughes Act of 1917. N011 stated that the first record of any practice teaching undertaken at Michigan State was in 1903 under the directorship of Dean Gilchrist, Dean of Women Students.4 The early student teaching assignments appear to have been arranged informally. However, Anthony5 noted that by 1920 the first critic teacher was appointed in home economics. The National Vocational Act provided funds for salaries of the critic teachers, and for equipment. 41bid., p. 18. 5Anthony, "An Appraisal of the Services Rendered to Off-Campus Supervising Teachers and Centers by Michigan State University," p. 15. In 1938 the home economics supervising teachers were selected and employed jointly by the university, with three-fourths of their salary provided by the local school. Since schools near the university were used, buses trans- ported the student teachers from the university to their respective assignments. A supervising teacher worked with eight student teachers each day. There were four in the morning and four in the afternoon. The home economics student teachers had two terms of student teaching during this time. Each student teacher spent one term in a small school system and a second term in a large school system. The methods classes were taught during the first term of student teaching. Noll reported that the first experiment in full- time student teaching was carried out in the winter of 1939. For this experiment seventeen vocational home economics student teachers volunteered for the program.6 Beginning in 1942 all student teachers in home economics had a half term of full-time student teaching. The home economics coordinator and student teachers lived in the city where the center was located. Following the half term of off-campus student teaching, the students moved into the home management residence experience for the remainder of the term. Each student taught one class 6Noll, The Preparation of Teachers at Michigan State University, p. 82. near campus for six weeks prior to the half term of full- time, off-campus student teaching.7 In 1946 an experimental off-campus student teach- ing program was designed for majors in elementary edu- cation. Anthony8 reviewed the 1956 report to the A11- University Research Committee and noted that between the fall terms of the years 1946-1954 (with the exception of 1948), 173 students majoring in elementary education selected the experimental full-time resident student teaching program in Marshall, Michigan. Each student teacher in the program worked one-half day under the supervision of a teacher in the classroom and devoted the other half-day to experiences related to classroom activi- ties. The experiences gained in the full-time student teaching program supported the idea that all student teachers should have this experience. By the fall of 1956, this plan went into action. Hurt reported that in 1953 the home economics program began the pattern of full term, off-campus resi- dent student teaching in six cooperating schools: Grand Rapids, Lansing, Grand Ledge, Charlotte, Okemos, and Haslett. The college supervision was provided by a home 7Mary Lee Hurt, staff member in Home Economics Education, Michigan State University, 1938-1958, personal interview, October 15, 1968. 8Anthony, "An Appraisal of the Services Rendered to Off-Campus Supervising Teachers and Centers by Michigan State University," pp. 18-19. economics supervisor from the university who visited the student teacher either once a week or once every two weeks. The requirement of a Master's degree for supervising teachers was dropped. The university home economics teacher educators selected each of the school programs and identified "master" supervising teachers. Selections were made with the help of the State Department of Edu- cation; however, in the final analysis, the principal of the school made the final decision. University super- visors conducted college financed, in-service workshops for cooperating teachers on campus. In the fall of 1956, the College of Education initiated a program of full-time student teaching for all student teachers and established eight centers for off- campus teaching experiences. The home economics program continued to use its own previously identified schools for student teacher placement where the schools were outside the new centers. But it also converted to the use of the "generalist" coordinated program in those schools where they had previously placed student teachers. College supervision in the new centers came from the "generalist" coordinator. Thus home economics education participated in a dual type of student teaching program. 9Mary Lee Hurt, personal interview. Shearlo observed that around 1965 the selection of Home Economics Supervising Teachers in the generalist coordinated centers was transferred from the home eco- nomics education staff to the student teaching office staff. Placement of Home Economics Student Teachers through the student teaching office, rather than through home economics education, as reported by Shear, was due to several factors: large number of student teachers, lack of communication between student teaching office and home economics education staff, fewer home economics edu- cation staff, and new members in home economics education who were unfamiliar with the procedures. Until fall, 1968, the special schools other than those in the regular student teaching centers were still being used for placement of home economics student teach- ers. These secondary schools in the special centers were evaluated as having good home economics programs and highly rated supervising teachers in home economics. In—service education of supervising teachers, through workshops and personal visits, were provided by the home economics edu- cation staff. These characteristics of the home economics student teaching program were viewed as favorable and de- sirable by the home economics education staff. Thus, a con- flict in personal attitudes was felt by the home economics loTwyla Shear, staff member in Home Economics Education, Michigan State University, 1956-1968, personal interview, August 16, 1968. 10 education staff, when in 1968, all home economics student teacher placement and supervision was absorbed into the existing student teaching program. Further concern was expressed when no staff time or resources in home economics education were allocated to any of the activities related to student teaching. The major concern expressed by the Michigan State home economics teacher educators was over the loss of contacts with home economics student teachers and home economics supervising teachers. Philosophical differences in points of view about student teaching supervision were expressed by the education faculty, particularily those representing general teacher education and those repre- senting the subject matter areas. Two diverging points of view emerged. One centered on "teaching-is-teaching re- gardless of the subject matter area" and "teaching in home economics is unique and requires some special planned experiences and guidance." With this issue in mind the home economics edu- cation staff in the fall of 1968 became involved in deter- mining if there were unique experiences and behaviors required of home economics student teachers; and if there were, what were they? This led to the development of a study in which forty-one vocational home economics teacher educators were asked to identify the objectives that were 11 unique to home economics student teaching. If the student teacher needed a home economics trained person as a guide to achieve an objective most effectively, the teacher edu- cator was asked to classify the objectives as unique. The eighteen Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives, identified in fall, 1968, by thirty-nine Vocational Home Economics Teacher Educators became the foundation for the present study. Need for the Study Teacher education institutions are faced with the task of providing relevant and effective experiences for increasing numbers of student teachers each year and a continuous re-appraisal of existing student teaching practices is needed to provide the best preparation for all home economics student teachers. Of the undergraduates majoring in home economics nationally, McGrath reported that in 1964, 46.6 per cent were in home economics edu- cation. The increase in home economics majors in all American colleges and universities was from 3,571 in 1957-1958, to 4,343 in 1963-1964.11 The student teaching experience has long been con- sidered an important aspect of teacher preparation in home economics, as in other fields. Today more and more schools llEarl McGrath and Jack Johnson, The Changing Mission of Home Economics (New York: Columbia University, Teachers College Press, 1968), p. 21. 12 are serving as laboratories for student teachers. The importance of a quality student teaching experience rests on providing the student the Opportunity to put to use a cumulative body of personal and professional preparation through a program of guided teaching experiences. In spite of the expressed importance of student teaching among writers in teacher education, there is still widespread dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of many student teaching programs. Many types of student teaching program patterns exist, however, there is little research to indicate one pattern or mode of operation is more effective than another in the preparation of teachers. The committee on research in student teaching of the Ameri- can Association of Student Teaching indicated that: . . . there is a need to observe experimentally the effects of different types of student teaching pro- grams, or experiences in lieu of student teaching relative to the prospective teachers': (1) knowledge of good educational practices, (2) personality traits and changes in personality traits, (3) skill in using classroom activities, (4) attitudes toward teaching, (5) ability to recognize his pupils' problems, (6) ability to recognize his subject matter content and resource materials, and (7) knowledge of teaching field of specialization.12 The experiences and training of student teachers is felt to be jointly the responsibility of the college 12Association for Student Teaching, Research on Student Teaching, Bulletin No. 5 (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1965), p. 27. 13 and the public schools. But Lindseyl3 indicates that the present practices of the student teaching coordinating team are too limited, too superficial, and too unproductive. Lindsey described the limited cooperative efforts among college and school personnel in student teaching coordi- nation when she wrote: . . . On the school side of the roster may be found extremely remote participation by school superin- tendents, somewhat less remote participation by school principals, and deep involvement by selected classroom teachers who have student teachers or in- terns in their classrooms. On the college side, involvement is often limited to the administrator of student teaching and his corps of supervisors; in- frequently do other college teachers or administrators actively participate at any point in the cooperative endeavor. Where persons beyond those directly related to supervising students are now included, roles assigned to them are for the most part, and most situations, advisory in nature.1 As the staff and time resources decreased in home economics education at Michigan State University, so did the involvement in student teaching activities decrease. With few exceptions, student teaching supervision is coordinated through the student teaching office. Michigan State University uses resident off-campus student teaching centers coordinated by staff from the College of Education. l3Margaret Lindsey, "Speculations on the Future of Teacher Education and Cooperative Endeavors," in Partner- ship in Teacher Education, ed. by Smith, Olsen, Johnson, and Barbour (Washington, D.C.: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1966), p. 293. l4Ibid. 14 University home economics teacher educators no longer visit student teachers but depend upon the personnel in the center to select qualified Home Economics Supervising Teachers and to provide quality learning experiences. Consistent with this plan other subject matter teacher educators at Michigan State University also depend on the coordinating staff in student teaching to supervise their student teachers. Accompanying a "generalist" coordinated student teaching program, are program characteristics of concern to of home economics teacher educators and may be of some concern to other universities and academic teaching fields utilizing the pattern of general college supervision in student teaching. These concerns are: l. The degree of collaboration between university staff and the secondary school staff in the subject matter teaching areas is reduced, because the university will no longer finan- cially support several different supervisors in specialized areas, supervising each of its student teachers in each of the off-campus centers. 2. Since the "generalist" University Coordinator primarily selects the supervising teachers, supervising teachers may or may not be aware of the philosophy and program of the subject matter area at the university from which their 15 student teacher came. A philosophy divergent with the student's preparation can cause con- flict and frustration for both parties involved. Off-campus resident centers are limited in numbers of available reimbursed vocational home economics programs and/or quality senior high school programs in home economics, there- fore making it increasingly difficult to meet the university's vocational standards in the preparation of teachers in vocational home economics. Coordinators who supervise in all subject fields and who assist the home economics stu- dent teachers and supervising teachers, do not have the competencies in home economics philosophy and subject matter to adequately qualify them to judge this aspect of student teaching. At the individual student teacher level, the nature of the student teaching program is such that the student teacher participates in an isolated course (Education 436) not directly related to the pre- or post-activities of the university classroom experiences. The possi- bility of lack of feedback from both on-campus, l6 and off-campus teacher preparation experiences becomes an increasing possibility. There is little research which supports the ad- vantages or limitations of the various coordination patterns in student teaching. The literature does little more than confirm the need for such an investigation.15 The specialized contributions of the "generalist" and "specialist" in student teaching coordination remain mostly unidentified. Therefore, the present study seeks to ex- plore the potential unique contributions of the "special- ist" (home economics teacher educator) in a "generalist" coordinated student teaching program. However, the find- ings have implications for other subject matter teacher educators and teacher education institutions faced with a similar situation of large enrollments and limited resources 0 Purposes of the Study The primary purpose of the study was to be able to describe potential roles in student teaching for the home economics teacher educator in a generalist coordinated student teacher program. A role description was derived from the information obtained from the related research and through the exploration of the following related pur- poses: 15American Association of Student Teaching, Research and Professional Experiences in Teacher Education, Bulletin No. 20 (Cedar Falls, Iowa: Association for Stu- dent Teaching, 1963), p. 102. 17 To examine the relationship between the self- rating of a student teacher, and the super- vising teacher's rating of the student teacher, in the achievement of the objectives unique to home economics student teaching. To examine selected descriptive character- istics of: (l) Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and (2) University Coordinators, and the relationship of the characteristics to the number of times learning experiences are pro- vided for achieving the objectives unique to home economics student teaching. To examine selected descriptive character- istics of: (1) Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and (2) Home Economics Student Teachers, and the relationship of the charac- teristics to the student teacher's self- rating of achievement of the objectives unique to home economics student teaching. To determine the relationship between the pro- vision for experiences for achieving the objectives unique to home economics student teaching and the student teacher's self-rating of achievement of the objectives. 18 e. To identify those objectives which Home Eco- nomics Supervising Teachers and University Coordinators consider to be of highest priority for Home Economics Student Teaching. f. To identify the types and extent to which experiences are provided Home Economics Stu- dent Teachers for achieving the objectives unique to home economics student teaching. g. To examine the specific evaluations and recommendations of the University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers for student teaching in home economics. h. To describe, on the basis of findings from this study, further research needs in home economics teacher education and student teaching. Definition of Terms For purposes of this study, the following oper- ational definitions were used: University Coordinators.--A member of the student teaching faculty in the College of Education who serves as a liaison among administrators of the cooperating public schools, the supervising teachers, the student teachers, and the college. He is a college superviser of student teaching and an instructor of student teachers. Most of 19 the coordinators reside in the vicinity of the cooperating schools. The terms "College Supervisor," "College Coordi- nator,‘ and "University Coordinator" are synonymous, but for purposes of this report, "University Coordinator" is used. A University Coordinator is a "generalist" in that he supervises in many subject matter teaching areas, regardless of his own specialized major and minor subject fields. His specialties are in helping student teachers apply learning theory, diagnosis of teaching-learning problems, and implementation of instructional strategies. Supervising Teachers.--Supervising teachers are teachers employed by the public schools in whose classrooms college students are placed to gain laboratory experiences in teaching. These public school teachers are selected as supervisors on the basis of their competence in teaching and willingness to work with student teachers. These teachers guide the college students as they learn to apply pedagogical theories and subject matter knowledge from their college courses to secondary teaching. Home Economics Student Teachers.--College students, majoring in Home Economics Education, who completed the prerequisites for student teaching and are in the public schools to receive actual experience in the school class- room and in a particular community environment. 20 Home Economics Education.--A program at the college and/or university level which prepares students for the professional service of teaching. Subject Matter Teacher Educators.--The subject matter teacher educator is a member of the college faculty in education and specializes in the teaching of a particu- lar curriculum content area. A home economics teacher edu- cator is one of many subject matter teacher educators in the College of Education and the University. Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objective (UHESTO).--A unique home economics student teaching ob- jective is one which a group of vocational home economics 16’17 identified as teacher educators in an earlier study, being different from a general student teaching objective. The successful achievement of a Unique Home Economics Stu- dent Teaching Objective requires the guidance or super- vision of a home economics trained person. General stu- dent teaching objectives include those objectives which all student teachers are to achieve, regardless of their subject matter area. )- 16Dorothy Richardson, "An Investigation of Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives" (unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1969). 17Dorothy West, "Phase I: Objectives Unique to Home Economics Student Teaching," unpublished progress report, Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, October 31, 1969). 21 Off-Campus Student Teaching.--An undergraduate course (Ed. 436), which is a full-time student teaching experience and is done in selected public schools through- out the state. Student teachers reside in the community during the time they do their student teaching in the public school systems. Off-Campus Center.--One of seventeen geographical clusters of school districts in Michigan where Michigan State University assigns student teachers. Hypotheses and Questions The hypotheses which were examined in this study are as follows: Hypothesis l.--There is a significant difference between the student teachers' self-ratings and the rating of the supervising teacher concerning the student teachers' achievement of the UHESTO (Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objec- tives). Hypothesis 2.--There is a positive relationship between the number of times learning experiences are provided by the supervising teacher for achiev- ing the UHESTO (Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives) and the supervising teachers': (1) type of homemaking program, (2) grade level assignment, (3) undergraduate degree granting institution, (4) amount of graduate course work, (5) completion of a supervision of student teach- ing course, (6) total number of student teachers supervised, and (7) total number of years taught. Hypothesis 3.--There is a positive relationship between the student teachers' self-rating of achievement of the UHESTO (Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives) and the number of years participated as a: (1) student in secondary home economics, (2) Future Homemakers of America club member, and (3) 4-H club member. 22 Hypothesis 4.--There is a positive relationship between the supervising teachers' rating of the student teacher's achievement of the UHESTO (Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives) and the number of years the student teacher participated as a: (1) student in secondary home economics, (2) Future Homemakers of America club member, and (3) 4-H club member. Hypothesis 5.--There is a positive relationship between the number of times learning experiences are provided by the University Coordinator for achieving the UHESTO (Unique Home Economics Stu- dent Teaching Objectives) and the University Coordinators': (1) highest degree earned, (2) years of experience as a coordinator, (3) total number of home economics student teachers super- vised, and (4) total number of home economics supervising teachers coordinated. Hypothesis 6.--There is a positive relationship between the number of times learning experiences are provided by Home Economics Supervising Teachers and University Coordinators, and the Home Eco- nomics Student Teachers' self-rating of achieve- ment of the UHESTO (Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives). In addition to testing the stated hypotheses, explorations were made of the following three questions: 1. Which Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives do University Coordinators and Home Economics Supervising Teachers consider to be of highest priority? 2. What learning experiences are provided for contributing toward the student teacher's achievement of the UHESTO (Unique Home Eco- nomics Student Teaching Objectives)? The 23 What are the recommendations of the University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers for the future role of the home economics teacher educator in student teaching at Michigan State University? Assumptions following assumptions underlie this study: Student teaching is an important aspect in the preparation of home economics teachers. University Coordinators and Supervising Teachers provide experiences related to the achievement of objectives common to the train- ing of all student teachers, from all subject matter teaching fields. There are unique objectives in the teaching of vocational home economics which cannot be generally assumed to be provided for by the generalist University Coordinator. The unique objectives for student teaching in home economics, which were identified in an earlier study, are valid. The University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers interpreted each objective 24 similarly and responded to each question factually. Other ways than coordination or individual supervisory visits from the university home economics teacher educator can be identified for assuring continued quality of a vocational home economics student teaching program. Limitations As the study was designed and conducted, several recognizable limitations were evident. There were: 1. The objectives identified as unique to student teaching in home economics, which were used as the basis for this research, are limited in their inclusiveness as being the unique home economics student teaching objectives. A different, but, nevertheless similar list of objectives could be identified if a broadly stated objective were broken into more specific sub-objectives, or conversely, if a specific objective were expanded to include larger objectives. The study is a normative survey utilizing the questionnaire and interview techniques. The use of the interview and questionnaire is Subject to criticism, for example, inter- pretation of the questions, skill of the 25 interviewers, and the conditions for the inter- view must be considered. The responses to the questions might have changed depending on the particular attitude and philosophy of each person who returned the instrument. Theoretical Basis of the Study The theoretical framework which underlies this research is based on an understanding of the logic support- ing the need for a professional laboratory experience in home economics teacher education, and for identifying an agreed upon role for the college supervisor of student teaching. Eye and Netzer18 describe a theory in simple terms as a collection of assumptions, principles, objectives, notions, hunches, known facts, and the organization of these factors into a coordinated whole which give direction to various possibilities of behaviors. L. O. Andrews relates the level of excellence in student teaching to a need for clarifying a theoretical basis underlying program decisions: Even a perfunctory review of the literature on student teaching in the last 75 years leads quickly to the conclusion that there is no comprehensive theoretical rationale for the contributions of stu- dent proposals, problems, and practices is most 18Glen Eye and Lanore Netzer, The Supervision of Instruction: A Phase of Administration (New York: Harper and Row, 1965). 26 distressing for it clearly demonstrates the lack of a clear rationale, an unfamiliarity with the historical development, and a failure by many to profit from the successes and mistakes of others.19 In spite Of the charge that student teaching has Operated without a clear rationale or theoretical basis, the laboratory phase in teacher preparation has been given nearly unanimous support as a relevant segment Of the teacher education program. Even James Conant20 and Admiral Rickover,21 two well-known critics of teacher education, noted that practice teaching is an indisputable essential element in the professional education of teachers. Certain assumptions underlie a program of student teaching and several were identified by Shapin in 1965. These assumptions are a vital part of the teacher training program and need to be recognized: 1. Teaching is behavior, and as behavior is subject to analysis, change and improvement. 2. Much of the habitual behavior which individuals have developed in other contexts is inapprOpriate for the teaching situation and therefore, needs to be recognized and extinguished. 3. Teaching is an extremely complex kind Of behavior, involving the full range Of thought processes, communication, and physical action. 19L. O. Andrews, Student Teaching (New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, 1964), p. 30. 20James Bryant Conant, The Education of American Teachers (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 142. 21G. K. Hodenfield and J. M. Stenneth, The Edu- cation Of Teachers (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prent1ce- Hall, 1961), p. 14. 27 4. Teachers, through practice, can learn to analyze, criticize, and control their own teaching behavior. 5. Practice provides the experiences which gives mean- ing to many other aSpects of instruction in edu- cation. Purposes Of Student Teaching Accepting the position that student teaching is an important, integral aspect Of a teacher's preparation the next question becomes one Of determining what are the purposes for a student teaching experience. A careful analysis Of related literature indicates that the role of student teaching has changed considerably in the past several years. Rucker,23 Walton,24 and Arthur,25 felt that although student teaching has long been a basic aspect Of teacher education, not as much time was formerly devoted to the experience as is devoted to it today. The program has been expanded and enlarged so that longer and larger blocks of time are now included. A significant indicator of the value of student teaching 22Judson Shapin, "Practice in Teaching, Break- through tO Better Teaching," Harvard Education Review (Special Issue, 1965). 23Ray W. Rucker, "Trends in Student Teaching, 1932-52," Journal of Teacher Education, IV (1953), 261-63. 24John Walton, Toward Better Teaching in Second- ary Schools (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1966). 25F. Arthur, "Changing Dimensions in Teacher Education," Fortieth Yearbook (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1960), p. 31. 28 is the fact that while more time is being allotted to student teaching there has been a general reduction Of total professional hours. A survey of ten teacher preparation institutions in 1959, revealed that the principal value of student teaching was the bringing Of all other aspects Of training into integration. Next in importance was the development Of skill in teaching.26 Several logical reasons are apparent for the sup- port and approval given most student teaching programs. The experience encourages the future teacher to actually apply what is known about psychology of learning. Learn- ing becomes an active process and learning readily occurs as the student teacher participates in the process of learning. Flowers, in 1948, supported the need for directed teaching experience and wrote that the laboratory experi- ence should provide the following Opportunities: (1) an Opportunity to implement basic concepts and ideas discussed in college c1asses--both to study the pragmatic value of the theory and to check with the student his understanding of the theory in application; (2) a field Of activity which, through raising questions and problems helps the student to see his needs (both professional and personal) and to outline experiences which should be included in his further study; and 26Asabel Woodruff, Student Teaching Today, Study Series NO. 5 (Washington, D.C.: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1960), p. 31. 29 (3) an Opportunity to study with the student his ability to function effectively when guiding actual teaching-learning situations.2 Sharp in 1965, repeats the ideas presented by Flowers in 1948, when the following point of view con- cerning the desired nature of the student teaching experience was expressed: 10 2. The experience should be challenging. The stu- dent must see it as pertinent to his professional growth. It should provide for involvement. As a person becomes involved in a situation, he gains insight into his own strengths and weaknesses and develops sense of responsibility for the consequences of his actions. It should provide for guidance and assistance. The mature person has an Obligation to share his experience with the immature. The student must feel that someone is interested in his progress and in his unique problems. It should provide for intellectualization, so that the student will be able to apply what he has learned through his experience to new situations. Evaluation is an inseparable part of the on-going work of the student teacher. When this condition is met, the student teacher will know at all times the progress he is making. Evaluation is cooperative and continuous. Both the student teacher participates widely in the evaluative procedure. Evaluation should be in terms of clearly defined and cooperatively understood goals. This assumes a listing of the various types of activities by means of which these goals may be attained. The student teacher would participate many times in determining the extent to which his goals are being achieved. As a result of setting his own goals he should be able to guide pupils in seeking desirable objectives. 27John G. Flowers, "School and Community Labo- ratory Experiences in Teacher Education," The Sub-Committee Of the Standards and Surveys Committee of the American Association of Teachers Colleges, 1948, pp. 88-98. 30 8. It should be satisfying. The student needs to be able to see for himself the results of his work. He needs to experience success.23 At first glance student teaching in a federally- aided vocational program is no different from that of stu- dent teaching in any secondary school area. But to under- stand the differences or similarities that may exist, the nature of the federally-aided vocational education program needs to be examined. It can be noted that provision for student teaching was emphasized early in vocational teacher training programs in home economics. Lowe wrote: The Smith-Hughes and George-Barden Acts define the basic standards Of the programs and provide for a system of reimbursement for teacher salaries, travel, supervision, research and teacher training. They define the minimum qualifications Of personnel, and the minimum as well as maximum expenditures of funds for the various provisions of the acts.29 Lowe also indicated that "The new program of training for wage-earning jobs in home-related occupations will cer- tainly mean additional different experiences and training . . . 30 for student teachers 1n vocat1ona1 home econom1cs." 28Donald M. Sharpe, "Threshold to the Profession," National Education Association Journal, LIV (1964), 33-35. 29Phyllis Lowe, "The College Supervisor in a Federally Aided Vocational Education Program," The Collegg Supervisor Conflict and Challenge, Forty-third Yearbook Of the Association for Student Teaching (Washington, D.C.: The Association for Student Teaching, 1964), pp. 55-63. BOIbid. 31 Guidelines have also been established by the State of Michigan, Division of Vocational Education, which describe the teacher training program in vocational home economics. The guidelines indicate that a student teach- ing experience includes: A directed teaching experience in a vocational home- making program with in-school groups with supervised classroom presentation of at least three phases of homemaking education; supervised home experiences with home visits; eXperiences with the Future Homemakers Of America; participation in non-teaching activities, such as faculty meetings, departmental record keeping and counseling with students; and Observation and participation in adult education programs.31 Student teaching from the generalist's point of view serves to orient the future teacher to the world Of the school and provides the Opportunity to develop the art and science of teaching with an individual style. From the vocational subject matter educator's point Of view, student teaching is primarily a time to apply the basic learnings in the field of vocational home economics. Many home economics teacher educators believe there are some unique aspects to the teaching of home economics, and therefore they feel that total supervision and guidance by the generalist in student teaching is not enough. Also, the vocational program standards are clearly identified for 31Michigan State Department Of Education, "Require- ments for a Michigan Vocational Home Economics Certificate" (unpublished material distributed by the Division Of Vocational Education, Home Economics Education, Lansing, Mich., 1968). 32 the teacher preparation programs; these are not necessarily a part of the non-vocational teacher preparation fields. The Need to Identify a Role for the College Supervisor of Student Teaching Greater enrollments in teacher education programs was one of the forces which led to the movement Of student teaching from the laboratory school or school placement near the university, to off-campus cooperating schools. The interested participants in student teaching have now been identified to include among others, the college supervisors, supervising teachers, student teachers, clinical consultants, teachers, parents, pupils, academic professors, subject matter educators, student teaching directors, and the State Department of Education. In most colleges and universities a program in student teaching comprises a major alliance among three persons: the student teacher, the supervising teacher, and the college coordinator. However, as changes are occurring in student teaching organization and involvement, new problems must be resolved if there is to be harmony in student teaching. Role conflict is one problem which comes into focus. The evidence of role conflict present in current student teaching programs is reported in the literature. The college supervisor is no exception when anxieties over job responsibilities and relationships are concerned. 33 Morse describes the nature of the conflicts in college supervision: On the secondary level this lack Of clarity in role bothers the supervising teacher. What should he expect the college supervisor to be? A general- ist who may know very little about the subject being Observed? A specialist who may be critical of the emphasis given items in the lesson? An individual keenly aware of human relationships involved? An expert in the teaching-learning process who can readily get to the heart of a teaching problem? A perfunctory visitor who explains details Of the stu- dent teacher program as he hurries to the next school? Basically the supervising teacher wishes for someone who can help with any type Of difficulty arising from student teaching. . . . 2 One feasible method for clarifying the role of the college supervisor, who at Michigan State University is referred to as the University Coordinator, is through identifying what they expect Of themselves and what others expect Of them. This research method is based on role identification through perceptions. Corrigan and Garland state that "Role theory, as a system of interrelated con- cepts can provide a useful way of examining the positions 33 involved in student teaching experiences." Utilizing the role theory developed by Parsons and Shils in Toward 32William Morse, "Anxieties and Role Conflicts in an Interrelated Triangle," The College Supervisor, Con- flict and Challenge, Forty-third Yearbook of the Associ- ation for Student Teaching (Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Co., 1964), p. 12. 33Dean Corrigan and Colden Garland, Studyipg Role Relationships, Research Bulletin NO. 6 (Washington, D.C.: The Association for Student Teaching, 1966), p. 4. 34 General Theory of Action (1951), Corrigan and Garland wrote: The point Of contact between the individual and the social system is the role. This is the most significant unit of social structure, because it defines the individual's participation in a specific social situation. The primary ingredient of the role is the role expectation or pattern of evaluation. Thus, what an individual is expected to do in a given situation, both by himself and by others constitutes the expectations of that role.34 The role relationships of greatest concern in this research are those between the student teacher, supervising teacher, university coordinator, and the subject matter teacher educator, insofar as determining who does and should provide the learning experiences for home economics student teachers for achieving specific Objectives unique to home economics student teaching. When contradictory expectations for the student teacher are held by subject matter educators, university coordinators, and supervising teachers, the student teacher will be faced with the problem Of resolving the conflict. Gross, Mason, and McEachern35 suggest that a different type of disagreement regarding role definition may also be significant. This is a disagreement with regard to intensity rather than direction. For example, 34Ibid., p. 11. 35Neal Gross, Ward Mason, and Alexander McEachern, Explorations in Role Analysis (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 108. 35 supervising teachers, university coordinators, and subject matter teacher educators may agree on the direction of a particular expectation, namely that the student teacher should be expected to perform a specific function. One of the two Of them may feel, however, that the student teacher "preferably should" while the others feel that he "abso- lutely must" be expected to perform the function. The student teacher's actual behavior with regard to this eXpectation and the significance of it, will therefore be evaluated quite differently by each Of the three groups. A lack of consensus among the members of each Of the groups involved can present a different, but no less 36 states that variability in significant problem. Sarbin expectations among the members of a group also reflects an ambiguous role definition. The implications of lack of clarity of role definition seem evident. With regard to a specific function, for example, it will not be possible for student teachers to know what will be expected of them by supervising teachers if there is a great deal of vari- ability among supervising teachers in their exPectations regarding the particular function. This could particularly occur if one student teacher was assigned to two or more supervising teachers. 36Theodore Sarbin, "Role Theory,‘ in Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. I, ed. by Gardner Lindzey (Read- ing, Mass.: AddiSon-Wesley, 1954), p. 227. 36 Effective role relations come about through study- ing, developing, and continuously reviewing the extent Of consensus among the participating groups in student teach- ing. As new roles are added and present procedures change, the total interaction system in student teaching is affected. A study of the areas Of potential conflict and ambiguity among supervisory roles can serve as a starting point for planning and implementing ways for bringing about increased clarity and consensus with regard to role expec- tations. The reasons underlying the Operation and research in student teaching has had few ties with a theory based rationale. Only limited attempts have been exerted toward theory building in student teaching supervision and in- struction. The theory base of this study was built on the assumed importance of a practical, application experience Of student teaching, and on the need to identify a role description for the college superviser of student teach- ing. The role and function Of the college supervisors needs continuous clarification in light of the many changes occurring in both the universities and public schools. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The review of related literature presented in this chapter is arranged into four sections: (1) trends and issues in student teaching, (2) organizational patterns in student teaching, (3) the role of the college super- visor Of student teaching, and (4) the unique charac- teristics of the subject matter college supervisor of student teaching as contrasted with the general college supervisor. The trends and issues in student teaching are frequently discussed in the literature. The organi- zational changes occurring in student teaching programs directly affect the future role and functions of the college supervisor. Therefore, the trends and issues in student teaching are reviewed to project future program developments and to understand how these changes may influence the future role of teacher educators in college supervision. The topic, the unique characteristics Of the generalist and Specialist in college supervision of stu- dent teaching is reviewed to provide justification for 37 38. the methods used in the present research study. Research on the effectiveness of varying college supervisory patterns in student teaching is very limited. Recent Trends and Issues in Student Teaching Teacher education is at a critical point in its history. There is now enough knowledge and experi- ence to reform it, to plan a basic program Of teacher education for an Open society in a time of upheaval. But if this knowledge and experience are dissipated in prolonged discussions Of issues, doctrines, and tenets leading only to more dialogue, instead of a fundamental program Of education for the nation's teachers, teacher education is likely to fragment and its pieces drift in all directions. Smith in Teachers for the Real World, wishes to challenge his readers to think about a better plan for fully preparing the teacher to successfully meet the responsibilities of teaching. The writer of the present study is attempting to face this challenge through identi- fying relevant practices for students preparing for the home economics teaching profession. However, it is recognized that easy solutions are not common in the complex task Of teacher preparation. The review Of trends and issues in student teach- ing is designed to pull together and give coherence and perspective to the student teaching programs of the future. If teacher education programs are in need of continuous lB. Othanel Smith, et al., Teachers for the Real World (Washington, D.C.: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1969): p. ii. 39 re-appraisals, then one cannot gloss over the new blue- prints being designed for the preparation of teachers. Even though student teaching changed considerably over the years, it is likely that more drastic changes will occur in the future. Factors influencing change relate to increasing geographical mobility, increasing numbers of students seeking more and more education, technological advances, media develOpments, and labor movements. The current student involvement movement, urban ghettos, civil rights movements, and other factors all have implications for teacher preparation. These societal factors have also had their influences on the Operational and supervisory patterns in student teaching. While student teaching continues to function as a significant part Of teacher education, certain questions and problems concerning basic procedures in student teach- ing remain unanswered and unresolved. The literature remains filled with many issues and questions. Steeves writes that the questions of student evalu- ation or methods Of renumeration are not terribly crucial if workable answers can be drawn for each particular situ- ation. The really crucial issues, writes Steeves, are "those that are truly decisive and severe and that present alternatives so differing in philosophy and approach to education that the decisions made among them will 4O profoundly influence and change practices as we now know them."2 Steeves identifies two crucial issues which center in two areas: (1) the assumed indispensability of student teaching, and (2) the degree Of involvement of faculty members from departments other than education in the planning and operation of professional courses and experi- ences, including student teaching. The two major issues were raised in the form of questions: Is student teaching the one indispensable experi- ence in the professional sequence of teacher prepar- ation? Can student teaching stand alone as adequate professional preparation for beginning teaching? Is student teaching to remain as part Of a professional sequence of courses and field experiences in under- graduate teacher education; Or as the separate parts Of the professional sequence are whittled away, will it become an expanded experience, perhaps in a fifth year, during which all professional skills and con- cepts are learned? Who should teach the psychology of learning? Philosophy of education? History of education? Edu- cational sociology? Methods Of teaching? Educational measurement? (Or, any other course commonly taught in the undergraduate sequence?) And tO apply this argu- ment directly to student teaching, who should control and administer programs of student teaching and who should supervise student teaching?3 The crucial issues repeatedly mentioned in the current literature and at the 1970, Association for Stu- dent Teaching Conference in Chicago, centered on the 2Frank L. Steeves, "Crucial Issues in Student Teaching," Jourpal Of Teacher Education, XVI, NO. 3 (September, 1965), 307-210. 31bid. 41 extent of agreement or means of implementing some of the following aspects of a student teaching program: 1. The need to establish greater communication and cooperation between and among the in- structors in professional education courses and the cooperating teachers and adminis- trators in the schools.4'5 2. The need to define the relationship between the on-campus aspect and the student teaching aspect Of teacher education, and how to pro- vide an understanding of the rationale for the nature and purpose Of student teaching in order to avoid the varying amounts of disparity and conflict between the two parts of the program. 3. The need to identify the contributions to student teaching when college supervision is provided by the generalist as Opposed to supervision by the subject area specialist and 4E. Perry Hicks, "Changing the Role of the COOperating Teacher," Jourpal Of Teacher Education, XX, NO. 2 (Summer, 1969), 153-57. 5E. Brooks Smith, "Needed: A New Order in Student Teaching That Brings Joint Accountability for Professional Development," Journal of Teacher Education, XX, NO. 1 (Spring, 1969), 27-36. 42 the whole question Of who will direct the work Of the student teacher.6'7 4. The need for providing supervised teaching experiences before student teaching and tO involve students in classroom eXperiences throughout the training program. Will this type of program make the theoretical courses more valuable?8 5. The need for finding, using, and training qualified supervising teachers and profession- alize supervision.9 6. The need to coordinate efforts between colleges for student teaching space and develop common- alities among the programs utilizing the public schools.10 6James P. O'Hanlon, "Considerations About Student Teaching," Educational Forum, XXXI, NO. 3 (March, 1967), 339-43. 7Association for Student Teaching, Research on Student Teaching, p. 25. 8David Aspy, "Maslow and Teachers in Training," Journal of Teacher Education, XX, NO. 3 (Fall, 1969), 303-09. 9David Purpel, "Student Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education, XVIII, NO. 1 (Spring, 1967), 20-2 . loWoodruff, Student Teaching Today, p. 1. 43 While there will probably always be issues to be resolved in teacher education, it is also apparent that progress is made from studying and analyzing the different points of view. Bennie concisely reviewed the current issues in student teaching and along with clarifying the issues he noted the general trends being taken by most colleges and universities. The issues and trends that were identified are: 1. The role of the public school in teacher education. The movement Of student teaching into the public schools has been accomplished, but the public school has not been merged completely as a full partner in the teacher education enterprise. A partnership between the college and the public school exists; however, the college has continued to decide the pattern for student teaching. Recently, a trend toward the gradual inclusion of the public school in more aspects of the student teaching experience may be noted. Criteria for the selection of copperating teachers. More attention is being given to the cooperating teacher and even the possibility Of state certifi- cation Of the cooperating teacher is often con- sidered. This step seems likely as the public schools assume increasingly more of the responsi- bility for student teaching and the cooperating teacher's role becomes more significant. One problem which seems worthy Of mention, is the identification and preparation of classroom teachers to serve as cooperating teachers. Accom- panying this issue is a trend toward teacher edu- cation institutions providing more in-service edu- cation for teachers working in student teaching programs. Providing compensation for the supervising job. The recent movement from cash compensation for cooperating teachers toward the assuming Of the job as a professional obligation has not restored the monetary problem. While it is not yet a trend, there are indications that the state or possibly the federal government may become involved in the compensation picture. 44 Patterns of student teaching. Research indicates there is no clear-cut validated type of program that has yet been developed which clearly defines specific patterns as being superior to others. There is, however, a trend toward making the stu- dent teaching experience as nearly like the first teaching position as possible. Full-time student teaching eXperiences, semester-long programs, and the internship, with pay, are all indications of this trend. The role of the college student teaching super- visor. This position merits more recognition and significance than has formally been afforded it. The job has survived the stage of being passed around to whoever had time available on his teaching load, and has begun to be recognized as a fully professional job in itself. Loads are becoming more reasonable, prestige is slightly greater, and the job has become more appealing to the faculty of teacher-education institutions. The legal status of the student teacher. Because of the lack of decisions by law, there remains a questionable status with respect to the legality Of student teachers' assuming the responsibilities of teaching and the ensuing liability involved. Gradually more concern regarding this problem is in evidence, and states are slowly taking legis- lative action to permit student teaching and to define its scope. The legal status of the student teacher should be clarified. This may be more likely to occur when the states require state certification of COOperating teachers and when they participate more in the financial aspects of student teaching. Evaluation of student teaching. There is some indication that letter grades for student teachers may eventually be replaced by more comprehensive instruments and procedures. This is perhaps happening because prospective employers have realized that letter grades do not provide suf- ficient information about the prospective teacher. If, however, the letter grade is replaced by other instruments, the refinement of evaluative instru- ments and criteria, and a re-education Of per- sonnel directors Of the student teaching program will be necessary. Some of the newer approaches to student teacher evaluation may be found in the use Of video-tape, tape recorders, and sound film. Professional laboratory experiences. At present, there is a decided movement toward including more laboratory experiences and more participation in classrooms during the pre-service education Of teachers. These experiences would be incorporated 45 into professional courses. The difficulty in attaining this, however, lies in the limitations Of facilities and in the increasing number of teachers to be educated. Much interest is being shown by educators in the utilization of vicarious laboratory experiences in lieu Of actual partici- pation and Observation. Many colleges are experi- menting with film clips, closed-circuit television, and mass demonstration lessons in place Of indi- vidual involvement in different situations, and it may be expected that such professional labo- ratory experiences will become increasingly sig- nificant. 9. The internship. There seems little doubt that the internship concept will remain in the educational picture, and, in all probability, it will grow in popularity. At the present the five-year teacher education program, including the internship is inevitable. Its principal deterrent at the moment appears to be increasing enrollments in public schools and the corresponding demand for teachers. 10. Shift of emphasis in teacher education. Teacher educators are becoming increasingly aware of aspects of the program that were not formerly apparent. Some of these trends are: (a) the preparation Of teachers for more specialized duties, such as preparing teachers to teach the underprivileged and culturally deprived pupils; (b) an increased concern for the importance of mental health in education--interest in the mental health of pupils with whom they will work; and (c) the inclusion Of some form of preparation for team-teachin and the utilization Of televised instruction. 12 Haskew suggested that teacher education programs should be planned for and planning begins with estab- lishing a framework and should aim at correcting funda- mental insufficiencies in present practices. Dean 11William A. Bennie, Cooperation for Better Stu- dent Teaching (Minneapolis, Minn.: Burgess Publishing Company, 1966), pp. 122-27. 2Lawrence Haskew, "Planning for the Education of Teachers," Journal Of Teacher Education, XVII (Summer, 1966), 251-61. 46 proposed that a model program in student teaching for the 1970's should be guided by four principles: 1. The program for student teachers should provide great flexibility so that strengths and weak- nesses Of individual students will determine the specific program each will follow. 2. The student teacher should be involved in a pro- gram which is designed tO provide contact with several teachers and various teaching styles. 3. The program should be structured to provide many other kinds of professional experiences for the student teacher in addition to classroom teaching. 4. Effective means should be developed to bring practicing teachers and teacher preparation insti- tutions into a true partnership in the design and implementation of teacher education programs.13 Teacher education has improved markedly during the past decade, and indications are that this improvement will undoubtedly continue. There appears to be increased interest and support by the academic community. Also the federal government has provided support in improving teacher education. These combined factors will play an important part in the progress and professionalization Of teacher education. Patterns of Organization in Student Teaching Programs in teacher education follow many patterns. Uniformity exists only to the extent that a student teacher experiences a period of teaching with a given group Of learners with a given amount of supervision and guidance. 13Leland Dean, "A Position Paper on Student Teach- ing Programs," Teacher Education in Transition, Vol. I (Baltimore, Maryland: Multi-State Teacher Education Project, 1969): PP. 165-66. 47 The teaching profession is unique in that little agreement on a standard pattern for teacher education has been reached, such as that which exists for the legal and medi- cal professions. Universities and school systems vary in their relationships in teacher training programs from an uncommunicative aloofness to a close partnership. Andrews identified a variety of school-campus organizing patterns which exist within most student teaching programs: Campus laboratory school or schools. Off-campus laboratory school or schools. Off-campus public schools in the local area. Off-campus public schools at some distance. Off-campus centers, usually at some distance. Some combination of two or more of the above.14 O’NU'Iu-h-WNH Since the 1930's, student teaching performed exclusively in campus schools has declined. Simultaneously, the use Of Off-campus training schools has increased. In 1953, Rucker15 reported 70.8 per cent Of the institutions preparing teachers, furnished student teaching experiences in both on- and Off-campus situations. Howd and Browne16 report that since 1964, an average of eight laboratory schools per year were closed. 14Andrews, Student Teaching, p. 39. 15Rucker, “Trends in Student Teaching 1932-52," pp. 261-63. 16 M. Curtis Howd and Kenneth Browne, National Survey Of Campus Laboratgry Schools (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1970). 48 Young17 reported that Off-campus student teaching placement doubled between 1940 and 1960. Two reasons for the increased use of public schools was that the model school could not accommodate all the practice teachers and many felt that the public school was capable Of providing a more realistic teacher training experience. Howd and Browne18 reported that where laboratory schools are currently Operated, the principal aim of many Of the schools by 1969 was to serve as a center for obser- vation and pre-student teaching participation of college students with children, rather than student teaching per se. In 1959, Hicksl9 found that of the responding nine Of the Big Ten Universities, all placed their students in public schools at various distances from the campus. As distances between the public schools and university con- tinued to increase, changes in the student teaching pro- gram became inevitable. Off-campus centers were estab- lished in some situations to accommodate the needs of a growing student teaching program. Michigan State l7William Young, "A Critical Analysis of Selected Research on Student Teaching in the United States, 1929- 1959" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University, 1961). 18Howd and Browne, National Survey Of Campus Laboratory Schools. 19William V. Hicks, "Information About Off-Campus Student Teaching Programs in Big Ten Universities" (un- published material, College Of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, January, 1959), pp. l-lO. 49 University uses the center concept approach and some of the major reasons for employing this method have been identified by Olsen: The center concept is an effort to develop: (a) truly cooperative arrangements characterized by a close professional relationship between school and college; (b) a means of meeting conditions in differ- ent situations, an effort to develop style, structure, procedures, and labels that are appropriate; and (c) a pattern for student teaching that will insure continuity and flexibility despite changes in per- sonnel, knowledge and climate. 0 The center concept of program organization carries with it certain advantages. L. O. Andrews describes the characteristics Of the Off-campus center student teaching organizational pattern: One of the first institutions to develOp the concept Of a formal student teaching center was Michigan State University, and now many others are adopting this pattern because it does Offer solutions to several problems. The local coordinator can follow through on administrative matters, work at public relations, visit and supervise the student teachers, hold regu- lar seminars to substitute for the ones formerly held on campus, carry on an in-service program for super- vising teachers, and on occasion teach a course to the student teachers. Sometimes campus staff go out and live in the center, while others commute, but many colleges are hiring persons resident in the community. . . . 1 However, variations in patterns of Operation exist within the Off-campus organizational procedure; in some 20Subcommittee on School College Relationships in Teacher Education, Cooperative Structure in School College Relationships for Teacher Education, Report Number 2 (Washington, D.C.: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1965). p. 81. 21Andrews, Student Teaching, pp. 39-40. 50 situations the schools have the full responsibility for supervising and evaluating the neOphyte as a potential teacher, whereas in other situations the college assumes the major responsibility for student teacher supervision and evaluation. Although some critics Of teacher edu- cation would eliminate the jOb Of the college supervisor, most educators feel there is a need for the college super- visor to establish a cooperative venture between the schools and the college. Johnson22 surveyed 870 teacher preparation insti- tutions in the United States and found that 22 per cent or 192 of all responding institutions place their student teachers in teaching centers. Six out Of the twenty, or 30 per cent Of Michigan teacher education programs place their student teachers in centers. At the secondary level the minimum and maximum distance from a Michigan campus is 1 mile to 250 miles respectively. As one looks to the future patterns of organization in student teaching three additional concepts come to focus. These too will influence the roles in college supervision. The newer organizational patterns have been succinctly described in a paper written during a 1968 work- shop in student teaching held at Michigan State University: 22James Johnson, A National Survey of Student Teaching Programs, Monograph H (Baltimore, Maryland: Multi- State Teacher Education Project, July, 1968). 51 l. Internship Programs--Internship experiences in teacher educatiOn most nearly correspond to those of a beginning teacher. During the internship the college student, usually in his fourth or fifth year of preparation, still works under supervision, but has greater responsibility than during student teaching. The intern is commonly paid a partial salary for his services by the school district, and he typically has responsibility for a class- room. The internship period is likely to be longer than the student teaching experience. In most instances the intern has greater responsi- bility and less supervision than the student teacher. 2. Cooperative State and Federal Ventures--A new thrust in teacher education is in the development Of cooperative ventures among states and with assistance of federal funds. A program involving state participation is the Multi-State Teacher Education Project (M-STEP) which includes the collaboration of the State Departments Of Edu- cation in Florida, Maryland, Michigan, South Carolina, Utah, Washington and West Virginia. The aim of M-STEP is to find ways to pool national and state resources, and to move COOperatively toward the creation Of new and superior programs Of teacher education by public and non-public institutional cooperation. 3. Multi-University Student Teaching Centers--As the student teaching population increases, and other problems Of placement and follow-up of student teachers become more complex, there will probably be a move toward the multi-university center con- cept. It seems that dialogue and communication among several universities in a given area could be developed in such a way that a student teaching center with organizational structure to serve several universities could provide better coordi- nation with the reduction in both finances and energies. In one large urban community, five colleges and universities place student teachers in surrounding school districts. Each college places and follow-up its own students. It is conceivable that in the future, universities and colleges may be able to establish a cooperative effort by which one college supervisor or coordi- nator using the "center" model may coordinate all the students in a given center regardless Of the college.23 23Clyde Dow, ed., Programs and Papers of the 1968 Workshop for Directors and College Supervisors of Student 52 It is apparent that colleges and universities have shifted from the laboratory school on campus to the off- campus schools. Various organizational patterns for the coordination of programs are being prOposed and tried out throughout the country. Although the student teaching center concept is not the predominant pattern, more uni- versities are considering the method as a possible means for providing quality education for a growing number Of students. The Role of the College Supervisor in Student Teaching The role and function of the college supervisor has been the topic Of recent writings and research.24'25' 26'27’28 The concern over defining the roles of the key Teaching (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, Office Of Student Teaching, 1968), pp. 24-25. 24Thelma Leonard, "Role Expectations and Per- ceptions for the Home Economics Supervising Teacher" (un- published Ph.D. dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1965). 25Ann Walsh, "Some Practices in Home Economics Student Teaching Which Produce Satisfactory Supervisory Relationships" (unpublished Master's thesis, Oregon State University, 1960). 26Annette La Rowe, "The Special Contribution of the College Home Economics Education Supervisor to Student Teaching Situation" (unpublished Master's thesis, Purdue University, 1965). 27Charles Neal, Leonard Kraft, and Conrad Kracht, "Reasons for College Supervision of the Student Teaching Program," figurnal of Teacher Education, XVIII (Spring, 1967), 24-27. 28The College Supervisor: Conflict and Challenge, Forty-third Yearbook of the Association for Student 53 personnel in student teaching has shown itself through the publications of organizations such as the American Associ- ation Of Colleges for Teacher Education, the Association for Student Teaching, and the National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards. The in- creased demand for supervising teachers and the broadened use Of public schools in teacher education has resulted in a heightened interest in defining roles and responsi- bilities in the program. Various opinions exist as tO what the role in college supervision should be and how the role should be implemented. Upon reviewing the research it was found that studies are needed to clarify the roles played by college supervisors in relation to those played by indi- viduals in the school system and those in the teacher- education institution.29 Pfeiffer writes that "the most serious concern for the college supervisor is the lack of a definite job "30 description. Role expectations vary from one of an Teachin (Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company, Inc., 1964 . 29Chester Harris, ed., Encyclopedia of Educational Research (New York: Macmillan Company, 1960), p. 1475. 30Robert Pfeiffer, "Common Concerns Of College Supervisors," in The College Supervisor: Conflict and Challenge, Forty-thifd Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching (Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company, Inc., 1964), p. 11. 54 expert in a subject being taught, to an expert in teaching, learning, and student teaching itself. Smith and Goodlad wrote that: Responsibilities have, in the past, been only vaguely assigned in a bilateral fashion with colleges asking classroom teachers to perform certain tasks as super- vising teachers. A wider distribution of responsi- bilities will now need to be made. Old roles will need redefinition and new roles will require description.31 A survey was conducted at Southern Illinois Uni- versity to determine what are the basic roles desired of a college or university supervisor Of student teaching. Based upon the responses Of fourteen university super- visors, forty-six student teachers, sixty-three public school administrators, and sixty public school cooper- ating teachers, these roles for the university super- visors were identified: Role 1. Liaison. On the basis of the response pat- terns, it seems evident to the researchers that, as a whole, the four groups perceive liaison as the most significant role of the university supervisor. Role 2. Helping Student Teachers. Two Of the four groups, university supervisors and student teachers, perceive as significant the role of the university supervisor in helping student teachers. Role 3. University Responsibility to Student Teacher. The university supervisors and the adminis- trators attach more significance to this role than do the other two groups. 31E. Brooks Smith and John Goodlad, "Promises and Pitfalls in the Trend Toward Collaboration,“ in Partner- ship in Teacher Education, ed. by Smith, Olson, Johnson, and Barbour (Washington, D.C.: Association for Student Teaching, AACTE, 1966). Role 4. Role 5. Role 6. Role 7. Role 8. Role 9. Role 10. Role ll. 55 Cooperative Effort. A large number of the respondents from the four areas reporting believe that the student-teaching program is a cooperative effort, that the university supervisor functions as a part of a team effort. Acquainting and Interpreting the Student- Teaching Program to the Cooperating Public School Teacher. From the returns, one can conclude that the university supervisors and the cooperating public school teachers attach more importance to this role than do the other two groups. Evaluation of the Program in the Public School and of the Student Teacher's Work. This role is mentiOned most frequently by the university supervisors; the administrators mentioned it more frequently than the remaining two groups. Continuity of Program and Structure. The continuity of program and structure role is mentioned more frequently by the university supervisors and the student teachers than by the other two groups. Resource Person. The university supervisors and the adminIStrators mention the resource person's role more frequently than the remain- ing two groups. Preventive Supervision. University super- visors and student teachers mention the pre- ventive supervision role more frequently than the other two groups. Public Relations. The public relations role is mentIOned more frequently by the university supervisors than by any of the other three groups. Placement. The placement role is mentioned solely by the public school administrators.32 Among the conclusions drawn from the Southern Illinois University Study was the fact that all four groups placed the greatest emphasis Of supervision on the liaison role Of the university supervisor. Other conclusions that were drawn included: 32 Neal, Kraft, and Kracht, "Reasons for College Supervision of the Student Teaching Program, pp. 24-27. 56 It is the responsibility of the university to provide a system of supervision which will insure the highest quality student teaching program. Administrators do not want the student teaching program in their public schools without adequate supervision from the university. A number of the public school administrators and cooperating teachers mentioned that classroom supervision, consisting of direction and critical evaluation Of student teachers, should not be the role of university personnel. They pointed out that this part Of the work actually belongs to the local cooperating teacher. Assuming the traditional role image Of the uni- versity supervisor is that of giving direction and critical evaluation of the student teacher, the researchers involved hypothesize that the respon- dents of the four groups attach little or no sig- nificance to the traditional role. This hypothesis is based on the realization that not one single group identified such a role for the university supervisor.33 A cooperative study carried out simultaneously at Cornell University, the University of Missouri, the Ohio State University, and Purdue University was aimed at identifying the contributions Of the college supervisor in home economics to the student teaching situation. Effective and ineffective behaviors, based on data from critical incidents, were categorized in terms of the roles of the college supervisor. The findings directly related to identifying a role for a college supervisor include: 1. 2. There were more instances of the college super- visor assuming the information giving and stimu- lating growth roles than any of the other roles. Different methods Of supervising were used for the different roles assumed by the college super- visor in the student teaching situation. Visit methods accounted for most of the judgment- and 33Ibid. 57 information-giving role incidents; where non-visit methods were used, the security-giving role accounted for more incidents than others. 3. Non-visit methods served the supervising teacher with greater than expected frequency. The visit methods were used more frequently than expected to serve combinations of student and supervising teacher. 4. Effective behaviors of the college supervisor in each role she assumed (security-information-judg- ment giving, stimulating growth, strengthening relationships) had more impact on student teachers than on supervising teachers. 5. Problems giving rise to college supervisory action were most apt to be in the areas of student teacher self-concept, lesson planning, program policies and requirements, and rapport with supervisor. Thus, according to this study, the college supervisor plays a significant role in student teaching, but the role varies depending on the cimcumstances. In this particular study the home economics teacher educator was the college supervisor. Perhaps, if the college supervisors were generalist in subject matter the role descriptions may have differed. Some Of the literature focuses on the role of the college supervisor while other parts deal with the work or duties of the supervisor. At times it is difficult to distinguish between these two concepts. However, it does seem that in college supervision, one performs certain specific duties that may or may not be associated with an equally specific role. At other times a specific role is assumed but no specific duty performed. 34'Marie Dirks, et al., "The Special Contributions Of the College Home Economics Education Supervisor to the Student Teaching Situation," Studies in Higher Education, NO. 94 (LaFayette, Ind.: Purdue University, June, 1967T, pp. 6-37. 58 A study of practices relating to roles in the stu- dent teaching situation which produce satisfactory super- visory relationships was made by Walsh. A total of 355 student teachers, supervising teachers, and college super- visors in vocationally approved and/or reimbursed insti- tutions in nine western states were included in the sample. Walsh found that 75 per cent Of two of the three groups agreed strongly that the college supervisor (in home eco- nomics) should carry out these functions: Work with the supervising teacher in setting up their working policies in order to do the best job with the student teacher. Study the needs and abilities of the student teacher prior to assignment Of the teacher. Hold regular conferences with the student teacher and supervising teacher. Interpret the student teaching program to the supervising teacher. Clarify responsibilities about which the student teacher is unsure or unaware. Try to give the student teacher confidence and a feeling Of security. Support a student teacher to enable her to develop competence. Observe particular situations and possible causes contributing to those situations; use these as concrete problems for analysis and for evaluation of her teaching in conference with the student teacher.35 Walsh concluded from her study that: There is need for further study Of the existing supervisory practices of student teachers, super- vising teachers and college supervisors in order to pinpoint the areas Of common agreement and determine how to overcome the areas which lack common agreement. 35Walsh, "Some Practices in Home Economics Student Teaching Which Produce Satisfactory Supervisory Relation- ships, p. 102. 59 There is an apparent lack of very close agreement between student teacher and supervising teacher, supervising teacher and college supervisor, and student teacher and college supervisor. There is less agreement of the participants with their own roles than with the roles of the others. There is a lack of consistency in beliefs. The college supervisor seems to be idealistic in what she expects of the student teacher and supervising teacher, and in reverse she does not expect as much of herself as others expect of her.36 The duties of a University Coordinator at Michigan State University are more broadly defined than those described by Walsh or Dirks, et al. The Michigan State University coordinator is a resident within the center and administers a satellite student teaching center. George Myers identified some of the job responsibilities of the Michigan State University coordinator at the present time. The activities of the coordinator include: Allocates student teaching funds in local centers, which receive $25 per student teacher assigned. Devotes at least one-half day weekly to the seminar for student teachers. Holds frequent seminars and orientation meetings in addition to individual conferences with super- vising teachers. Teaches graduate in-service courses, including "Supervision of Student Teaching" for teachers in the local center. Acts as liaison in helping cooperating schools meet certain pressing needs which require uni- versity resources such as consultants, in-service courses and advice on research design. The local center schools have "first call" on such resources. Money is available for travel of resource persons to the center. Helps student teachers to Obtain housing which conforms to safety and supervisory requirements, with assistance of the superintendent Of schools. 36Ibid., pp. 94-97. 60 7. Shares responsibility with the local administrators for the selection of supervising teachers and the assignment of student teacher. 8. Makes regular visits to classrooms to observe student teachers at work, and confers with student teachers, supervising teachers, and principals. 9. Cooperates with other coordinators and public school personnel each term in arranging group conferences on the improvement of student teach- ing. These conferences are held on the university campus in the fall and spring terms, and in local centers in the winter term. Elementary and second- ary methods instructors as well as academic in- structors commonly participate in these meetings. 10. Meets periodically with all other college persons in student teaching to study ways of improving the program. An average of eight days a year or at least two days a term is spent in this activity. Faculty members and administrators from the campus regularly join in such meetings. The year 1963-64 was devoted to a cooperative project involving the formulation of models of procedure for eight aspects Of the student teaching-internship program: (a) selection of supervising teachers, (b) matching of supervising teacher and student teacher, (c) seminars for supervising teachers, (d) student teacher seminars, (e) visits, Observation, and evaluation in the classroom, (f) administrative relationships between the university and the centers, (9) administrative tasks of college supervisors, and (h) advisement and procedures on budget concerns. 11. Provides professional books and related materials for student teachers and supervising teachers in the local schools. 12. Has joint responsibility with the supervising teachers for evaluating the performance Of student teachers. Submits recommendations (including those Of supervising teachers) to the university placement office. He also has responsibility for on-gOing evaluation Of the student teaching pro- gram in his center. 13. Attends state and national meetings, and holds membership in professional groups related to his work.37 37George Myers, "The College Supervisor in a Resident Center," in The College Supervisor: Conflict and Challenge, Forty-third Yearbook Of the Association for Student Teaching (Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Co., 1964) I PP. 41-42. 61 The role of the University Coordinator at Michigan State University is more widely diversified than those reported in the study by Walsh,38 who examined vocational reimbursed programs. This leads the author to hypothesize that when college supervision is provided by_a center resident generalist coordinator, the role varies quite differently than when college supervision is provided by a specialist in a subject matter field. One may wonder what kinds of personal qualifi- cations are needed to fulfill many of the varied expec- tations of a college supervisor, and if he possessed all the needed qualities might not he be a college president? Reed stated that the college supervisor should be the kind of person who can encourage others to exert initiative. "If there is a most important quality a college supervisor Of student teaching should possess, it is a genuine con- cern for people."39 Johnson40 reported that in the entire United States, 45 per cent or 391 of all the institutions in 38Walsh, "Some Practices in Home Economics Student Teaching Which Produce Satisfactory Supervisory Relation- ships." 39Helen Reed, "The College Supervisor in a Multi- Purpose University in a Rural Setting," in The College Supervisor: Conflict and Challenge, Forty-third Yearbook Of the Association for Student Teaching (Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company, Inc., 1964), p. 24. 40Johnson, A National Survey of Student Teaching Programs, p. 36. 62 teacher education indicated that the most important charac- teristic they looked for in a college supervisor is good human relations skills; 29 per cent (252 institutions) listed knowledge of teaching methodology as the single most important characteristic for a college supervisor; 20 per cent (174 institutions) listed a commitment to supervision; 11 per cent (96 institutions) listed subject matter competency; 1 per cent (9 institutions) listed possession of a doctor's degree as the most important characteristic for a college supervisor; and 4 per cent (35 institutions) the "other" category. Others included a willingness to travel; willingness to experiment; general cultural qualities such as intelligence, academic back- ground, language facility, and teaching experience. While one may come to some general agreement about the personal qualities desired of a college supervisor, it is far more difficult to come to an agreement on the definition of his role. At Michigan State University, during a 1968 workshop for directors and college super- visors Of student teaching, the emerging roles of the college supervisor were explored. Significant new roles relevant to enhancing COOperative partnership arrangements were explored. The new roles for the college supervisor were identified as: (1) being called upon to serve as a consultant and knowing other college persons who could be of aid to the school; (2) serving as a resource person through providing the services of the university to the 63 schools; (3) demonstrating the new media and teaching materials as a key service in future cooperative school- college programs; (4) providing in-service activities conducted on a much wider scale than is presently practiced; and (5) becoming a partner in helping schools during the evaluation of or developing of curriculum goals.41 The College Supervisor and the Clinical Professor As an alternate method to a student teaching pro- gram utilizing a college supervisor, several colleges and universities are beginning to develop a role for a "clinical professor." The role of the clinical professor is being defined in a way that will overcome what some educators see as deficiencies in the present role Of the college supervisor. Northwestern University was a pioneer in developing the concept of a clinical professor, al- though James Conant is given the credit for coining the term. Maidment defines the clinical professor as a: . . . practicing teacher possessed Of a dual allegiance. Serving contractually with a school district, the clinical professor is a recognized "master teacher" whose talents are jointly shared by a university in the preparation of . . . teachers. The clinical professor is involved in imparting special 41Dow, Programs and Papers of the 1968 Workshop for Diregtors and College Supervisors of Student Teaching, pp. 26-27. 64 methodology to the teacher aspirant either as a con- sultant to the academician assigned to the course, as a cooperating teacher of the methods course, or as the teacher. Additionally he serves the university as adviser, critic, and liaison with his employing school district. He holds appropriate faculty rank which is contingent upon his remaining in contractual services as a teacher in a school district.42 Time and effort is being put forth to clarify the role of a "clinical professor." The role has been defined to include: (1) the direction and supervision Of student teaching, (2) enlisting the services Of other staff members to participate in various phases of the field experiences, (3) participating in projects directed at curriculum development, (4) performing as a master teacher in his field, and (5) skilled in develOping teaching competencies and evaluating teaching performance.43 Michigan State University incorporates the concept of a "clinical consultant" in its student teaching super- visory plan. Both the clinical consultant and University Coordinator plan and supervise student teaching experiences. The "clinical consultants" receive an appointment to the university and coordinate the experiences of a cluster Of ten-twelve student teachers assigned to their building. 42Robert Maidment, "A Prototype of the Clinical Professor in Education," in Theglinical Professorship in Teacher Educatiop (Evanston, 111.: Northwestern Uni- versity Press, 1967), pp. 25-26. 43Lloyd S. Michael, "Responsibilities Of School Systems for Clinical Experiences," in The Clinical Pro- fessorship in Teacher Educatiop (Evanston, 111.: North- western University Press, 1967), p. 38. 65 However, in this instance, as opposed to the plan at North- western University, the clinical consultant performs the rOle Of the generalist, in that he supervises student teachers from a variety Of subject matter areas. Dean indicated that the University Coordinator at Michigan State University is beginning to assume the primary role of pro- viding orientation and in-service education for the clinical consultants.44 From the above points Of view, the reader can begin to understand the difficulties involved in describ- ing what roles the various college supervisors can and/or should perform. One of the problems in trying to define a role is the inability to say who the college supervisory representatives should be. Should he be a generalist who supervises in all fields, regardless of his academic specialization? Perhaps the college supervisor should be among the rank and file Of the teachers, as is the charac- teristic ascribed to the clinical professor? Then again, leading scholars have put forth the position that college supervision in student teaching must come from a repre- sentative of the subject matter field. A description of the various benefits of college supervision by the general- ist and specialist will follow. 44Leland Dean, "A Student Teaching Program for the 1970's" (unpublished paper, College of Education, Michigan State University, December 12, 1969), p. 3. 66 Unique Contripptions of the Generalpgpg. Special College Supervisor of Student Teaching Prevailing practices reflect two differing patterns Of campus supervision in student teaching. One pattern employs general supervisory personnel where college super- visors cut across subject matter lines. The second pattern utilizes educational specialists in the various subject areas as college supervisors. The material presented in this section will examine the differing characteristics Of the two organizational patterns and some of the unique characteristics the different supervisors make to student teaching. In a survey of 870 teacher preparation institutions Johnson45 reported that 31 per cent (270) of these insti- tutions utilize general college supervisors in their secondary student teaching program; 13 per cent (113) utilize college supervisors from the academic areas; 49 per cent (426) utilize both general college supervisors and supervisors from the academic areas. Of the twenty Michigan institutions, 45 per cent (9 institutions) use general college supervisors and another 45 per cent (9 institutions) use a combination of general college super- visors and college supervisors from the academic areas. 5Johnson, A National Survey of Student Teaching Programs, pp. 30-31. 67 Erickson suggests that research related to the two patterns should be conducted. "Whether general or specialist (in field) supervision is more effective, and in what ways and situations, needs careful examination. It can no longer be the football of outmoded arguments and Obsolete factions."46 College Supervision by the Generalist Teacher Educator The general college supervisor is considered an authority in teacher education and in student teaching. Bennie writes: His responsibility insofar as the classroom itself is concerned evolves around the overall guidance of the student teaching experience including taking the initiative in planning the types of experiences in which the student teacher should participate, evalu- ating those experiences and in making suggestions concerning the teaching-learning situation. . . . He is not expected to assume the role Of academic expert and leaves this function to the COOperating teacher.47 In summarizing the literature, one can note cer- tain strengths that are a part of the pattern of general college supervision. Several of the identifiable strengths have been identified to include: 46John Erickson, "On the Development Of School Supervisory Personnel: A Case in Point," Journal Of Teacher Education, XX, No. 1 (Spring, 1969), 66-69. 47Bennie, COOperation for Better Student Teachipg, p. 51. 68 1. Some educators feel this pattern avoids possible conflicts between two supervisory positions. Although in practice this does not always seem to be the case. But, according to Bennie, "most classroom teachers have sufficient convictions as to how one should teach that conflict in method can occur just as often in general supervisory programs as in any other."48 2. The pattern of general college supervision is more economical. Again Bennie stated that: As Off-campus student teaching programs have grown in size and number, general supervision has been found to predominate. Since several student teachers, teaching in various subject fields, are often assigned to a specific Off-campus center, the economics of sending one supervisor to work with the total group rather than several different supervisors in special- ized areas is Obvious. Not only is money saved in travel expenses but valuable time Of college faculty is conserved.49 3. Regional centers Offer a greater range of student teaching environments and provide flexibility in time Of stress. General supervising teacher meetings lead to greater cross-pollination of ideas and holds the . . . . 50 promise of overcoming 1n-grown ideas. 48 49 Ibid., pp. 51-52. Ibid., p. 50. 50Horton Southworth, "Issues and Problems as Viewed by a Large, Multi-Purpose State University Located in a Small City in Establishing Off-Campus Student Teach- ing Operations," in Partnership in Teacher Education, ed. by E. Brooks Smith, et al. (Washington, D.C.: American Association Of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1966), p. 139. 69 The general coordinator at Michigan State Uni- versity, because he is also a full-time member of the community, is seen to have several additional advantages. He knows the teaching staff, the school administrators, and is acquainted with school policies. He learns first-hand the curriculum of the local schools and how to adapt it to the needs and abilities of the student teachers. He knows the community: its resources, its problems, and how school and community work together. This intimate knowledge of school and staff allow for more effective assignment of individual students to particular supervising teachers.5 Many educators believe that supervision can be effective when focused primarily on teaching behavior. Erickson indicated that "some of the evidence leads us to believe that supervision out of field, since it is less concerned with curricular matters than it is with teaching behavior, may be superior to field supervision."52 General supervision has been the prevailing pattern at Michigan State University since 1956. Two years after the program was in Operation Clem collected data from 167 supervising teachers and 175 student teachers to evaluate their experiences and Offer their Opinions of specific student teaching program phases. The data revealed a significantly high degree Of approval of the full-time 51Leland Dean, "A Description of Michigan State's Full-Time Student Teaching Program" (unpublished paper, Michigan State University, College Of Education, June, 1966). 52Erickson, "On the Development Of School Super- visory Personnel: A Case in Point." 70 resident program as it was Operating in 1958. Supervising teachers indicated: (1) personal satisfaction was attained through helping a prospective teacher grow, (2) the program stimulated re-evaluation Of usual classroom practices, (3) student teachers were of great assistance, and (4) class- room instruction was improved. On the negative side, the supervising teachers saw these problems: (1) there was a lack of time for satisfactory conferences and planning periods with the student teacher, (2) student teachers had sufficient theory but not enough information in subject areas to be taught, and (3) re-teaching was necessary as a result of the student teacher's participation.S3 In a study by Anthony,54 who appraised the services rendered to Off-campus supervising teachers and centers by Michigan State University, it was found that the most highly rated service provided in student teaching for the secondary teachers was the classroom observation by the coordinator. Other service of value included professional library materials in the school, workshOps on campus for all supervising teachers and administrators, and after- school meetings between supervising teachers, coordinator, and subject area specialists. However, 36 per cent Of the 53Clem, "A Study of the Michigan State University Full-Time Resident Student Teaching Program," p. 114. 54Anthony, "An Appraisal of the Services Rendered to Off-Campus Supervising Teachers and Centers by Michigan State University," p. 69. 71 secondary supervising teachers rated workshops in special areas as of most value in student teaching, and 31 per cent indicated classroom Observations by subject matter specialist as Of most value. A conclusion which Anthony drew from her study was that more emphasis should be given to the in-service program for supervising teachers. There is apparent evidence, however, that off- campus student teaching programs have brought with them certain problems. All educators have not overlooked these. Some of the potential problems have been identi- fied to include: 1. The Off-campus teaching experience cannot be considered in isolation of the previous kinds of experi- ences the student has had with children and in schools. The staff will have to look at the contribution the Off- campus experience is making in relation to the contri- butions Of the other Opportunities for working with children and youth.55 2. It is possible for the university staff of a teacher training institution to be totally unaware of what is happening in the public schools and its surround- ing community if contacts with the field are not main- tained.56 55Herrick, "The Future of Off-Campus Programs," Off-campus Student Teaching, Thirtieth Yearbook (Lock Haven, Penna.: Association for Student Teaching, 1951), pp. 121-41. 56 Ibid. 72 3. The general supervisor is faced with the task Of trying to be Of aid to teachers in such diverse fields as art, French, mathematics, and history. Therefore, O'Hanlon writes that "the contributions which he can make to teachers in some fields and on some levels is neces- sarily limited."57 The College of Education staff in home economics education observed that in shifting to a generalist coordinated program there also followed a loss of Oppor- tunity tO evaluate the assigned station Of the home eco- nomics student teacher, a lack of influence on types of experiences provided in the student teaching program, and a loss Of many Opportunities for home economics educators to upgrade supervising teachers. These factors lead one to the consideration of the arguments for college super- vision by the specialist in the teaching field. College Supervision by the Subject Matter Teacher Educator Perhaps the leading proponent for college super- vision by a teaching specialist in the field is James Conant. He supports the viewpoint that the properly supervised student teacher is one who is supervised by a professor Of the institution who has been and still is a 57O'Hanlon, "Considerations About Student Teach- ing," p. 341. 73 teacher Of the subject which the student teacher is learn- ing how to teach.58 But, Conant wrote: I have rarely visited a teacher education institution in which an experienced teacher of a secondary school subject--say mathematics or English--was responsible for the practice teaching. . . . I humbly suggest this tradition is completely wrong. . . . Practice teaching will continue to fall far short Of its potentialities until the successful school teachers are given the highest status in the faculty and held responsible for the organization and carrying out of practice teach- ing.59 In seven of the eight Michigan vocational home economics teacher education programs (excluding Michigan State University) some form Of college supervision is provided by the subject matter teacher educator. However, this role may be in addition to that provided by the general college supervisor. Where subject matter super- visory patterns prevail the student teacher first sees the college representative during campus classroom experi- ences, which is followed by regular Off-campus visits during the student teaching period. As a college super- visor in home economics education, Lowe writes that: . . . the supervisor is up-to-date in subject matter, the teaching-learning process, trends and issues in vocational home economics and in education. She should also be able to give information and advise 58James Conant, "The Certification of Teachers: The Restricted State-Approved Program Approach,“ A Decade of Thought on Teacher Education (Washington, D.C.: The Association for Student Teaching, 1964), p. 59. 591bid., p. 129. 74 about remodeling and building new departments and about curriculum develOpment.60 Lowe continues to describe the specific advantages of the college Specialist teacher educator as the supervisor in student teaching: Certainly, the college supervisor of vocational edu- cation has a decided advantage in supervising student teachers in his own area of specialization, the col- lege supervisor not only is in a position to give help in many ways, he also receives new ideas, clarification about practicality of process, and inspiration.61 The specialized supervisor from the education department assumes a somewhat different relationship than the general supervisor although there is also much simi- larity in their responsibilities. Bennie writes that: . . . in contrast with the general supervisor, the specialist often becomes more directly involved in actual planning with the student teacher and is more familiar with available materials in the particular field of teaching and with Specific approaches to teaching certain subjects. He is, therefore, able to assume a consultant role with the cooperating teacher.62 When college supervision is by the specialist in the subject field, one must recognize that this may create great insecurity in the mind of the classroom teacher. The human relationship factors become crucial to this pattern 60Lowe, "The College Supervisor in a Federally Aided Vocational Education Program," p. 59. 61Ibid.. pp. 59-60. 62Bennie, Cooperation for Better Student Teaching, pp. 52-53. 75 of supervision. Bennie indicates, however, "given the apprOpriate personality, it would appear that the special- ized supervisor who can make the greatest contribution in both academic and educational areas might be superior to the generalist."63 When subject matter specialists are in the field working with student teachers and supervising teachers they can help develop the logical demensions to under- stand the subject matter aspect of teaching: Because teachers do not possess such understanding, they frequently handle the subject matter of in- struction in superficial ways. Consequently, class discussion Often suffers from undue vagueness and ambiguity, from unfounded and unchallenged claims, from a failure to develop the significance of the content.64 A specialist in the teaching area has more knowledge in the subject area and can therefore help the student teacher with subject matter concerns. Clark indicated in 1968 that "most critics Of professional education have not been too critical of the student teaching programs in home economics, . . . how- ever, generally speaking the growth Of student teaching paralleled quite closely the gradual improvements in teacher education and certification."65 63Ibid., p. 53. 64 p. 126. 65Louise R. Clark, "The Student Teaching Program in Vocational Home Economics at Jacksonville State Uni- versity" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University Of Alabama, 1968), p. 5. Smith, et al., Teachers For the Real World, 76 In discussing the preparation of the home economics teacher, Coon66 stated that since the early 1920's the usual practice has been to provide a four-year preservice preparation for home economics teachers, supplementing this by in-service education on the job, summer school courses, and other graduate Offerings. Coon discussed a variety Of plans for the organization Of programs in efforts to provide opportunity for prospective home economics teachers to achieve goals thought to be impor- tant. She expressed the view that a well-prepared super- vising teacher, with a strong home economics program, can work with the college supervisor and student teacher in coordinating the learnings from education, home economics education, and student teaching. A seminar of home economics teacher educators was sponsored by the Department of Home Economics Education Of the University of Nebraska in 1964 and 1966 to identify the content in home economics education at the under- graduate level. Thirty-six home economics teacher edu- cators identified the Objectives basic to the preparation Of home economics teachers. The Objectives were developed so that existing courses may be re-examined and to pro- vide content from which to select base line items funda- mental to a home economics education program. It is 66Buehal Coon, Home Economics Instruction in the Secondapy Schools (Washington, D.C.: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1964), pp. 99-109. 77 expected that upon completion Of study the prospective home economics teacher will be able to: 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Integrate the philosophies of home economics and education with knowledge Of contemporary society formulating professional beliefs. Communicate and use an educational philosophy in making decisions as a home economics teacher. Assume responsibilities appropriate to the pro- fessional role. Integrate a code Of ethics into the professional role. Plan for own personal and professional development to enhance effectiveness as a home economics educator. Recognize and cooperate with community efforts which influence individual and family well-being. Identify education trends and implications that have relevance for the home economics program. Utilize information about the learners, their homes, the community and the larger society in planning home economics programs. Comprehend the scope Of home economics as an instructional area. Organize home economics Offerings into a sequential and integrated pattern to meet needs of learners. Plan home economics programs which will contribute to the total educational goals. Develop programs cooperatively with co-workers in order to enrich and supplement Offerings. Recognize the nature Of verbal and non-verbal communication and assess its effect on learning. Select and direct learning experiences appropriate to the achievement of Objectives and the develop- ment Of generalizations. Utilize motivation Of learner in carrying out an instructional plan. Select and utilize a variety Of methods and re- sources tO achieve specified behavioral outcomes. Establish and maintain a classroom climate which facilitates learning in home economics. Use evaluation as an integral part Of teaching and learning process. Use research findings to improve the teaching- learning process. Appreciate the role Of research in solving edu- cational problems. 67 Engage in practical classroom experimentation. 67Home Economics Education, opjectives and General- izations Related to Selected Concepts (Lincoln, Neb.: 78. Several Of the above listed competencies are applicable to the learnings generally a part of student teaching. Two competencies which are based in an under- standing of the subject matter, are related to planning and organizing home economics Offerings. These competen- cies may require the skilled person in the field Of home economics to guide the student teacher toward the com- petency attainment. Other Objectives, such as item 15, are general in nature and can be expected of all teachers regardless Of the major teaching field. The home eco- nomics teacher educators have not distinguished between general teacher education Objectives and home economics teacher education objectives. In 1969, a research study68 was conducted at Michigan State University to identify student teaching Objectives unique to the teaching of home economics. Thirty-nine vocational home economics teacher educators selected eighteen Objectives to be unique to home eco- nomics student teaching. The Objectives were identified as unique if the teacher educators indicated a home economics trained person is needed to best guide the Department Of Home Economics Education, University Of Nebraska, 1966). 68Arleen Otto and Dorothy West, "An Exploratory Study to Determine Methods for Regularizing Contacts Of the Home Economics Education Staff with Student Teachers, Supervising Teachers and Coordinators" (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, College of Education, 1969). 79 student teacher toward achievement of the Objective. The unique home economics student teaching Objectives and the priority rating assigned each Objective are listed in Table 2.1. If an objective was selected as unique, the teacher educators rated it as either high, medium, or low priority for student teaching.’ The percentage of teacher educators who rated the Objectives in each of the priority categories is entered in Table 2.1. The University Coordinators at Michigan State Uni- versity were given the same Opportunity to select among the fifty-four objectives those which they believed to be unique to home economics student teaching. Twenty-two Coordinators selected eight of the Objectives listed in Table 2.1 (Objectives A, D, G, H, N, O, P, Q) as also being unique. This indicates that for some Objectives they also agreed that a specialist with a home economics background is needed to guide the student teacher in Objective achievement. The Walsh69 study reported that home visits were considered not important in student teaching, whereas in Table 2.1, home visits (Objective I) were given a high- tO medium-priority rating for student teaching. The Objectives which were unique tO the field and 80 per cent or more of the participants rated as high priority for 69Walsh, "Some Practices in Home Economics Student Teaching Which Produce Satisfactory Supervisory Relation- ships," p. 93. 80 TABLE 2.1.--Unique home economics student teaching objectives and their priority rating for student teaching as identified by a national selected group of vocational home economics teacher educators. Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives (UHESTO) Home Economics Teacher Educators (N-39) Percentage High Priority Rating Percentage Medium Priority Rating Percentage Low Priority Rating Visits a school lunch program to analyze its relationships to the department. Plans and provides learning experiences based on knowledge of the representative types of families in the community. Integrates into teaching plans and activities knowledge from relevant disciplines and fields as to focuses on family life. Approaches a lesson visualizing the relationship of topics to the meaning and quality of family life. Interprets the department's program to the community through home visits, experiences with parents, talks in community, exhibits in downtown area. Suggests and guides pupils to plan for home experiences and helps evalu- ate learnings. Evaluates FHA experiences in a local situation. Plans and carries out thought-provoking, problem-solving activities related to the realistic concerns the pupils have for family life. Interprets the observations of one or home visits. Interprets results of home visits, con- ferences, class contacts as a means of increasing understanding of pupils, families, and community. Uses a department budget in planning for learning experiences and keeps financial records. Guides or instructs pupils in the selection, care, and use Of department equipment and supplies. Verbally identifies significant needs, interests, personal and home problems of pupils and relates to the unit taught. Assumes some of the responsibilities of an FHA chapter adviser. Contacts and/or works with county home economists and agencies related to families when feasible. Demonstrates competence in the essential skills of maintaining a home. Assists with the planning of activities for a FHA organization. Applies the characteristics of families in the community and general trends in family life to an evaluation of the total program. 93.8 86.5 89.2 41.1 63.9 28.2 94.8 59.4 70.4 39.1 60.9 91.7 36.8 11.1 45.8 38.5 78.1 40.0 44.8 33.3 56.4 28.1 25.9 34.8 30.4 55.3 41.7 37.5 46.1 15.6 56.0 13.8 12.5 26.1 47.2 16.7 15.4 81 student teaching were Objectives B, C, D, H, and M (see Table 2.1). The two Objectives with the lowest priority ratings were Objectives A and O. The Objectives identified in Table 2.1 were utilized for the present research study. Each Objective became the basis for a question in the research instru- ment. The information Obtained was designed to help evaluate whether the unique Objectives as identified by national home economics teacher educators were provided for and in a student teaching program coordinated by college generalists. Summary of the Related Literature The review of literature related to this study examined the trends and issues in student teaching. Questions needing additional research relate to defining needed collaboration with public schools, a rationale for student teaching, effects of pre-student teaching experi- ences, and the effective organizational patterns for program Operations. Several research studies describing the perceived roles Of the college supervisor in student teaching were reported and it was evident that little research has been done to describe the unique contri- butions of college supervisors from various positional groups. The question was raised in the literature as to who should be the college supervisor, the generalist teacher educator, the special subject matter teacher 82 educator, or perhaps the clinical consultant in the secondary schools. The trend in student teaching indicates a con- tinuous movement to the Off-campus placement Of student teachers. As enrollments in teacher education increase, more universities will consider the Off-campus center program approach. The decision will need to be made concerning the use of the generalist or the specialist in the college supervision of student teaching. This study is designed to look at the problems related to this issue. Since 1961, no research studies have been reported describing the particular advantages or disadvantages of the student teaching program at Michigan State University. In the early 1960's, various new ideas have been incor- porated into the student teaching program. Some of the newer developments include: (1) total college super- vision provided by the generalist University Coordinator, (2) clustering Of student teachers in one building under the leadership Of a clinical consultant, and (3) broaden- ing the student teachers' experiences to include activi- ties in the total school and community setting. Also, a college curriculum revision for the home economics edu- cation student took place during the early 1960's, and curriculum revisions continue to occur. Therefore, the reactions of the Home Economics Supervising Teachers, Home Economics Student Teachers, and University Coordinators 83 to present practices need to be analyzed. In light Of the Vocational Education Act of 1963 outlining the charac- teristics Of wage-earning programs in home economics and the 1968 amendments to that Act providing funds for con- sumer and homemaking education, one may begin to re- evaluate the type Of experiences a student teacher should have in a vocational home economics program. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES AND INSTRUMENTATION The present study seeks to explore the unique contributions of the home ecOnomics teacher educator in a "generalist" coordinated student teaching program. To achieve the basic aim of the study, the research to identify to what extent a group of Objectives, unique to home economics student teaching, were provided for in the student teaching program during winter term, 1969, at Michigan State University. In addition to this, descrip- tive data were collected to identify relationships be- tween the provision for the Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives and the background characteristics of the three groups sampled. Lastly, a series Of Open-ended questions was devised to provide recommendations for the continuous development Of a quality student teaching eXperi- ence in home economics. The study was made possible through a special research project grant to the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum. The grant was pro- vided by the Michigan Department of Education, Division of Vocational Education, and was funded for the period Of 84 85 August 1, 1968 to September 1, 1969. Funding was extended for 1969-70, for a follow-up phase of the study being reported. The research project, as designed by the staff in Home Economics Education and the writer, was based on the need for regularizing contacts Of the home economics edu- cation staff with student teachers, supervising teachers, and university coordinators. At the outset Of the project, it was decided to determine the unique objectives for home economics student teaching and secondly to determine if these specialized contributions were being provided for under the present organizational pattern Of a generalist coordinated student teaching program at Michigan State University. The major activities Of the project were divided into three phases with each succeeding phase building on the knowledge derived from the preceding phase. Phase one identified the Objectives for student teaching which were selected as unique to the teaching of home economics. The results of Phase one were reported by Richardson,1 and in the year-end project report to the State Department Of Education by West.2 Phase two of the study involved the lRichardson, "An Investigation of Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives." 2Dorothy West, "An Exploratory Study to Determine Methods for Regularizing Contacts Of the Home Economics Staff with Student Teachers, Supervising Teachers and Coordinators" (unpublished progress report for the period ending August 31, 1969, Michigan State University, 1969). 86 use Of the winter term, 1969, student teaching program at Michigan State University to determine what was being pro- vided in relation to the Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives. Phase three of the project, will examine various methods for home economics teacher edu- cators to contribute to student teaching to encourage the provision for those unique Objectives which are not being provided for under the present generalist coordinated student teaching program. Phase three is beyond the scope of the present report. Procedures Used The planning period for this study was carried out from August, 1968 to December, 1968. During this time data were collected from thirty-nine selected Home Eco- nomics Teacher Educators (thirty-eight represented voca- tional programs) to identify which among a group Of fifty- four Objectives were unique to home economics student teaching. Objectives were classified as unique at the .05 level Of significance. The eighteen Objectives identified as unique to home economics student teaching became the basis for the instrument used in the present study. In order to Obtain information about the trends in home economics student teaching, the related literature was reviewed and several professional meetings were attended, including The Association for Student Teaching 87 Conference and Michigan State University Coordinator's Conferences. In January, 1969, the plans for the research study were reported to the "Basic Program Council" in the College Of Education. The council coordinates the research activi- ties affecting the basic courses and programs in the teacher preparation program. The proposal for this re- search study was approved and initial arrangements were made for carrying out the research plans as they were designed. Permission was received by the administrators at the secondary schools and by the University Coordi- nators for the use of their Home Economics Supervising Teachers to participate in this study. Collection Of Data Information concerning the extent Of provision for the achievement of the home economics student teaching Objectives and other information was Obtained from the three groups of individuals most involved in the student teaching program at Michigan State University, namely, the Home Economics Student Teachers, the Home Economics Super- vising Teachers, and the University Coordinators of Stu- dent Teaching. Winter term, 1969 was selected as the term for collecting the data since this term usually has the largest enrollment Of Home Economics Student Teachers as compared to fall and spring terms. Also the follow-up Of a student teacher is simplified because the student 88 teacher usually enrolls spring term for an on-campus post- student teaching course in home economics education. The list Of winter term supervising teachers and student teachers in home economics was obtained from the student teaching office two weeks after the winter term began. A directory of the University Coordinators was also made available by the student teaching Office. All winter term Home Economics Supervising Teachers were contacted by letter to describe the purposes of the study and schedule a preliminary time for a personal inter- view at his or her school. A carbon COpy Of the letter (Appendix A), was sent to an administrator in the school and to the University Coordinator Of each supervising teacher. This initial letter was then followed by a telephone call to the school. A second letter (Appendix B) was sent to confirm the time and place for the interview . Of the thirty-three Home Economics Supervising Teachers who were in the winter term, 1969 student teaching program, interviews were held with thirty-two; one declined to participate. The interviews of the Home Economics Supervising Teachers were conducted by the writer along with two assistants who were graduate students in Home Economics Education. Each interviewer tape recorded two pre-testing interviews with former supervising teachers. The tapes were reviewed and any differences in interviewing pro- cedures or methods were discussed. The primary goal Of 89 the review sessions was to reduce the degree of differences among interviewing procedures. Good interviewing tech- niques were summarized and reviewed by each interviewer (Appendix C). Each supervising teacher in home economics was interviewed soon after the winter term had ended and after the student teacher had left the school. All winter term Home Economics Student Teachers were contacted as a group, following their arrival on campus for spring term classes. Home Economics Student Teachers are required to enroll in an Education 482 semi- nar following student teaching, and class time was used for Obtaining their answers to the questionnaire. The instrument was administered to the group during the second week of spring term, 1969. For those few students who were not in Education 482, a personal call was made to have them complete the questionnaire. Of the total thirty- three student teachers, thirty students returned their instruments. Two students could not be contacted because of relocations. One student dropped out Of student teach- ing before completing the program and left the state.‘ The questionnaire was also administered tO the University Coordinators of student teaching through per- sonal and small group interviewing sessions. An initial contact letter explaining the purposes of the interview (Appendix D) was sent to each coordinator. Since coordi- nators frequently are on campus, the interview date was scheduled for these times. Twenty-five coordinators were 90 interviewed during spring term, 1969, to determine their contributions to the winter term, 1969, Home Economics Student Teachers' achievement of the unique objectives. Among the twenty-five coordinators interviewed, twenty were assigned a Home Economics Student Teacher during winter term, 1969. A summary of the numbers and percent- age Of participants in the study is shown in Table 3.1. Description of the Data Gathering Instruments Three parallel forms of the instrument were used in this study (Appendices E, F, and G). The instruments were developed for the Home Economics Supervising Teachers, the Home Economics Student Teachers, and the University Coordinators. The Supervising Teacher questionnaire was developed during January and February, 1969. It consisted of four parts, each part printed on different colored paper for pre-coding information. The parts were developed to include: Part I--provided descriptive information about the supervising teacher and the secondary home economics program. Part II--listed the Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives and required a priority rating be assigned to each of the Objectives. Part III--referred to the same objectives listed in Part II, but the respondent was asked to rate the 91 .muoumcflpuoou SDHmHO>HcD mumpcooom was mumpsmfioam consulwuHOM mo Omoa mmmum Hmuou m Eoum o>awuwucmzu pepsaocw posmw>uoucfl muoumcwpuoou hufimum>wco mo amass: Hmuoam flamencoowm OEHDIHHOML m.mm 5H ma Amuosommu ucmpsum mOHEocOOO macs nuazv o.~m om mm o.>m mm mm 0.5m om mm mausvmm msucumm Honfisz msusumm mascumm umnfisz mausumm mausumm Hmnfisz mo . magnum mo . Wanamo IMO manmmo ucmu Mom . pcmo Hem pcmo mom mumsomma mumsomme HQTUSHm mOHEOCOUW OBOE mcflmfl>ummsm mOHEocoom meow mmnoumcflpuoou muflmHO>HsD OHHMCGOHHmOSO BOH>HODCH mucmpcommmm .mmmH .EHO» Hmucfl3 mcflusp >O>usm ecu SH OCHDMQHOHDHOQ mucmpcommmmll.a.m mqmge 92 student teacher on the achievement of the Objective and to identify an experience which was provided for the student teacher to help her achieve the objective. Part IV--consisted of a series of Open-ended questions to provide the respondent with the Opportunity to make recommendations for the continued improvement of the student teaching operations as they affect Home Eco- nomics Student Teachers. Pre-testing Of the questionnaire was run under actual field conditions. Six interviews were conducted by three interviewers to learn the problems which would be encountered. Also fourteen questionnaires were mailed to former Home Economics Supervising Teachers to test the instrument. The pre-testing questionnaire was hand- scored and apparent misunderstandings, poor wording, and awkward format were corrected. The supervising teacher questionnaire was adminis- tered as an interview to all winter term, 1969, Home Economics Supervising Teachers. Approximately one hour was needed for each individual. A copy of the instrument appears in Appendix E. A similar instrument was then developed for the University Coordinators (Appendix F) and the Home Economics Student Teachers (Appendix G) but adapting the questions to the particular attributes Of the two other groups. The University Coordinators were asked to indicate whether 93 they provided an experience or experiences for the Home Economics Student Teacher related to achieving the Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives. The student teachers, on the other hand, were asked to rate their level of achievement of each of the Objectives. All three groups were asked to identify an experience provided in student teaching which contributed toward the student teacher's achievement Of the Objective. Student teachers were not asked to complete Part II of the questionnaire since it was felt they had little background preparation for making judgments about the priority which should be given to home economics student teaching Objectives. In all cases, the only mark of identification on the questionnaires were the school names. Confidentiality of answers was assured to each respondent in an effort to avoid the entrance of bias into the data. Description Of the Population In the three questionnaires which were developed for the survey, Part 1 of each questionnaire asked for descriptive characteristics of the subjects and their programs. The background information was obtained to aid in describing the populations used. This information is reported for each of the three groups used in this study. 94 Home Economics Supervising Teachers The winter term, 1969, Supervising Teachers of Home Economics were located in fourteen of the sixteen off- campus centers. Of the thirty-two Supervising Teachers interviewed during winter term, 1969, sixteen (50.0%) were teaching in home economics programs that were fully or partially reimbursed by the Division of Vocational Edu- cation, Michigan Department Of Education. Table 3.2 describes this information. TABLE 3.2.--Supervising teachers' type Of secondary home economics program. Home Economics Supervising Teachers Program Number Per Cent General (non-reimbursed) 16 50.0 Vocational (reimbursed) 12 37.5 Both _:£ _412L§ Total ‘ 32 100.0 Only 31 per cent or ten supervising teachers were undergraduates Of Michigan State University; however, twenty-three supervising teachers (72%) indicated they had taken some course work through Michigan State Uni- versity. Nine supervising teachers said they had never taken course credit through Michigan State University. 95 Twenty-six supervising teachers (81%) had an under- graduate major in home economics or home economics edu- cation. Two teachers had an undergraduate major in family life and two in foods and nutrition. The undergraduate minors ranged from go minors to three minors. Together, the thirty-two supervising teach- ers identified sixteen different minors. The types of undergraduate minors were as follows: Supervising Teacher's Number of Home Economics Undergraduate Minor Supervising Teachers Art Business Education Chemistry Education English Family Life History Home Economics (general) Physical Science Physics Religion Science Social Science Sociology Speech Textiles and Clothing UTwNNKDt-‘Hfll-‘I-‘i-‘KDNNl-‘H Nineteen (59%) of the supervising teachers indi- cated they did not have a college course in supervision of student teaching. The other thirteen (41%) supervising teachers said they had completed such a course. Only two supervising teachers Of home economics having student teachers during winter term, 1969, had pg graduate credits beyond their undergraduate degree. The 96 other thirty indicated they had some post-bachelor's course work. This is shown in Table 3.3. TABLE 3.3.--Number of course credits supervising teachers' earned beyond the Bachelor's degree. Number of Home Economics Supervising Teachers Graduate Credits (Term Hours) Number Per Cent 0 2 6.25 1-6 2 6.25 7-15 4 12.50 16-30 11 34.37 31-45 8 25.00 46 or more _5 15.63 Total 32 100.00 Seventeen supervising teachers were identified as being first or second time supervising teachers, there- fore over half of the group may be classified as just beginning their experiences in the supervision of student teaching. However, one supervising teacher indicated she had forty-four student teachers from Michigan State Uni- versity and other colleges. Table 3.4 indicates the total number of student teachers each supervising teacher ever had. Although most of the Home Economics Supervising Teachers were first and second time supervising teachers, over 78 per cent had taught secondary home economics six or more years. Table 3.5 shows the range of teaching experience among the thirty-two supervising teachers. 97 TABLE 3.4.--Supervising teachers' number Of student teach- ers supervised (including winter term, 1969). Number of Student Home Econom1cs SuperV1s1ng Teachers Teachers Supervised Number Per Cent 1-2 17 53.10 3-5 9 28.31 6 or more _6 18.55 Total 32 100.00 TABLE 3.5.--Supervising teacher's years of experience as a home economics teacher (including 1968-1969). Home Economics Supervising Teachers Years of Teaching Number Per Cent 1 l 3.12 2 l 3.12 3-5 5 15.63 6 or more 25 78.13 Total 32 100.00 During winter term, 1969, 75 per cent of the stu- dent teachers were placed with one supervising teacher. Twenty-four student teachers had one supervising teacher, seven student teachers had two supervising teachers, and one student teacher had three supervising teachers. Student Teachers Thirty Home Economics Student Teachers responded to a series of descriptive type questions describing their 98 own background preparation for home economics teaching, including the student teaching experience. Twenty-eight of the thirty Home Economics Student Teachers were majors in Home Economics Education. One had a major in Liberal Arts and one student teacher was on a post-bachelor's teacher certification program in home economics. Each student teacher indicated a minor in one or more of the following areas: Number Of Home Economics Minor Student Teachers Business Family Life 2 Health Education Journalism Office Administration Physical Education Psychology Social Science wruniwrarawcb Twenty-three of the student teachers indicated they were assigned to one supervising teacher, while seven worked with two supervising teachers. Several other questions were asked the student teacher related to a description of their student teaching experience. Of the thirty student teachers, eleven indi- cated they had taught classes with both boys and girls in it, while nineteen student teachers indicated they had only taught all girl classes. The smallest class size for any one of the student teachers was a class with five to ten pupils and the largest class had seventy-five 99 pupils. Most student teachers had a class size Of fifteen to thirty pupils. The grade level of the pupils to which the student teachers were assigned ranged from a total junior high school assignment to a total senior high school experience. More than half of the student teachers had some experience in both junior and senior high school. Table 3.6 illustrates the range of grade level experiences. TABLE 3.6.--Grade level teaching experience of home eco- nomics student teachers. Home Economics Student Home Economics Student Teachers Teacher's Grade Level Assignment Number Per Cent Junior High School Only (grade 7, 8, 9) 8 26.7 Senior High School Only (grade 9, 10, ll, 12) 15 50.0 Both Junior & Senior High School (grade 7-12) .1 Total 30 100.0 The student teachers indicated they had teaching and Observation experiences in a variety of home eco- nomics curricular areas. However, most frequently the student teachers taught in some phase of clothing and textiles, or foods and nutrition. Three student teachers indicated these were their only areas of experience. 100 Below is a list Of the curricular areas in which the thirty participated during the term of student teaching: Number of Student Teachers Home Economics Participating in This Area Curricular Area During Student Teaching Child Development 16 Family Life 19 Clothing and Textiles 25 Foods and Nutrition 24 Health and Home Nursing 5 Housing 14 Home Management 6 Consumer Education 12 Employment Education 3 Related Curricular Activities: Future Homemakers of America 2 Home Experiences 3 Adult Education 0 Eighteen (60%) of the Home Economics Student Teachers had student teaching experiences in four or more different curricular areas throughout the student teaching term. The student teachers were also asked to describe their own experiences related to home economics before they began their college program. Each student teacher reported her years Of experience related to high school home economics, high school Future Homemakers Of America club work, and 4-H club work. Their experiences are summarized in Tables 3.7, 3.8, and 3.9. 101 TABLE 3.7.--Home economics student teachers' years of experience in high school home economics courses. Number Of Years in High Home Economics Student Teachers School Home Economics Courses (grades 7-12) Number Per Cent 0 7 23.3 1-2 13 43.4 3-4 7 23.3 5-6 _3 10.0 Total 30 100.0 TABLE 3.8.--Home economics student teachers' years Of experience as a member Of Future Homemakers of America (FHA). Number of Years Home Econom1cs Student Teachers 1n FHA Number Per Cent 0 23 76.6 1 3 10.0 2 2 6.7 3 or more _2} 6.7 Total 30 100.0 TABLE 3.9.--Home economics student teachers' years of experience as a member Of 4-H. Number Of Years in Home Econom1cs Student Teachers 4-H Organization Number Per Cent 0 20 66.7 1 2 6.7 2 1 3.3 3 or more ._1 23.3 Total 30 100.0 102 Approximately 70 per cent Of the Home Economics Student Teachers had no experience in either FHA or 4-H. These organizations are traditionally known as the sources from which many home economics teaching majors are drawn. Also, most Of the home economics teaching majors (66.7%) came to their student teaching experience with having two or less years of high school home economics themselves. In fact, seven student teachers, as shown in Table 3.7, have never had high school home economics. University,Coordinators Twenty-five University Coordinators were inter- viewed during spring term, 1969. Several questions were asked to Obtain a background description of their edu- cational and student teaching coordinating experiences. The University Coordinators have come to their current position through a variety Of educational doors. In interviewing the University Coordinators, it was found that nine (36%) had a Doctorate degree and one (4%) had the Specialist degree. Thirteen (52%) Of the Coordi- nators had only their Master's degree, but at least eight Of these were on a Doctoral program. Two coordinators (8%) were at the Bachelor's degree level only. The educational training Of the University Coordi- nator was frequently through the experience of a secondary subject matter teaching field, of which only one coordi- nator had a home economics education background. The 103 educational degrees Of the University Coordinators were reported as follows: Number of University Degree Program Major Coordinators Bachelors Agriculture Education Economics Elementary Education English Government History Home Economics Industrial Arts Secondary Mathematics Social Science Social Studies Speech Correction I—‘WNNHI—‘WI—‘fll—‘Nb Masters Adult & Higher Edu- cation Agriculture Education Curriculum Elementary & Special Education English Guidance & Counseling Industrial Education Psychology & School Administration School Administration Social Studies Education 2 Vocational Education 2 I—‘NwN NNH CON Doctoral Administration & Higher Education Agricultural Education Curriculum (Secondary or Elementary) English Industrial Education Teacher Education Vocational Education mm FJNIAFJO Most Of the University Coordinators had more than one year of experience as a coordinator, and two coordi- nators indicated they had more than twenty years of 104 experience. Table 3.10 describes the length of coordi- nating experience of each of the University Coordinators. It can be noted that 68 per cent of the coordinating staff have had four or less years of experience as a coordinator of student teaching, and in this respect, two-thirds of the staff were relatively new to the field of coordination of student teaching. TABLE 3.10.--University coordinators' years of experience as a coordinator of student teaching. University Coordinators Years of Experience Number Per Cent 1 5 20 2-4 12 48 5-7 3 12 8-10 2 8 Over 11 _3 12 Total 25 100 Each coordinator was asked the number Of home economics supervising and student teachers he came in contact with in his years of eXperience as a University Coordinator of student teaching. Their responses are identified in Tables 3.11 and 3.12. One of the concerns Of the home economics education program and student teaching program, is the placement Of the student teacher in a situation which will provide the best experiences for that individual. While the ideal situation is desired for each student teacher, there are 105 TABLE 3.ll.--Number of different home economics supervising teachers university coordinators have worked with. Number of Supervising Teachers University Coordinators Of Home Economics Number Per Cent 0 0 0 1-2 1 4 3-5 13 52 6 or more 11_ 44 Total 25 100 TABLE 3.12.--Number Of different home economics student teachers the university coordinators have supervised. Number of Student Teachers University Coordinators in Home Economics Number Per Cent 0 l 4 1—2 2 8 3-5 8 32 6-10 8 32 11 or more _§ 24 Total 25 100 complicating factors in student teacher placement. Seven- teen Of the twenty-five coordinators reported that at least two other colleges and universities are also placing student teachers in their geographical area. For some coordinators, placement of student teachers with the best secondary programs, became a competitive situation. 106 Since Michigan State University's home economics education program prepares vocational teachers in home economics, the state requirements include a student teach- ing experience in a secondary vocational program. When the University Coordinators were asked if they could place all the Home Economics Student Teachers in secondary vocational programs, four (16%) thought they could, ten (40%) said they could not because there were not enough vocational type programs in their geographical area, and eleven (44%) said they did not know. The vocational certification status of the home economics teacher or secondary home economics program does not appear to be a primary consideration in the placement Of student teachers at Michigan State University. The criteria the University Coordinators do consider were given as follows: Criteria for Placement of Number Of University Home Economics Student Coordinators Reporting Teachers Use of This CriteriOn Teaching Experience Of Super- vising Teacher (three years or tenure) 9 Experience as a Supervising Teacher Recommendations of the Principal Willingness Of Supervising Teachers to Accept a Student Teacher 8 Placement Of Student Teacher is Determined Primarily Through School Administration 8 107 Criteria for Placement of Number Of University Home Economics Student Coordinators Reporting Teachers Use of This Criterion Wishes of the Student Teacher (grade levels, geographical location, type of curriculum, and teacher's age) 12 Reports Of Former Student Teachers 4 Personality and Compatability Of Supervising Teachers 4 Availability of Good Super- vising Teachers 4 Philosophy of the Supervising Teacher 2 Type of Home Economics Program in the School 3 Recommendations from Teacher Educators 1 The basic descriptive information presented in this section was also used to test four of the research hy- potheses. These hypotheses are stated under the research design section of this chapter. Validity and Reliability Of the Research Instrument The validity of a questionnaire can be judged in the light of various types of evidence. Good3 identified several criteria to be considered when validity of a survey instrument is to be determined. These criteria were 3Carter Good, Essentials of Educational Research (New York: The Merridith Publishing Co., 1966), pp. 224- 25. 108 considered in the development and analysis of the question- naire. Each question was designed to gather specific and discrete information. Pre-testing attempted to eliminate ambiguity of questions. In all cases, a large proportion of the pOpulations answered each question, 87 per cent or better. The reliability of the data is also determined in relation to the interviewee's attitude Of confidence in the interviewer, the desire of the interviewee to make a good impression, and the established degree Of rapport and comfortableness in the situation. Effort was put forth to assure the achievement of these qualities. The student teachers were not individually interviewed so there was little Opportunity to probe for answers; however, if missing data appeared, the student teachers in most cases were personally contacted for further information. An analysis of variance was used to estimate the reliability among the eighteen Objectives when the super- vising teachers rated the student teachers and when the student teachers rated themselves on the achievement of the Objectives. Hoyt's4 analysis Of variance applies a formula for estimating the reliability coefficient and the 4Cyril T. Hoyt and Clayton Stunkard, "Estimation of Test Reliability for Unrestricted Item Scoring Methods," Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 12 (1952), pp. 756-58. 109 standard error of measurement. The analysis of variance formula is as follows: kz.x? + 2.x? - kz.2.x?. - x2 . . r = n . 1 1 1i]. ijjpij tt n-I 2 2 kZ.X. - X . . 1 1 The reliability score, which measures the internal consistency among the rated scores Of the eighteen Ob- jectives, was .794 for the supervising teachers and .249 for the student teachers. The supervising teacher's data were collected by the interview method, while the student teacher's data were collected through a group questionnaire answering session. The methods themselves may have a bearing on the lower reliability for the student teacher self-rating, as time and interest in completing the questionnaire may have been different for the student teacher than for the super- vising teacher. Scoring Each questionnaire was coded for IBM key punch processing. Coding was re-checked in most instances to increase the reliability of the data. The coding of each item was written in the margins of the questionnaire. Michigan State University keypunch Operators were em- ployed for transferring the data to IBM data cards. 110 Research Consultation Services within the College Of Education, were made available to the writer from the instrumentation stage through the analysis stage Of the study. The computer programs were selected with the collaborate advice of a research consultant. The analysis of the data was performed partially through the use of the 3600 IBM computer located in the Computer Laboratory Center at Michigan State University. The open-ended questions were not pre-coded or statistically analyzed. Thus, the response classification for each item was Obtained by reading through the answers and listing all responses to the questions on a sheet. Meaningful categories for each answer were then devised. Research Design The design of this study is descriptive and ex- ploratory. The purpose of the study was to explore the existing conditions within the student teaching program during winter term, 1969, as they relate to a student teacher's achievement of the Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives. The study was specifically designed to test each of the following hypotheses: Hypothesis I. There is a significant difference Tp < .05) between the self-ratings of the student teachers, and the supervising teachers' ratings of the student teacher in the achievement of the objectives unique to home economics student teaching. 111 The multivariate analysis of variance was used to determine the significance of differences between the two groups and the F-test was used to determine if there were any significant differences between the mean scores of the two groups. A .05 level of significance was accepted representing the 95 per cent confidence interval. For Hypotheses II, III, IV, V, and VI a basic statistic program was adopted to produce an intercorre- lation matrix. This program utilizes the Pearson Product Moment correlation formula. The hypotheses which were tested and accepted at the .05 level of significance are: Hypothesis II. There is a positive correlation (p < .05) between the number of learning experi- ences provided by the supervising teachers for achieving the UHESTO (Unique Home Economics Stu- dent Teaching Objectives) and the supervising teachers': (1) type of home economics program--vocationa1 or non-vocational; (2) grade levels currently teaching--7-10, 10-12, 7-12; (3) undergraduate degree granting institution-- Michigan State University or other; (4) amount of graduate coursework; (5) completion Of a course in supervision of student teaching; (6) total number of student teachers supervised; and (7) total number of years taught. Hypothesis III. There is a positive correlation (p < .05) between the student teachers' self- ratings of achievement Of the UHESTO (Unique Home -Economics Student Teaching Objectives) and the number of years the student teachers participated as a: (1) student in secondary home economics classes, (2) Future Homemakers of America club member, and (3) 4-H club member. Hypothesis IV. There is a positive correlation (p < .05) between the supervising teachers' rating Of the studentteachers' achievement of the UHESTO (Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives) and the number Of years the student teachers' par- ticipated as a: (1) student in secondary home economics classes, (2) Future Homemakers Of 112 America (FHA) club member, and (3) 4-H club member. Hypothesis V. There is a positive correlation (p < .05) between the number of learning experi- ences that are provided by the University Coordi- nators:fixrachieving the UHESTO (Unique Home Eco- nomics Student Teaching Objectices) and the Uni- versity Coordinators': (1) highest degree earned, (2) years Of experience as a University Coordi- nator, (3) total number of Home Economics Students Supervised, and (4) the total number of Home Economics Supervising Teachers directed. Hypothesis VI. There is a positive correlation (p < .05) between the number Of learning experi- ences provided by the Home Economics Supervising Teachers and University Coordinators, and the student teachers' self-rating of achievement of the UHESTO (Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives). Three questions were identified and explored as they related to the study. Each of the questions and methods Of analysis are presented. 1. Which Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives do University Coordinators and Home Economics Supervising Teachers consider to be Of highest priority for student teaching? The rating number of each objective was added for each individual in both the University Coordinators and Home Economics Supervising Teachers groups. The average rating was Obtained for each Objective, and ranked from high to low for each group. 2. What learning experiences are provided for contributing toward the student teachers' achievement Of the Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives? 113 Each Home Economics Supervising Teacher and Uni- versity Coordinator identified an experience they pro- vided the student teacher, which contributed toward the achievement of each of the Objectives. The Home Economics student teachers identified the experiences they were provided. A comparison and listing Of the types of experiences as perceived by each Of the three groups was develOped. Also the number of individuals providing or receiving these experiences was indicated. 3. What are the recommendations of the University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers for the continued development Of quality stu- dent teaching experiences in home economics at Michigan State University? A series Of ten Open-ended questions were asked the participants in the study. The specific questions were as follows: 1. What should a student teacher learn about most while student teaching? What are some of the strengths and weaknesses Of Michigan State University Home Economics Student Teachers when they arrive for student teaching? What kinds Of additional preparations are needed at the University to make home economics students more ready for student teaching? 10. 114 How frequently did you come in personal con- tact with the resident College Coordinator, student teacher, Or supervising teacher during student teaching? Was this adequate for you? Did the student teacher ever want to talk over concerns with the college home economics methods teacher during student teaching? Describe the situation. Did the student teacher ever want to talk over concerns with the university academic adviser during student teaching? Describe the situ- ation. Should student teachers, supervising teachers, or college coordinators have more communi- cation contacts with the subject matter teacher educator at the university than at present? Describe. What are the contributions the home economics education staff at the university can make to student teaching in home economics? What are your most satisfying and dissatisfy- ing eXperiences as a student teacher, super- vising teacher, or University Coordinator in student teaching? If you were in the top decision-making position and had all the resources available to you-- time, money, talent, energy, and technology-- 115 what would be your description of the ideal home economics student teaching experience? Summary categories were Obtained for each Open- ended question as suggested by Backstrom and Hursh.5 The responses were read a second time for improving accuracy in categorizing responses. The items were in- tended to explore the feelings, attitudes, and ideas of each participant and during the interview it was possible to probe for further clarification of comments. These responses provided the needed information for making recommendations for the new roles for home economics teacher educators and other subject matter educators in student teaching. Summary The chapter on methods and procedures of the research under study identified and described the instru- ments used to collect the data. Winter term, 1969, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, Home Economics Student Teachers, and University Coordinators responded to the questionnaire through personal interview and group questionnaire response methods. The data were summarized and put on IBM cards for computer analysis. Open-end questions were analyzed through grouping Of responses into major categories. The 5Charles Backstrom and Gerald Hursh, Survey Research (Chicago: Northwestern University Press, 1963), p. 155. 116 statistical tools to test the hypotheses included the multivariate analysis of variance and correlation analy- sis. Instrument reliability was determined by Hoyt's Analysis Of Variance which was found to be .79 for the supervising teacher's rating Of student teachers and .25 for the student teacher's self-rating of Objective achieve- ment. The hypotheses and questions were stated. A .05 level Of significance was accepted for each hypothesis. The study is exploratory in nature, and as such, the instruments and methodology are in the preliminary stages of development. The following chapter reports the major findings that have been drawn from this study. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA A compilation of the findings of the study is reported in this chapter. The chapter is organized into two parts; the first part describes the testing of the hypotheses, and the second part presents the findings related to the research questions. After the survey was made and the information was analyzed relating to current practices in student teaching at Michigan State University in home economics, then an attempt was made to identify the phases Of the program which seem most valuable. Recommendations for the new potential roles for the home economics subject matter teacher educator in a generalist type of coordinated stu- dent teaching program were based On the results of the analysis of the hypotheses and questions. Testing the Hypotheses Hypothesis I According to Hypothesis I, there is a signifi- cant difference between the self-ratings of the student 117 118 teachers, and the supervising teachers' ratings Of the student teachers, in the achievement of the Objectives unique to home economics student teaching. A multivariant analysis Of variance was used to test the difference be- tween mean scores Of the ratings of the two groups. Finn's multivariant analysis of variance was used tO compute the F-ratio Of equality of the mean vectors. A ratio Of 2.127 was Obtained for the two groups which is significant at the .022 level. Thus, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference at the accepted confidence level between the total scores Of the two groups. The total group of supervising teachers rated the student teachers significantly higher than the student teachers rated themselves. The mean rating scores of the supervising teachers and student teachers is shown in Table 4.1. An analysis of Table 4.1 indicates that the mean rating scores Of the supervising teachers were higher than the mean self-ratings of the student teachers for all but four Objectives. Objectives A, L, F, and M were given higher mean self-ratings by the student teachers. The greatest difference in mean score ratings was with Objective D, where the supervising teachers indicated a higher achievement rating for the student teacher in "approaching a lesson visualizing the relationship of topics to the meaning and quality of family life,“ than the student teacher rated herself. 119 TABLE 4.1.--Mean student self ratings and teachers' ratings of achievement of the Unique Home Economics Student Teach- ing Objectives. . . a Meanb Meanb Supervising Object1ves Self Rating by Teachers' Rating Student Teacher of Student Teacher 0.767 0.625 1.733 2.218 1.700 2.156 1.700 2.562 0.700 1.062 1.033 1.032 0.133 0.187 1.367 2.406 0.200 0.281 1.633 2.218 0.700 1.000 2.033 1.968 2.300 1.906 0.033 0.218 0.900 1.093 1.533 1.781 0.033 0.156 1.200 1.343 aThe descriptions of Objectives A through R are located in Table 2.1. bCoding of instrument for analysis purposes was as follows: 0 = Not Observed, l = None to Little Objective Achievement, 2 = Average Objective Achievement, 3 = Above Average to Superior Objective Achievement. 120 The highest mean rated scores, or the objectives with the highest rated achievement level, for the student teachers were for Objectives L and M. These objectives are: Objective L: Objective M: Guides or instructs pupils in the selection, care, and use of depart- ment equipment and supplies. Verbally identifies significant needs, interests, personal and home problems of pupils and relates to the unit taught. The highest mean rated scores by the supervising teachers were for Objectives D and H. These objectives are: Objective D: .Objective H: Approaches a lesson visualizing the relationship of the topics of the meaning and quality of family life. Plans and carries out thought- provoking, problem-solving activi— ties related to the realistic con- cerns the pupils have for family life. Both the supervising teachers and student teachers had the lowest mean rated score for the following four objectives: V121 Objective IO Assists with the planning of activi- ties for a Future Homemakers of America organization. Objective N: Assumes some of the responsibilities of an FHA chapter advisor. Objective G: Evaluates FHA experiences in a local situation. Objective I: Interprets the observations of one or more home visits. Of the eighteen objectives measured in this study, both supervising teachers and student teachers agree that those objectives related to Future Homemakers of America and home visits are least achieved by the student teacher. There is less agreement between the student teachers and supervising teachers about which objectives were most achieved. One can conclude from the quantitative data pre- sented that supervising teachers on the whole rate student teachers significantly higher in the achievement of the objectives measured in this study than the student teachers rate themselves. Also, the objectives with the highest degree of achievement are Objectives L, M, D, and H. Hypothesis II According to Hypothesis II, there is a positive correlation between the number of learning eXperiences provided by the supervising teachers for achieving the 122 student teaching objectives and the supervising teachers': (1) type of home economics program; (2) grade level cur- rently teaching; (3) undergraduate degree-granting insti- tution, Michigan State University or other; (4) amount of graduate course work; (5) completion of a course in super- vision of student teaching; (6) total number of student teachers supervised; and (7) total number of years taught. To examine the relationship between the variables, a correlation matrix was obtained using the Pearson Product Moment correlation formula. Table 4.2 presents the means and correlation values for the characteristics of the supervising teachers and total number of learning experi- ences the supervising teacher provided for the student teachers. The level at which the correlation is signifi- cant is reported. For a correlation to be significant at the .05 level with 30 degrees of freedom, the r value must be greater than .349. An investigation of Table 4.2 reveals that there is no significant correlation at the .05 level for five of the seven variables. Therefore, in this study there was no significant relationship between the total number of learning experiences provided the student teacher and: (l) the type of home economics program (vocational or non- vocational) of the supervising teacher; (2) the particular grade level that the supervising teacher was teaching; (3) the supervising teacher's amount of graduate course work; (4) the total number of student teachers supervised .1223 ucmofluwcmwm uoza v~.oa muofi uo w .v oo.~H mum .n oo.na ~ .~ oo.m unm» a .H m2 «mo.| mmo.m mowEocooo meo: usmsuu Monommu mcfima>ummsm munch no amass: Houoe .0 oo.a~ ones we o .n mm.oa min .N ma.o~ mumnouou ucwosuu «Ia .H m2 mma. mmo.a puma>uomsm mumnoumu ucoosuu uo umnfidc Hmuoa .m n~.oH no» .a mw.m oz .o mo. mom. oov. mewnommu unopsum mo c0amw>ummsm ca mmusou a mo :Owuoaaeou .m oo.~a wuoe uo wv .m hm.o mvlam .m -.oa omnwa .v o~.HH math .m oo.c~ wua .~ om.m muwvouo Euou o .H m2 wma. mma.v xuoaunusoo mausonum no undead .o om.~a anamuw>wco ououm advance! .H sh.m xuamum>fica muwum advanoflz cord umzuo .o no. 5N9. mam. coflusudumca mcflucdum mmumop oucspoumuovco .o ov.~a mwnoum waun .m mv.oa moomum Ndlm .N nn.m nmpuum an» .H mz vnm. ~am.a mewnomwu aw nonomwu ocwufi>hmmau Ho>od opouu .m om.a~ buom .m o~.oa Hmcoflumoo>ucoz .~ mm.o~ HMCOwuooo> .A om: mmo.o omh.a Eduooum noasocoom MEG: .mumnomou mcfimw>uwmsm no 0m>9 .4 Ama n Dayna mmocoaummxm EdEdezv H0>oq 03Hm> numuumumnu numnomme ocflmw>ummsm Ammuzv oocoofiuwcmwm uh: on» u0w xn popfi>oum umnomme ocflmw>uomsm mo caumflumuomumno QHOUM C60: mmocmfiumaxm mcwcuomq mo umnfidz cum: .umnomou mcfimfi>uom9m on» no moaumfluouomumno nouomHmm can «Moscow» unwuw>uwmsm noweocoom mean an pmoa>oum mwocwwuomxa mascumma wo Hogans «duo» on» coo3umn sawumamuuouna.~.v mqmamtmouna .N oo.m ozulwco .H mo. mmv. oov.m wouomuwp mumnommu mcfimfl> lummsm moHEocoom oEon mo Hogans Hmuoa .Q om.n whoa no cw>mam .v mh.m coalxwm .m mm.m m>flmammuna .m oo.m ozulwco .H oo.~a ocoz .o mz noo.| ovm.m pomfl>ummsm muocomou ucmosum moflEocoom 080: Mo Hones: Hobos .U mm.HH muoE no cm>wam .v m~.> coulxwm .m mm.h m>flwlomun9 .N o~.m o3ulmco .H mz vmm. oo~.m uoumcflouooo 6 mm mocmwummxm mo mumm» .m ow.m mumuouooo .m mw.m mumummz .m oo.v muonnomm .H mmz mvm. mm.m pmcumm mmummp ummnmwm .¢ oeumfl Ama u mmocofiuomxm Ammuzv Ho>oq msam> numuomumno Edwamzv pmofl>oum uoumcfipnooo mocmoflwflcmflm :H: man How mmocmfiuomxm mcwcummq xuflmum>wco on» mo owumwumuomumno muoom cum: mo HmQEdz cam: .uoumcwouooo muflmum>flcs on» no moflumflumuomumno pcsoumxomn pmuomamm paw poow>oum mwocmflummxm mcficumma mo umbEdc Hmuou muoumcflpuooo wuwmum>flcs cmmzumn :ofiumamuHOU|l.m.q mqmde 130 The correlation of .456 is significant at the .02 level of significance. Hypothesis VI The last hypothesis, Hypothesis VI, examines the relationship between the number of learning experiences provided by the Home Economics Supervising Teachers and University Coordinators and the Home Economics Student Teachers' self-rating of objective achievement. The hypothesis stated that the more learning experiences pro- vided related to the objectives, the higher the student teacher will rate herself on the achievement of the ob- jectives. A positive correlation also exists when few experiences are provided and the student teacher rates herself significantly lower on objective achievement. A correlation formula was used and the paired responses of each coordinator, supervising teacher, and student teacher were examined. Table 4.6 presents the mean scores and correlation values when correlating the Home Economics Supervising Teachers' and University Coordinators' mean number of learning experiences provided for achievement of the objectives and the student teachers' self-ratings of objective achievement. A significant correlation value exceeds .355 to be significant at the 95 per cent confi- dence interval with 29 degrees of freedom and .433 for 19 degrees of freedom. .mocmoflmcoo mo Hm>ma Ho. map um UCMOAMHcmHm .mocmoflmcoo mo Hm>ma mo. map um unmoHMHcmflmw .pmofl>oum mmocmHHmQXm mHOE Ho mco n H .omow>onm mocmwummxm oz n o "m3oHH0m mm mmz momomnsm mammamcm How unmasupmcfl mo unapoon .H.m magma cw omumooa ma m bosons» a mm>Huomnno mo coflumflnomwo mumameoo mafia ‘ 1 131 hem. ooo. mom. ooo.H oom.H m omo. I mom. boo. mom. mmo. 0 HNO. I wma. Son. boo. mmm.a m maa. mmm. I mom. hoe. com. o 0mmm. vmm. boo. oom. mmo. z wad. who. I com. mmm. oom.m z sma. I now. I mmm. mom. mmo.~ q omm. mmo. mom. mma. con. M mam. mma. oom. wow. mmm.H n Uva. omm. woo. com. com. H mmo. baa. mmm. com. hom.H m omm. ooo. moo. ooo. mma. 0 woa. mmo. I mmw. mmm. mmo.H m chum. mma. oom. mmm. oon. m mmo. I owe. I mom. mmm. oom.a 0 end. mma. mom. com. con.a U hvm. coo. mom. ooo.a mmh.a m moo.oI mmo.o| mmm.o oom.o hm>.o ¢ Aomnzv homuzv Aomnzv Honomoa Houmcflonooo umzomme HopMCHUHooo mcwmw>ummsm muamum>HCD mcflma>ummsm muamum>acs ucmew>mflno< . . . . . m>Hpoomno co mmm>wuomnno mumzomma ucmpdum mo muoom mcflumm msacomms msflpmmlmawm pom omofl>oum mnoz nucmfio>wflnom m>auowmno How MMWM MMMZ usmozum mmocmflnmmxm mcflcummq mmEHB pmofl>oum mmz mocowummxm mcfl .ucmmsume mo .02 com3umm coflumamnuou Icummq m mmEflB mo .02 com: .mm>fiuomnbo may mo ucmEo>oH£om mo mmcflumnlmawm .wuonommp ucmosum moafiocoom mEon cam .mm>Huomflno mcflnommu ucmosum mo usmfim>wfl£om Mom omca> Iona mmocofluomxm mcflcnmma mo songs: Hmuou .thpmcflouooo >uwmh¢>fls5 cam .mumnommu mcwmfl> Iummsm moHEocoom @805 may mcflumamuuoo cwnz mmsHm> coaumamuuoo pcm mmHoom cmmSII.m.v mamma 132 Upon examination of Table 4.6, it can be observed that there is no significant correlation between the pro- vision for learning experiences and how the student teacher rated herself on the achievement of the objectives, except in the case of three objectives. The objectives for which there was a positive relationship between the provision for learning experiences by the supervising teacher and a higher self-rating of objective achievement by the student teachers were for Objectives E, I, and N. The value of r was .377, .941, and .695, respectively. The descriptions of Objective E, I, and N are as follows: Objective E: Interprets the department's program to the community through home visits, experiences with parents, talks in the community, exhibits in downtown area. Objective I: Interprets the observations of one or more home visits. Objective N: Assumes some of the responsibility of an FHA chapter adviser. For Objective E, fifteen of the thirty supervising teachers provided at least one learning experience to achieve the objective, while twelve student teachers indi- cated they received a learning experience to achieve the objective. At the .05 level of significance, the supervising 133 teacher's provision for learning experiences for the stu- dent teacher did correlate positively with an increased student teacher self-rating for objective achievement. For Objective I, only two supervising teachers provided a learning experience related to the objective, and only three student teachers indicated they received an experience and achieved the objective to some degree. Thus, at the .01 significance level there is a positive correlation between the provision for achieving the objec- tive and the self-rating for achievement of the objective. A similar relationship existed for Objective N, whereby two supervising teachers provided a learning experience and only one student teacher indicated a limited degree of achievement of the objective. Limited provision for achievement of the objective correlated significantly with the student teacher's rating of achieve- ment of the objective. Thus, Hypothesis VI must be rejected for each of the objectives except for Objectives E, I, and N. As the objectives were measured in this study, the provision for learning experiences does not assure the student teachers' achievement of the objectives. 134 Research Questions Three questions were explored to examine problems and recommended future directions in home economics student teaching. Each question was eXplored through the survey instrument presented to the University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers, as shown in Part IV of the instruments in Appen- dices E and F, and Part III of Appendix G. Most of these questions were open-ended, and therefore the potential answers were numerous and needed to be categorized for summarization. The three questions for exploration in this re- search study were as follows: 1. Which Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives do University Coordinators and Home Economics Supervising Teachers consider to be of highest priority for student teaching? 2. What learning experiences are provided for contributing toward the student teacher's achievement of the Unique Home Economics Stu- dent Teaching Objectives? 3. What are the recommendations of the University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers for the continued development of quality stu- dent teaching experiences in home economics at Michigan State University? 135 Question 1: Priority for the Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives The first research question attempts to obtain a priority assignment for each of the student teaching ob- jectives in this study. Assuming that all the objectives can not be equally achieved due to time and other resources, a priority rating could be assigned. Those objectives with the highest priority of student teaching could therefore be given more careful attention and time than those with lesser importance. Each University Coordinator and Supervising Teacher was asked to rate each objective in Part II of the survey instrument using the following scale: 1 = High priority for student teaching, 2 Medium priority for student teaching, 3 = Low priority for student teaching. Table 4.7 shows the average priority rating assigned to each objective by the University Coordinators and Home Economics Supervising Teachers. The objectives were then ranked in the table from high priority to lowest priority as indicated by the average rating obtained from both groups. Table 4.7 shows that Home Economics Supervising Teachers and University Coordinators are in general agree- ment about the priority of objectives between the dotted lines. That is, both groups agree that Objectives H, M, C, B, and D should be in the top five ranking positions, 136 .wufiuowum 30H u o.m paw .mufiHOMHm Esfipme n o.~ .MUHHOMHQ Moan n o.H mo mcwummn .H.N manna cw omumooH mum M smsousu fl mw>fluomflno mo coflumflnommp onen. ma vmv.m ¢ ma omm.m ¢ . «a mo¢.m O NH omm.a o «a mov.m 2 NH omm.a m ma mnm.m U Ha omm.a 2 ma mnm.m H Ha omm.a H NH mam.m O OH ovm.a O IIIIHH uuuuuuuuuuu mmwnm uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu m uuuuuuu .qumw IIIIIIIIIII mwmuw uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu mu--- oa mam.a m m oom.H M m mmm.a M m omm.a m m mmm.a b n omm.H m n mom.a m n omm.a A o mmv.a m m omm.a b uuuumuu-uunuuuuuumwmuw uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu m IIIIII s---m---u-IIIIIIImthmuuunn uuuuuuuuuuu m.... w Hmm.H 0 v ovm.H a m >ma.a m m oom.H m N mNH.H M m omH.H U m mNH.H 2 H omH.H S a mmo.H o H oma.a m assumm assumm Msmm wuwumflnm mmmum>4 Mmm>fluomnno Mcmm muwumfinm ommum>¢ mmm>wuomflno wwwmomwa Avmnmv mcflmfl>uwm5m moafiocoom meow mHOMMCHUHoou uflmum>wcs .mm>fluomnno mcflnomme unmosum mOHEocoom mfiom mamas: mnu mo A3oa o» nmflnv mcflumn muwuowum mmmnm>m .mumnomou mafimw>um95m mofifiocoom maon pcm.muoumcflpnooo aufimum>HCDII.n.v mqmfla 137 that Objectives R, J, L, F, P, and K should be in the next six ranking positions, and that Objectives G, Q, I, N, E, O, and A should be ranked in the remaining seven positions. There are, however, differences as to the ordering within these three groupings. The high priority objectives, according to the University Coordinators and Home Economics Supervising Teachers, are: Objective H: Objective M: Objective Objective Objective Plans and carries out thought- provoking problem-solving activities related to the realistic concerns the pupils have for family life. Verbally identifies significant needs, interests, personal and home problems of pupils and relates to the unit taught. Integrates into teaching plans and activities knowledge from relevant disciplines and fields as it focuses on family life. Plans and provides learning experi- ences based on knowledge of the representative types of families in the community. Approaches a lesson visualizing the relationship of topics to the meaning and quality of family life. 138 Each of the five objectives identified above were also found to be of high priority according to an earlier study by Richardson using a national selected group of home economics teacher educators as the sample.1 The high priority objectives generally focus on the teacher under- standing the families and pupils she is teaching and relating this knowledge to classroom activities. Table 2.1 may be examined for cross-reference of findings. The objectives with lowest priority, on the other hand, center on activities related to Future Homemakers of America, home visitations, working with agencies related to the family, and community interpretations of the home economics program. Specifically, the objectives with lowest priority for student teaching are as follows: Objective G: Evaluates FHA experiences in a local situation. Objective Q: Assists with the planning of activi- ties for a Future Homemakers of America organization. Objective I: Interprets the observation of one or more home visits. Objective N: Assumes some of the responsibility of an FHA chapter adviser. lRichardson, "An Investigation of Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives," p. 57. 139 Objective E: Interprets the department's program to the community through home visits, experiences with parents, talks in community, exhibits in downtown area. Objective O: Contacts and/or works with county home economists and agencies related to families when feasible. Objective A: Visits a school lunch program to analyze its relationships to the department. These findings are also in general agreement with the opinions of the selected group of home economics teacher educators as reported by Richardson.2 Each of the above objectives assigned the lowest priority rating by Michigan State University Coordinators and Home Economics Super- vising Teachers was also given medium- to low-priority rating by a national group of selected home economics teacher educators. Question 2: Learning Experiences for Achieving the Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives Question 2 of the research questions asks: "What learning experiences are provided for contributing toward the student teacher's achievement of the Unique Home 2Ibid. 140 Economics Student Teaching Objectives?‘I To explore this question, each participant in the study was asked to identify a specific learning experience provided during student teaching that was related to achieving each objective. If there was no learning experience, then the respondent indicated that no learning experience was provided. A comparison of responses of each of the three sampled groups, the University Coordinators, the Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and the Home Economics Student Teachers, is presented in Appendix H. The types of learning experiences they identified related to the achievement of each of the eighteen student teaching objectives are also listed in Appendix H. Comments that are similar among the three groups are placed parallel with each other. Many different eXperiences were identified for achieving each of the objectives. However, one notable fact is that student teachers did not identify experi- ences as being provided for them. The experiences appear to be just there in the classroom of which they are to take advantage. When supervising teachers were asked for an experience they provided, the usual answer related to what the student teacher did. Little mention was made about what the supervising teacher provided for the student teacher. The experiences either occurred or did not, but few were consciously planned. 141 The learning experiences which have been identified to achieve the objectives may or may not, in fact, have helped the student teacher achieve them. In many instances, a learning experience may be identified by the coordinator and supervising teacher, but may not be equally identi- fied by the student teacher herself. The experiences identified by the student teacher most frequently relate to what she did in the classroom with her pupils. Seldom does she mention activities that the coordinator or super- vising teacher arranged for her. The supervising teacher also mentioned what the student teacher did in the class- room and in fewer instances mentions a purposely planned experience for the student teacher. A summarization was made of Appendix H to describe the number and percentage of times no learning experience was provided for the student teachers. Table 4.8 lists each of the objectives and identifies those which were least provided for during winter term, 1969. The number of subjects in each group is indicated along with the number and percentage of the groups who indicated no learning experience was provided related to achieving the objective. The objectives which were not provided for by either the University Coordinators or Home Economics Supervising Teachers for 50 per cent or more of the student teachers are Objectives A, E, F, G, I, K, N, and Q. Eighty per cent or more of coordinators or supervising 142 TABLE 4.8.--Number and percentage of university coordi- nators, home economics supervising teachers, and home economics student teachers who did not identify a learning experience related to achieving Unique Home Economics Stu- dent Teaching Objectives. Percentage of Sample Who Indicated No Learning Experience Was Provided (Coordinators and Supervising Teachers) or Received Unique Home (Student Teachers) Economics Student Home Economics Home Economics Teaching University Supervising Student Objectivesa Coordinators Teachers Teachers (N=20) (N=30) (N=30) No. % No. % No. % A 16 80.0 20 66.6 13 43.3 B 5.0 3.3 5 16.7 C 45.0 13.3 5 16.7 D 45.0 3.3 5 16.7 E 12 60.0 15 50.0 18 60.0 F 15 75.0 17 56.6 14 46.7 G 20 100.0 28 93.4 27 90.0 H 3 15.0 2 6.7 8 26.7 I 16 80.0 28 93.4 27 90.0 J 4 20.0 3 10.0 7 23.3 K 18 90.0 13 43.3 16 53.3 L 14 70.0 2 6.7 3 10.0 M 3 15.0 6 20.0 0 0.0 N 13 65.0 28 93.4 29 96.7 0 12 60.0 13 43.3 15 50.0 P 18 90.0 7 23.3 6 6.7 Q 15 75.0 28 93.4 29 96.7 R 4 20.0 13 43.3 10 33.3 located aThe descriptions in Table 2.1. of Objectives A through R are 143 teachers provided no learning experiences related to Objectives G, or I, and 90 per cent or more of the student teachers indicated they had no learning experiences related to achieving Objectives G, I, N, and Q. However, in referring to Table 4.8, it becomes apparent that the student teaching objectives least pro- vided for and least achieved are those which were given an average to low priority rating for student teaching (see Table 4.7). The high priority objectives were pro- vided for under the generalist coordinated program of student teaching, by at least 80 per cent or more of either the coordinator group or the supervising teacher group. Approximately 73 per cent of the student teachers indicated the high priority objectives were achieved with some degree of success during the student teaching period. Therefore, it is the objectives with the average to low priority rating that were least well provided for in home economics student teaching, during winter term, 1969. Question 3: Recommended Directions in Home Economics Student Teaching The third question raised in this research study was, "What are the recommendations of the University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers for the continued develop- ment of quality student teaching experiences in home economics at Michigan State University? An attempt was made to arrive at the respondent's recommendations for 144 the future of home economics student teaching through a series of open-ended questions. The open-ended questions were designed to encourage the participants in the study to begin thinking about an evaluation of the program and to relate personal ideas. The questions were paired in the three forms of the instrument where commonalities existed and the tables which follow pair the responses for cross-reference analyses. Table 4.9 summarizes the overall goals the Uni- versity Coordinators,Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers have for student teaching. This was the first question asked in the first part of the open-ended questions. The responses made by 10 per cent or more of any one of the three groups surveyed are summarized in Table 4.9. Appendix I.1 presents the total responses of all participants. Table 4.9 indicates there are some commonalities in beliefs concerning what it is a student teacher should learn about while student teaching. The most frequently mentioned response was that in student teaching one learns to know pupils; a student teacher learns to understand pupils' needs and relates what a teacher does and teaches to the individuals in the classroom. The first two responses in Table 4.9 portray this idea. Student teachers more frequently reported that student teaching is a time to see if one really wants to be a teacher. Eight student teachers indicated this as 145 TABLE 4.9.--Responses to "What a student teacher should learn about most while student teaching" as indicated by university coordinators, home economics super- vising teachers, and home economics student teachers. Home Economics Home Economics University Supervising Student . Coordinators Teachers Teachers Outcomes for Student Teaching (N=25) (”=32) (N=30) Number Number Number Indicating Indicating Indicating 1. To understand pupils' needs and relate to planning 5 8 0 2. To know how to handle pupils, work with pupils, and relate to them 7 9 15 3. To be able to take over own class and get the feeling of being a teacher 4 4 6 4. To establish a balance between personal concerns for pupils and needed necessary skills 0 3 0 5. To be able to plan a unit at various levels of learning 2 3 l 6. To learn to challenge (moti- vate) pupils to think 4 3 3 9. To develop confidence in own ability as a teacher 1 2 3 14. To be able to try out ideas learned in methods classes 0 0 4 15. To learn what secondary home economics is all about, if I like it, how is it taught, and where I would like to teach 4 0 8 20. To learn strengths and weaknesses as a teacher 5 0 0 21. To learn the techniques for planning and organizing, and implementing teaching 4 0 0 146 an objective for student teaching, while four coordinators reported the same idea. But none of the supervising teachers identified this outcome for student teaching. Five college coordinators reported an evaluative type of outcome when they indicated student teaching is a time to learn personal strengths and weaknesses. Other coordinator responses were: a student teacher needs to "learn to teach themselves to be teachers" and to learn to "know themselves." The second open-ended question directed each Uni- versity Coordinator, Home Economics Supervising Teacher, and Home Economics Student Teacher to identify the particu- lar strengths and weaknesses of student teachers at Michigan State University in their preparation for student teaching. This question was trying to determine if pre- student teaching experiences were adequately helping the student when it came time for student teaching. The strengths and weaknesses of the student teachers when they arrive for student teaching were identified by the three groups and are summarized in Table 4.10. When 10 per cent or more of any one group identified a strength or weakness it was included in Table 4.11. Appendix I.2 presents the total list of reSponses of each participant. Table 4.10 indicates that all three groups, the University Coordinators, the Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and the Home Economics Student Teachers, identi- fied a major strength of the beginning home economics 147 TABLE 4.10.--Responses to: "What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Michigan State University's home economics student teachers when they arrive for student teaching?” as indicated by university coordinators, home economics supervising teachers, and home economics student teachers summarized. Home Economics Home Economics University Supervising Student Student Teacher Strengths Coordinators Teachers Teachers and Weaknesses (N825) (N=32) (N830) Number Number Number Indicating Indicating Indicating Strengths 1. Good general knowledge of home economics subject matter, consumer education, family living, child develop- ment, home management 9 12 10 2. Good understanding of family life 6 0 0 3. Good organization of ideas, lesson planning, and methods 7 ll 8 4. Works well with students; empathy, rapport, patience l 3 0 6. Eager to become involved and learn 2 3 6 7. Cooperative 2 l 4 9. Confident, self-assured l 3 0 12. Tolerance for ideas of others 0 0 4 13. Understanding of teenagers 2 0 9 Weaknesses 1. Not prepared for teaching skills, particularly foods and clothing 15 19 4 2. Information on subject matter is limited 4 4 0 3. Need more previous classroom experience 1 3 l 4. Lack of understanding of character of student; vocabulary, discipline, black students 2 7 0 5. Lack of understanding of role of student teacher in the classroom; in dress 0 4 2 7. Need more lesson planning experience 2 4 3 9. Insecure, lack of confidence in teaching 1 l 18 12. Discipline problems 148 student teacher to be her competency in subject matter, particularly consumer education, family life, child develop- ment, and home management. A second major strength was attributed to the student teacher's competence in organi- zation of ideas, lesson planning, and general understanding of methods. Two coordinators indicated they frequently have home economics student teachers help other student teachers with their daily lesson planning. Nine student teachers felt their strength was in their understanding the problems and concerns of teenagers and being able to relate with them. Other strengths of the home economics student teachers were identified by the three groups as resourceful, eager, cooperative, hard- working, and self-assured. The major weakness expressed by nearly two-thirds of the supervising teachers and the coordinators was the student teachers' lack of preparation in foods and clothing skills. Following this idea is the belief that student teachers are highly trained in family life but have limited knowledge in other areas of home economics. The super- vising teachers indicated the secondary programs are teach- ing skills in the majority of instances and student teachers must learn these skills either before or during student teaching. The major weakness as seen by the student teacher herself is her apparent insecurity and lack of confidence in her ability to teach. Another more frequently mentioned 149 weakness indicated by the student teachers was the in- ability to control classroom discipline problems. The most apparent weakness, however, that was expressed by supervisory staff, but not by the student teachers, was the student teacher's need for more training in the skills associated with teaching home economics. Question 3 of the open-ended questions was de- signed to provide a follow-up with Question 2. The Uni- versity Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers were asked to make specific recommendations regarding the additional student teaching preparational needs of Home Economics Student Teachers. Table 4.11 summarizes the responses made by 10 per cent or more of any one group who identified additional needs for the adequate preparation of teachers. Appendix 1.3 describes the complete list of responses. In accordance with the identified major weakness in Table 4.10, Table 4.11 shows that home economics edu- cation majors ought to have more training in the basic courses related to the skills of home economics. A recommended additional subject matter need was more broad basic courses which relate to the secondary home economics curriculum. Forty per cent of the coordinators thought that education students should have more experiences with youth and actual teaching prior to student teaching. 150 TABLE 4.11.--Recommendations regarding additional preparational needs of home economics student teachers prior to student teaching as indicated by university coordinators, home economics supervising teachers, and home economics student teachers. Home Economics Home Economics . . . University Supervising Student Additional Preparation Needed Coordinators Teachers Teachers by Student Teacher Prior (N=25) (N=32) (N=30) to Student Teaching Number Number Number Indicating Indicating Indication 1. More basic courses in skills, particularly foods and clothing 12 15 8 2. Broad basic courses in subject matter--family life, housing 2 4 6 3. More curriculum planning and evaluating l 6 0 4. More observation of classroom situations or participation in youth groups 10 5 3 6. Learn how to control classes 1 2 3 9. Develop knowledge of community and school where student teaching 1 l 6 15. Know more about black students 0 0 3 151 Other open-ended questions related to the amount and adequacy of supervisory help obtained from the Uni- versity Coordinators and Home Economics Supervising Teachers. One question asked, "How frequently did you come in personal or group contact with the University Coordinator?" The frequency of personal contact with the Uni- versity Coordinator, according to the supervising teachers, ranged from a once or twice contact, to the coordinator being present daily in the building. Ten supervising teachers indicated a once or twice contact, while five indicated ten or more contacts. The remaining fifteen had from three to nine contacts during the term. Three student teachers said they had less than three contacts with the University Coordinator and sixteen said they were in contact ten or more times, while the remaining eleven had from four to nine contacts. The coordinators were also asked the number of contacts made with each of the other two groups. They indicated a range of three group seminars to ten group seminars for student teachers, and two group seminars to eight group seminars for supervising teachers. The indi- vidual contacts ranged from three to ten times for both groups. The important question, however, was whether or not the supervising teachers and student teachers con- sidered this an adequate amount of time and help. 152 Table 4.12 shows the number of Home Economics Supervising Teachers and Home Economics Student Teachers who indi- cated the amount of contact time spent by the University Coordinators as adequate or inadequate. This table was summarized from the responses to the question, "Was this the 'right' amount of time considering your own personal student teaching situation?" TABLE 4.12.--Adequacy of the amount of time spent by the university coordinator with the student teachers and the supervising teachers as indicated by home economics super- vising teachers and home economics student teachers. Home Economics Home Economics Adequacy of Amount of Supervising Student Contact Time Spent by Teachers Teachers University Coordinator (N=32) (N=30) in Student Teaching Situation No. % No. % 1d Adequate 24 75.0 23 76.7 2. Inadequate 8 25.0 ,7 23.3 Table 4.12 shows that 75 per cent or more of both groups considered the amount of contact time spent by the University Coordinator with the two groups as adequate. The supervising teachers who indicated that the amount of time spent by the coordinator was adequate also indicated that the coordinator was helpful. However, if there were problems, they indicated more visits would be needed. Those who indicated inadequate help also thought the student teacher should have been observed more times, 153 and that problems arose with the student teacher that should have been cleared. Some supervising teachers were uncertain of the role of the coordinator and wanted more material on student teaching. First-time supervising teachers felt most insecure in their responsibilities and wanted more help and assistance. The student teachers responded with an adequate answer for various reasons, from "I didn't want him around,’ to "I had no major problems, and knew I could contact him if needed." Most student teachers thought the coordinator was helpful in evaluating teaching. The inadequate responses were given when the student teacher wanted more feedback from the coordinator or when learn- ings from the coordinator were duplications of other edu- cation classes. On the University Coordinator's instrument, the question was raised as to what was the ideal amount of time a coordinator should spend with supervising teachers and student teachers. Fourteen coordinators, or 56 per cent, thought the amount of time they were currently spending with each of the groups was ideal; while nine, or 36 per cent, thought the ideal amount of time should be more than they were now spending. Ideal time sug- gestions for working with student teachers ranged from one full day a week, several hours weekly, longer obser- vations per Visit, to having an office in the building. 154 Two coordinators said the amount of time depends on the specific needs of the student teachers. Two questions unique to the student teacher's instrument were: "How frequently did you and your super- vising teacher confer about student teaching matters and class planning?" and "Was this enough time considering your personal needs and concerns?" The range of super- vising teacher-student teacher conference time was from five minutes one day to one to three hours daily. Fifteen student teachers (50%) indicated conference time of one to three hours daily, six (20%) indicated ten minutes to thirty minutes daily, seven (23.3%) said one hour to three hours weekly, and two (6.7%) reported very infrequently. Twenty-three Home Economics Student Teachers (76.7%) reported this was enough time spent with the supervising teacher, while the other seven (23.3%) said it was not enough time. The student teachers who indicated a problem of too little time spent with the supervising teacher also indicated a need for more feedback and help, or the need for better communication between supervising teacher and student teacher. One student teacher reported "my super- vising teacher talked too much and listened too little." For those student teachers who answered, yes, there was enough time with the supervising teachers, said the supervising teacher was helpful and offered suggestions. 155 When adequate help was attained, the supervising and student teacher were usually on a friendly, informal, and cooperative adventure. The next two questions on the instruments related to whether the student teacher expressed an interest in visiting or contacting the college home economics methods teacher or the university academic adviser during student teaching. These questions were asked to determine the student teachers' interests in carrying over campus activi- ties into student teaching. Table 4.13 shows the number of Home Economics Supervising Teachers and Home Economics Student Teachers who indicated that the student teacher wanted to visit with the college home economics methods teacher (or other college home economics education staff) during student teaching. Review of Table 4.13 reveals that half of the stu- dent teachers indicated they did want to visit with the college home economics methods teacher, while only 18 per cent of the supervising teachers indicated they knew of their student teacher's interest in a desired visit. When no visits from methods teachers were needed, the student teachers indicated that there were no problems in student teaching, or they could get adequate help in the center from the supervising teacher, other home eco- nomics teachers, or the coordinator. Those student teachers who did express a need to visit with the methods 156 TABLE 4.13.--Student teacher's indication of wanting to visit with the college home economics methods teacher (or other college home economics education staff) during student teaching. Home Economics Home Economics Indication of a Desire by Supervising Student Student Teacher to be Teachers Teachers Visited by Someone in (N=32) (N=30) Home Economics Education No. % No. % Yes, Wanted a Visit 6 18.8 15 50.0 No, Did not Want a Visit 26 81.2 15 50.0 teacher did so for the following reasons: (1) to share experiences and ask questions I could not ask my super- vising teacher; (2) to get more materials, resources, and creative ideas; (3) to discuss problems in a specific way; and (4) to give suggestions to education teachers con- cerning innercity classes and the differences between edu- cation courses and what actually happens in home economics classrooms. Table 4.14 indicates the interest expressed by the student teacher to visit with the university academic adviser during student teaching. The student teacher was asked if she wanted to visit her academic adviser during student teaching. The supervising teacher was asked if her student teacher indicated an interest in visiting with her academic adviser. Table 4.14 indicates that over 63 per cent of both groups indicated a visit with the university academic 157 TABLE 4.14.--Student teacher's indication of wanting to visit with the university academic adviser during student teaching. . . . Home Economics Home Economics Indication of a DeSire by . . Supervising Student Student Teacher to Vls}t Teachers Teachers With UniverSity Academic (N=32) (N-30) Adviser During Student — Teaching No. % No. % Yes, Wanted to Visit Academic Adviser 10 31.3 11 36.7 No, Did Not Want to Visit Academic Adviser 22 68.7 19 63.3 adviser was not needed during student teaching. For those who answered yes to this question, the reasons were mostly related to course scheduling, graduation and graduate school. Only four student teachers indicated they wanted to discuss student teaching problems with their adviser. The next two questions on the survey were directed only to University Coordinators and Home Economics Super- vising Teachers, and dealt with the needed communication relationships that should be established among these two groups and the teacher education staff in home eco- nomics. Due to the staff resources in home economics edu- cation and the particular organizational patterns of the student teaching program at Michigan State University, there are no regular university staff assigned in home economics education at the present time to the activities of student teaching in home economics. 158 Therefore, the first part of the survey question asked whether a need existed for greater communication contacts with home economics education than at present, and the second part related to a description of the kinds and types of needed contacts. These questions summarize the opinions of the student teaching coordinators and supervising teachers on what are the potential contri- butions of home economics education in student teaching. Table 4.15 shows the number and percentage of Uni- versity Coordinators and Home Economics Supervising Teach- ers who indicated the need for greater communication con- tacts with the home economics education staff than are presently being offered. When studying Table 4.15, it becomes very apparent that most coordinators (96%) and supervising teachers (81.2%) indicated the need for more contact with teacher educators in home economics than presently exists. One coordinator said present contacts were satisfactory since home economics education was housed in the College of Education, while six supervising teachers thought no more was needed since they were taking or had taken university classes recently or they felt free to call if help was needed. The subjects who responded yes, however, did so because they identified a particular role the subject matter educator could play in student teaching. 159 TABLE 4.15.--Indication of a need for greater communication contacts with home economics education staff as identified by university coordinators and home economics supervising teachers. Home Economics Indication of Need for ngidiiztEZs Supervising Contacts with Home Teachers Economics Education (N=25) (N=32) Staff No. % No. % More Contacts Needed than Presently Provided 24 96.0 26 81.2 No More Contacts Needed > - than Presently Provided 1 4.0 6 18.8 The particular contributory roles identified by the University Coordinator and Home Economics Supervising Teachers have been summarized into one table. Table 4.16 lists the major recommended contributions that home eco- nomics education could make to home economics student teaching. When 10 per cent or more of either the Uni- versity Coordinators or Home Economics Supervising Teachers identified a particular contribution, it was listed in Table 4.16. A complete list of responses is given in Appendix I.4. Table 4.16 illustrates the major kinds of contri- butions to be made to student teaching by the staff in home economics education. Nearly one-third of the super- vising teachers wanted home economics education to provide written material related to student teaching for purposes of explaining the objectives for student teaching, 160 TABLE 4.16.--Recommended contributions which should be provided by hone economics education staff to student teaching in home economics as indicated by university coordinators and home economics supervising teachers. Number of Home Economics Supervising Teachers (N=25) (N=32) Number of Contribution of Home Economics Education University Staff to Student Teaching in Home Coordinators Economics 1. Develop a publication of problems common to student teaching and what to teach, objectives, provide bulletins or check- list relative to student teaching 7 ll 2. Give student teachers more practical application (less theory) prior to student teaching, e.g., visiting in local high schools, developing skills and techniques in subject matter, in teaching, learn about community in which they will student teach l 10 3. Update supervising teachers in subject matter content, new trends, and resources 1 8 4. Hold a workshop or conference for Home Economics Supervising Teachers (particularly new ones), Student Teachers, and Coordinators 6 8 5. Give the student teacher good background in methods and materials to relate to various levels of high school students, e.g., visual aids and unit plans, disci- pline and teaching subject matter, completing vocational records. 3 8 6. College personnel need to realize what is going on in schools, what high school students are like, what kinds of homes they come from, what pupils need to learn 2 6 7. Contact supervising teachers when needed and generally be available as consultants 3 5 8. Provide more cooperation with coordi- nators, attend coordinator's conferences, provide feedback about student teaching, jointly select supervising teachers, discuss objectives ll 0 9. Visit supervising teacher and student teacher during student teaching 5 S 10. Provide information about what student teacher does before and after student teaching 0 5 11. Provide supervising teachers the Oppor- tunity to visit subject matter classes at the university 0 3 12. Explain what should be done or what is expected in student teaching in subject matter 1 3 13. Maintain communication between college and secondary schools 1 3 161 describing the pre- and post-activities of the student teacher, and updating the supervising teacher on new trends and resources. Seven coordinators also expressed an interest in such information. In addition, eleven coordinators thought there was a need for some forms of cooperation between subject matter teacher educators and coordinators. Workshops and conferences were recommended by six coordinators and eight supervising teachers. Of these, four coordinators thought the student teachers ought to have a day's conference with home economics education staff, while all eight of the supervising teachers be- lieved the conferences should be primarily for them. Whether the conferences were held on-campus or off-campus was not a matter of great concern to either group. Another recommendation, with a larger proportion of responses, related to adequately preparing the student teacher before she gets to student teaching. Good back- ground preparations in teaching methods, and the practical aspects of learning to be an effective teacher, were recommended by more than ten supervising teachers. This would aid the supervising teacher in her work with the beginning student teacher. Over 90 per cent of the University Coordinators and 80 per cent of the Home Economics Supervising Teachers felt home economics education can make a contribution to student teaching in home economics. The role with the .162 most responses was that of providing the student teaching personnel with materials in the form of bulletins, news- letters or checklists, relating to student teaching con- cerns. Only five in each group thought the role was to make center visits to each student teacher and each super- vising teacher throughout the term. The major role which was most frequently expressed took the form of an infor- mation sharing role rather than a supervising and evalu— ating role in student teaching. Another question on the survey instrument dealt with the satisfactions and dissatisfactions of student teaching as experienced by the University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers. The question was, "What were your most satisfying and dissatisfying experiences as a coordinator, supervising teacher, or student teacher in home economics student teaching?" The specific responses made by 10 per cent or more of each group along with the specific number indicating the response are listed in Tables 4.17, 4.18, and 4.19. This question was designed to find out what is both most troublesome and most rewarding in student teach- ing to those who are most involved in the program. The complete list of satisfying and dissatisfying experiences as identified by the three groups is shown in Appendix Tables 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7. 163 TABLE 4.17.--Satisfying and dissatisfying experiences of university coordinators, with student teaching in home economics. University Coordinator's Response (N=25) Number Satisfying Experiences Related to Home Economics Student Teaching l. Home Economics student teachers are good to work with 5 2. Working with student teachers who enjoy their work and are eager to teach 8 3. The competent planning abilities of home economics student teachers 6 4. Reliable, cooperative, and dependable supervising and student teachers 6 8. None in particular 3 Dissatisfying Experiences Related to Home Economics Student Teaching 1. Frustrations of student teachers in management, demonstrating and lacking skills 4 9. None specific to home economics 13 164 TABLE 4.18.--Satisfying and dissatisfying experiences of home economics supervising teachers with home economics student teaching. Supervising Teachers' Responses (N=32) Number Satisfying Experiences Related to Home Economics Student Teaching 1. Enjoy student teachers and getting to know them 9 2. Seeing a student teacher try out new ideas and share responsibilities 13 3. Seeing a student teacher grow and work through problems 7 4. A student teacher keeps me up-to-date, alert and helps me 5 5. Promoting the home economics teaching field 4 Dissatisfying Experiences Related to Home Economics Student Teaching 1. Not enough time for student teaching 5 2. Lack of effort put forth by a student _ teacher 4 3. An unsatisfying experience 3 16. None 10 165 TABLE 4.19.--Satisfying and dissatisfying experiences of home economics student teachers with student teaching in home economics. Student Teacher's Response (N=30) Number Satisfying Experiences Related to Home Economics Student Teaching 1. Establishing a good rapport with pupils, supervising teacher, and staff 15 2. Pupils showing interest in class and liking me 8 3. Satisfactorily working with a labeled "unCOOperative pupil" and reaching the unreachable 3 Dissatisfying EXperiences Related to Home Economics Student Teaching 1. Having students poorly motivated 6 2. Discipline problems 4 3. Not helping some of the students 3 Table 4.18 shows that most University Coordinators find working with student teachers who are eager, willing, and able to learn about teaching, a satisfying experience. On the other hand, an unsuccessful, frustrated student teacher is a dissatisfying experience. Over half of the coordinators could not identify dissatisfying experiences related to student teaching in home economics. The Home Economics Supervising Teachers' responses, as recorded in Table 4.18, show that the most satisfactions 166 come from just knowing a student teacher, seeing her try out ideas, and watching her grow as a teacher. The most dissatisfactions come from a limited time in student teach- ing, lack of effort put forth by the student teacher, and working in a situation where there are unsatisfactory results in the student teacher. Ten supervising teachers had no dissatisfactions they could identify in the time available for reporting. Student teachers, as portrayed in Table 4.19, stated that when they had established a good working relationship with the staff and pupils in the school, they found this satisfying. Also, when the pupils were interested and learning, this was reported as satisfying. Having pupils who were not motivated and who were disci- pline problems was a major source of dissatisfaction. Role relationship difficulties with supervising teachers or administration was identified as dissatisfying in various ways by at least nine student teachers. The last open-ended question explored the creative ideas of the University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers as to the ideal program in student teaching. The in- structions to the question were to describe the ideal, most effective student teaching experience they could design. Resources were not to be considered and, in fact, the subjects were told they had all the resources avail- able to them when designing the ideal program. The 167 responses of each participant are grouped into four major categories: (1) pre-student teaching experiences, (2) the student teaching assignment and responsibilities, (3) stu- dent teaching in relation to other college courses, and (4) relationships among supervisory personnel. Appendix I.8 lists all the responses supplied by each participant, while Table 4.20 lists only those responses identified by three or more individuals from each group. The information that can be gleaned through Table 4.20 is that the opinions about what makes an effective student teaching experience in home economics is very varied and divergent. Consensus about the best student teaching program is limited. This finding relates to the general findings reported in the literature, that everybody believes student teaching is very important (no one individual in this study reported that student teach- ing ought to be eliminated), but the reasons why and the procedures for implementing a program are varied. The ideas with the greatest amoung of agreement were as follows: (1) the ideal student teaching experi- ence would be for longer than ten weeks, (2) the student teacher would have greater access to teaching resources, and (3) the student teaching experience would be with several age groups and in various teaching situations. The remaining ideas were expressed by less than six indi- viduals in any one group. 168 TABLE 4.20.--A description of the ideal experience in home economics student teaching as indicated by university coordinators, home economics supervising teachers, and home economics student teachers. Home Economics Home Economics Supervising Student Teachers Teachers (N=25) (N=30) (N=32) Ideal Description of University Student Teaching Coordinators in Home Economics Pre-Student Teaching Experiences 3. Provide student teacher with more teaching and observations before student teaching--in- cluding simulated teach- ing and micro-teaching. 6 1 6 4. Student teacher should visit and make plans with supervising teacher before student teaching and learn the community. 0 l 3 Student Teaching Assignment and Responsibilitieg 6. Student teach for longer than one term. 8 4 12 7. Allow student teachers more freedom to teach the way and what they want to. 0 3 2 10. Student teacher should teach in more than one area of home economics to all areas in the field. 3 2 l 12. Provide student teacher with greater access to community contacts, school resources, media resources, video-tape recorders, etc. 6 1 10 14. Student teach and observe in various age levels and situations 9 2 - 3 15. Student teach in two kinds of schools--inc1uding the urban and small rural school. 0 0 3 20. Utilize an internship plan where a qualified home economics super- visor would supervise no more than five stu- dent teachers for one year. 6 0 2 TABLE 4.20.--continued. 169 Ideal Description of Student Teaching in Home Economics University Coordinators (N=25) Home Economics Supervising Teachers (N=30) Home Economics Student Teachers (N=32) Student Teachingyin Relation to Other College Courses 24. 25. 30. 31. Add a college course re- lated to what really exists in home economics at the secondary level-- innercity teaching, and the image home economics has. Teach a stimulating methods class along with student teaching. Provide student teacher more information on coordinating the subject matter, and curriculum organization. Student teacher should have an adequate back- ground to teach the basics, as well as have practical methods. Relationship Among Super— visory Personnel 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Department should evalu- ate and recommend the schools which have the modern and up-to-date programs. Student teacher observation and evaluation should be by an experienced supervisor in home economics. College supervision should be the joint responsibility of subject matter specialist and teaching specialist (the subject specialist os often described as a consultant). The subject matter special- ists should provide more training sessions for super- vising teachers and college coordinators. A follow-up should be made of teachers in the field, and first time supervising teachers, by the department. 170 A contradiction exists with some supervising teachers and coordinators as to how much time a student teacher ought to spend in the classroom and in other re- lated activities. One supervising teacher and student teacher reported the necessity for staying in the school all day, while the coordinators report the ideal as moving the student teacher to many learning experiences and situ- ations. The major ideas obtained from this table are that student teaching is an important experience, important enough to make it longer and broader in scope. Even pre- student teaching observations and experiences were felt to be important by thirteen participants in the study. All the participants in this study were interested in making the student teaching experience as meaningful and relevant to the student teacher as possible. The means to achieve this goal are many and sometimes conflicting. Summary of the Findings Chapter IV presented the analysis and findings from the data collected with three forms of a survey instrument for University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers. Six hypotheses were statistically analyzed and information regarding three major research questions was gathered. The findings of the six hypotheses can be summarized as follows: 171 Hypothesis I Hypothesis I: Accepted at the .02 level of sig- nificance. Finding: a. Supervising teachers rate student teachers higher in the achievement of the student teach- ing objectives unique to home economics, than student teachers rate themselves. Hypothesis II Hypothesis II: Accepted for two variables at the .05 level of significance but rejected for the remaining five variables. Findings: a. There is a significant positive correlation between a supervising teacher: (1) graduating from Michigan State University, and (2) com- pleting a course in supervision of student teaching, and the number of learning experi- ences provided for the student teachers' achievement of the objectives unique to home economics. b. There is no correlation between a supervising teachers': (1) type of home economics program, (2) grade level currently teaching, (3) amount of graduate course work, (4) total number of student teachers supervised, and (5) total 172 number of years taught, and the total number of learning experiences provided for the stu- dent teacher to achieve the student teaching objectives. Hypothesis III Hypothesis III: Rejected. Finding: a. There is no significant correlation between the student teachers' self-rating of achieve- ment of the student teaching objectives and the student teachers' years of participation as a: (l) secondary home economics student, (2) Future Homemakers of America club member, and (3) 4-H club member. Hypothesis IV Hypothesis IV: Rejected. Finding: a. There is no significant correlation between the supervising teachers' rating of the stu- dent teachers in objective achievement and the student teachers' years of participation as a: (l) secondary home economics student, (2) Future Homemakers of America club member, and (3) 4-H club member. 173 Hypothesis V Hypothesis V: Accepted for one variable at the .05 level of significance. Rejected for remaining three variables. Findings: a. The more supervising teachers the University Coordinator supervised, the more learning experiences he provided the student teacher for achieving the student teaching objectives. b. There is no significant correlation between the number of learning experiences provided by the University Coordinator and his: (1) number of academic degrees earned, (2) years of experience as a coordinator, and (3) total number of student teachers supervised. Hypothesis VI Hypothesis VI: Accepted for four of the objectives at the .05 level of significance or less. Rejected for remaining fourteen objectives. Findings: a. The Home Economics Supervising Teachers' pro- vision for objective achievement correlated positively with the student teachers' self- rating of the achievement of the objective for three objectives; there were no 174 significant correlations for remaining four- teen objectives. b. There was no significant correlation between University Coordinators' provision for objec- tive achievement and the student teachers' self-ratings of objective achievement. Three basic research questions were posed for this research study, to look at particular problems which may exist in home economics student teaching and to examine the recommended directions that can be taken in the future of home economics student teaching. The first question related to identifying those objectives which should be given high priority for home economics student teaching. Both the University Coordi- nators and Home Economics Supervising Teachers agreed that the high priority objectives should focus on developing a student teacher's understanding of pupils and families and relating this understanding to teaching activities. The second research question related to a description of the kinds of experiences provided by Uni- versity Coordinators and Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and received by Home Economics Student Teachers for achieving the student teaching objectives. Varied kinds of experiences were identified, some of which the student teacher did not indicate as helping her achieve the objectives. The student teacher most frequently .A_1_l._..._.__ __. .. .— ..1_..Ul .1 _..___._u .* 175 referred to what she did in her teaching activities with her classes, rather than identify a learning experience provided her by the University Coordinator or Supervising Teacher. The objectives with the highest priority were the objectives for which most learning experiences were provided, while the low priority objectives were least well provided for and least well achieved by the student teachers. The third research question analyzed specific problems and concerns in home economics student teaching through a series of open-ended questions on the survey instrument. The major findings may be summarized as follows: 1. The most frequently mentioned outcome for student teaching in home economics is that the student teacher should learn about pupils and their needs and relate this understanding to teaching. 2. The major strengths of the Home Economics Student TeaCher when she arrives for student teaching are her competency in subject matter knowledge and her teaching methods organi- zation ability. 3. The major weakness of a beginning Home Eco- nomics Student Teacher was her lack of preparation in teaching skills, particularly 176 related to foods and clothing. However, the student teacher indicated her major weakness was her lack of security in teaching. Recommended pre-student teaching experiences include more training in the courses basic to secondary home economics teaching and more experience with youth and teaching. Three-quarters of both Home Economics Super- vising Teachers and Student Teachers felt the amount of help and time provided by the Uni- versity Coordinator was adequate for their situation. Over three-quarters of the Home Economics Student Teachers indicated the amount of time they spent with their supervising teacher in conferences was adequate for their situation. Half of the Home Economics Student Teachers indicated they wanted some contact with the home economics education staff during student teaching. Those who indicated no contact was needed also indicated there were no problems in student teaching which could not be taken care of in the Center. Over 60 per cent of the student teachers did not indicate a need to visit with the uni- versity academic adviser during student 10. ll. 12. 177 teaching. Those who wanted to visit did so for other than student teaching matters. Ninety per cent of the University Coordinators and 81 per cent of the Home Economics Super- vising Teachers felt more contacts were needed with the staff in home economics education than were presently provided. The recommended major kind of contribution to be provided by the home economics education staff was written material and information about the objectives for student teaching, pre- and post-student teacher activities, and new trends and resources in home economics education. Workshops or conferences were also recommended. Major satisfactions received in home economics student teaching are working with an interested and willing-to-learn student teacher, watching a student teacher grow and learn, and having a good working relationship with pupils, supervising teacher, coordinator, and student teacher. Major dissatisfactions in home economics stu- dent teaching come from an unsuccessful student teaching assignment, limited time in student teaching, a student teacher who does not put 178 forth effort, and lack of motivation and disciplinary problems among the pupils. 13. The ideal type of home economics student teaching experience is perceived in many different ways but all participants believe the experience is important, and if anything, it should be lengthened and broadened in scope. Chapter V presents a summary of the major purposes and design of this study, along with a report of the find- ings. Recommendations are made for implementing new ideas into a student teaching program in home economics which may close the gaps and add new growth to the already existing program for home economics student teachers. 1,- ___.-—— .— - CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this study was to examine the roles of the home economics teacher educator in a general- ist coordinated student teaching program. In order to accomplish this overriding purpose, a survey of the present program of home economics student teaching at Michigan State University was made, using twenty-five University Coordi- nators, thirty-two Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and thirty Home Economics Student Teachers during winter term, 1969, as the sample. The research was pursued in conjunction with a special teacher education project at Michigan State Uni- versity in home economics education, funded by the Division of Vocational Education, Michigan Department of Education. fmue interest in the research topic grew out of a concern for time loss of contact between home economics education and.tflue operations of student teaching as it affected home economics student teachers. This study followed an earlier phase of the which researched and identified a series of >roject, 179 ~_._-“—... .‘ __.___ ‘- 180 student teaching objectives which were unique to home eco- nomics. The objectives identified in the earlier phase of the project became the objectives that were researched in the present study. The research instrument was developed and pre- tested with former supervising teachers of home economics. Three forms of the instrument were developed for each of the three groups surveyed. University Coordinators and Home Economics Supervising Teachers responded to the questionnaire through an interview, while the Home Eco- nomics Student Teachers responded through a group written session. To obtain the factual data needed for making recom- mendations about the special contributions of the home economics teacher educator to the student teaching program and as a basis for suggesting future directions of home economics student teaching at Michigan State University, the following hypotheses and questions were examined: Hypothesis I. There is significant difference be- tween the student teachers' self-ratings and the rating of the supervising teacher concerning the student teachers' achievement of the Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives. Hypothesis II. There is a positive correlation be- tween the number of learning experiences provided by the supervising teacher for achieving the Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives and the supervising teachers': (1) type of homemaking pro- gram, (2) grade level assignment, (3) undergraduate degree-granting institution, (4) amount of graduate course work, (5) completion of a supervision of student teaching course, (6) total number of stu- dent teachers supervised, and (7) total number of years taught. - A Aw. _.._.._-.—- 181 Hypothesis III. There is a positive correlation be- tween the student teachers' self-ratings of achieve- ment of the Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives and the number of years the student teacher participated as a: (1) student in secondary home economics, (2) Future Homemakers of America club member, and (3) 4-H club member. Hypothesis IV. There is a positive correlation be- tween the supervising teachers' rating of the stu- dent teachers' achievement of the Unique Home Eco- nomics Student Teaching Objectives and the number of years the student teacher participated as a: (1) student in secondary home economics, (2) Future Homemakers of America club member, and (3) 4—H club member. Hypothesis V. There is a positive correlation be- tween the number of times learning experiences are provided by the University Coordinator for achiev- ing the Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Ob- jectives and the University Coordinator's: (1) highest degree earned, (2) years of experience as a coordinator, (3) total number of home economics student teachers supervised, and (4) total number of home economics supervising teachers coordinated. Hypothesis VI. There is a positive correlation be- tween the number of times learning experiences are provided by Supervising Teachers and University Coordinators, and the student teacher's self-rating of achievement of the Unique Home Economics Stu- dent Teaching Objectives. In addition to testing the stated hypotheses, explorations were made of the following questions: 1. Which Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives do University Coordinators and Home Economics Supervising Teachers consider to be of highest priority? 2. What learning experiences are provided for contributing toward the student teachers' achievement of the Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives? 182 3. What are the recommendations of the University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers for the future role of the home economics teacher educator in student teaching at ——-—.——-—“..;..H_..___.-—_ +1- .__~..1 Michigan State University? Summary of the Findings and Conclusions i The research study included six hypotheses and 1 three questions. Each of the six hypotheses related to eighteen Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives and selected characteristics of University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and Home Economics Student Teachers. For testing the first hypothesis, a multivariant analysis of variance yielded an F ratio of 2.127, which was significant at the .02 level. Student teachers' self- ratings of achievement of the student teaching objectives were, on the whole, significantly lower than the super- vising teachers' ratings of the student teachers. From a self-perception point of view, the findings would seem to indicate a student teacher's lack of compe- tency in objective achievement. But if the student teacher only had one experience related to the objective, the limited.exposure may give little opportunity to develop conqxatency. Repeated opportunity to apply a learning could help the student teacher attain a higher level of achievement. Perhaps student teaching should focus on the 183 mmndhuous development of selected important objectives, if Unastudent teacher is to feel a greater sense of achievement. Perhaps lack of confidence and security in temflung, which the student teachers frequently mentioned asaanmjor weakness in student teaching, also relates to a lower self-rating on objective achievement. For measuring the second through the sixth hy- pothesis, a correlation formula was used. The relia- bility of the student teachers' self-ratings was quite low (r = .29); therefore, where the student teachers' self-ratings are employed, the findings must be viewed with questioned validity. The findings for Hypothesis II showed that when correlating the number of learning experiences provided by the supervising teacher with the supervising teachers': (1) type of secondary program (vocational or non- vocational), (2) grade level teaching (senior high school, junior high school, or both), (3) amount of graduate credit .beyond.the Bachelor's degree, (4) total number of student 'beachers supervised, and (5) total number of years the supervising teacher has taught, there was no significant correlation at p _>_ .05. There was, however, a positive relationship (p > .05) between the number of learning experiences provided by the supervising teacher and the supervising teacher having been a graduate of Michigan State University and having completed a course in super- vision of student teachers. 184 These findings do not lend support to the notion that secondary vocational programs necessarily provide the best or most complete student teaching experiences for the home economics student. Nor does the senior high school program necessarily provide for the most coverage of experiences in home economics student teaching. The fact that there is a relationship between experiences provided and the supervising teacher having graduated from Michigan State may relate to the supervising teacher's understand- ing of the philosophy of the university program. Most of the objectives surveyed were based in relating learnings to the concerns of families. This is also a very large concern at the university level, and may reflect the philosophy of the teachers who are its graduates. The supervising teacher who completed the course in supervision of student teaching probably sees herself generally as a guider of experiences; those who have not, may feel less inclined to make suggestions to the student teacher and consequently a lesser amount of provisions for learning experiences may occur. Hypotheses III and IV were examined because of a traditional notion that college home economics students who have had more experiences in high school home eco- nomics, Future Homemakers of America, and 4-H have a better background in home economics and may, therefore, be rated higher in their competencies as a teacher of home economics than those who did not have these past 185 experiences. When correlating the student teacher's number of years participated in: (1) high school home economics, (2) Future Homemakers of America, and (3) 4-H, there was no significant relationship (p Z .05) with either the student teachers' self-rating of achievement of the home economics student teaching objectives or the supervising teachers' rating of the student teacher on these objec- tives. Hypotheses III and IV were rejected. For Hypothesis V there was no significant corre- lation (p 1 .05) between the University Coordinators' provision for experiences related to the home economics student teaching objectives and the coordinators': (1) academic degrees earned, (2) years of experience as a coordinator, and (3) total number of Home Economics Stu- dent Teachers supervised. There was a positive corre- lation at the .05 level of significance between the coordinator's number of learning experiences provided and the University Coordinator's past number of Home Economics Supervising Teachers supervised. This finding would seem logical since coordinators may learn from their super- vising teachers about the meaning and purposes of home economics. The more contact with the Home Economics Super- vising Teachers, the more clearly may become the coordi- nator's understanding of the scope and purposes of home economics. 186 The last hypothesis, Hypothesis VI, was also rejected for all but three items or objectives. When correlating the extent of provision for objective achieve- ment by the University Coordinators and Home Economics Supervising Teachers, with the Home Economics Student Teachers' self-ratings of objective achievement, very few significant correlations were found. The extent of pro- vision for three out of the eighteen objectives related positively (p Z .05) to the student teachers' level of achievement of the objectives. This finding is the most difficult to explain. It would seem logical that if relevant experiences were pro- vided the student teacher for achieving the student teach- ing objectives, the student teachers would reach a higher level of achievement of these objectives. Perhaps the validity of the self-ratings must be questioned, or the experiences identified were not, in fact, helpful to the student teacher in helping her achieve the objectives. However, using the form of measurement employed in this study, Hypothesis VI can be accepted for only three of the eighteen objectives. In addition to the six hypotheses, three research questions were explored. A brief summary of the findings and conclusions obtained from these questions is pre- sented. An exploration of the questions were made partially through obtaining responses to open-ended questions. Therefore it should be recognized that the 187 participants were more limited in their ability to recall all the responses that may have been important to them. Structured questions may have yielded greater agreement to each possible answer. 1. Both University Coordinators and Home Eco- nomics Supervising Teachers identified the same five Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives to be of high- est priority for student teaching. On a three-point scale of: 1 = high priority, 2 = medium priority, and 3 = low priority, the average rating for the high-priority objec- tives was 1.28 or less. The objectives considered to be of highest priority (Objectives B, C, D, H, and M) all related to an understanding of families, pupils, and com- munity, and the ability to apply this knowledge to planning relevant classroom experiences. The objectives with the average lowest priority rating of 1.8 or more for coordinators and 2.16 for super- vising teachers were for the objectives related to Future Homemakers of America, home visits, interpreting the pro- gram to the community, working with agencies related to families, and with the school lunch program. These are Ob- jectives A, E, G, I, N, O, and Q on the research instrument. 2. The objectives rated as highest priority for student teaching were the objectives for which most Uni- versity Coordinators and Home Economics Supervising Teach- ers provided experiences. The fact that many of the high priority objectives examined in this research were provided 188 for the student teacher in a generalist coordinated pro- gram, raises the question about the uniqueness of the ob— jectives in home economics. A review should be made of the earlier study which identified the unique objectives and determine what makes them unique, if in fact, they are unique. Uniqueness may stem from subject matter alone and not from educational theory. The low priority objectives were less well pro- vided, and were achieved to a lesser degree than the high priority objectives. This suggests that perhaps the unique aspects of home economics teaching may not be a high priority concern for the student teaching program. For 73 per cent of the objectives, the University Coordinators provided less experiences for the student teachers' achievement of the home economics student teach- ing objectives than did the Home Economics Supervising Teachers. However, the University Coordinator Operates under another set of objectives to which he directs the activities of all student teachers. His role is therefore somewhat different from the subject matter oriented super- vising teacher of home economics. Each of the types of related experiences were identified by the three groups for achieving each of the objectives. Many kinds of experiences were identified. One of the interesting observations is that the student teachers very infrequently mentioned what the University Coordinator or Supervising Teacher organized for her, but 189 rather identified some of the experiences she provided her classes as evidence of achieving the objectives. Experi- ences appear to just occur in the course of teaching rather than appear as a planned strategy for the student teacher. 3. The most important learning for a student teacher during student teaching, according to the Uni- versity Coordinators and Home Economics Supervising Teachers, is the need to learn about pupils; student teachers need to learn about pupils' problems, interests, characteristics and behavior, and relate pupil understand- ing to lesson planning and teaching. Student teachers reported that student teaching is a time to learn whether teaching home economics is what they really want to do. This coincides with the coordinators' opinion that it is important that the student teacher learn personal strengths and weaknesses as a teacher. 4. Good knowledge of home economics subject matter and good organization of lessons and methods were con— sidered to be the student teachers' greatest assets in preparation for student teaching, while the greatest weak- ness of the student teacher was her lack of preparation for teaching the food and clothing laboratory skills. Lack of skill competency was identified as the greatest weakness by over half of the coordinators and supervising teachers. Student teachers were not as concerned with this weakness as much as they were with their lack of confidence and security in their teaching ability. 190 5. The most frequently mentioned pre-student teaching needs of the student teacher were the need for more basic courses related to the teaching of foods and clothing. The second major suggestion was for more obser- vation and participation with youth prior to student teaching. 6. Approximately 75 per cent of the Home Eco- nomics Supervising Teachers and Home Economics Student Teachers indicated the amount of supervisory help from the University Coordinator was adequate for their situation. Greater help and time was requested when questions and problems arose, and when roles of supervisors were unclear. Fifty-six per cent of the coordinators indicated the amount of time they spent in contact with supervising and student teachers was about adequate, 36 per cent said more time would be ideal, while another 8 per cent said contact time varied with the student and no ideal amount of time could be estimated. 7. Approximately three—fourths of the student teachers indicated the amount of time spent in conference with their supervising teachers was adequate for their needs. Communication was inadequate when specific problems arose between student and supervising teacher. 8. Half of the student teachers indicated they had wanted some contact with either their special methods teacher or other home economics education staff during student teaching. The reasons ranged from a need to ask 191 specific questions or obtain resources, to providing sug- ; gestions for the methods and other pre-student teaching . classes. 9. Most student teachers did not want to visit with their academic adviser during student teaching, and v *m---.. MH......_._._ .As if they did, it was usually for matters other than student teaching. 10. Ninety-six per cent of the University Coordi- nators and 81 per cent of the Home Economics Supervising Teachers indicated greater contact time was needed with the home economics education staff at the university dur- ing student teaching than was presented provided. The major kinds of contacts that were recommended included: (1) written material related to student teaching, (2) cooperative planning and evaluation sessions between coordinators and home economics education staff, (3) pro- vision of conferences or seminars for supervising and student teachers, and (4) adequate pre-student teaching preparation for the student teacher. 11. The major satisfactions expressed about home economics student teaching were with student teachers who were eager to learn to teach and share ideas. Watching a student teacher grow as a teacher, and working effectively with the school staff and pupils, also brought satis- faction to coordinators and supervising teachers. Dis- satisfying experiences came when an unsuccessful student 1 192 teaching experience occurred or when lack of effort was put forth by the student teacher. Lack of time for student teaching activities was dissatisfying. Discipline and motivation problems experienced by the student teacher were dissatisfying to her. 12. The description of the ideal student teaching experience varies greatly from individual to individual. However, the most frequently mentioned aspect of the ideal program was one that would be longer in duration than ten weeks, provide greater access of resources to student teacher, cover broader experiences with pupils of varying ages and from various socio-economic conditions. It would also include increased pre-student teaching participation in the classroom. Discussion of the Recommendations and Implications for a Model of avguality.Program in Vocational Home Economics Student Teaching at Michigan State University As a result of the data revealed in the study and the findings reported in the literature, the writer has been led to draw some implications for future means of improving and supplementing the home economics student teaching experience at Michigan State University. These recommendations are discussed under four headings: (l) scope and sequence of the undergraduate curricula of the home economics education major, (2) roles and functions of the subject matter teacher educator in student teaching, (3) in-service education to supervisory staff in student 193 teaching, and (4) administration of activities related to home economics student teaching at Michigan State University. Scope and Sequence of the Undergraduate Curricula of the Home Economics Education Maj or In an effort to unite the theoretical with the practical knowledge of teaching, it seems important that the home economics teaching major participate in early school observation and teaching experiences with youth and adults. These experiences may vary from youth groups to community projects, to secondary schools. A limited number of hours could be required of the home economics education major prior to the admission of the student to the class of special methods in teaching home economics. All partici- pants in this study supported the need for a good methods course. Special methods are vital in teacher preparation and much effort should be put forth to do the best possi- ble job in methods. The academic adviser of the teaching major in home economics needs to have adequate knowledge about secondary teaching to most satisfactorily counsel the beginning stu- dent. If individual counseling by the academic adviser regarding the selection of the teaching major occurs dur- ing the first two years of college, then the student may be directed into early experiences with youth and schools. Also, a freshman-level course that introduces the student to the overall purposes of the secondary home economics 194 program, to the responsibilities of the teacher, to the basic curricula characteristics at the secondary level, and to the going supply and demand of teachers in the field broadens the base knowledge of the student about teaching home economics. Observation and sensitivity development to the educational needs of youth and adults are a recom- mended aspect of the college curricula during the fresh- man and sophomore years. Special methods appears to be most relevant if the course is taught prior to the term of student teaching and in conjunction with micro-teaching and other laboratory experiences. If some emphasis is given to the practice of teaching several of the skills related to home economics the student's competency level in the skill itself may improve as well as her ability to teach about it. Pupils could be brought to the university from surrounding schools on a voluntary basis for actual teaching situations. Since insecurity is a primary concern of the student teacher, positive reinforcement of successful teaching will be necessary during micro-teaching situations. The term of full-time student teaching directly follows the methods class. If the methods teacher makes one personal or telephone visit to the student and super- vising teacher early in the term, then she will be able to introduce herself to the supervising teacher and pro- vide her with some background about the student teacher or any other special help. No further contact would be 195 required unless special services were requested. The initial student teacher contact is to reassure her of per- sonal concern for her success. Other personal contacts with the education staff would occur through group con- ferences, seminars, or workshops. Written materials can be sent to University Coordinators and Home Economics Supervising Teachers as early in the term as possible. Following the student teaching term is a seminar and independent study for the home economics teaching majors. This seminar, as it is currently designed, would continue to build upon the needs of the student, as they identify them, and preparations would begin for their first job of teaching. More observation may be desired in some other kinds of teaching situations. During the post-student-teaching seminar, information can be col- lected that would provide needed feedback to University Coordinators and Home Economics Supervising Teachers. This information can be compiled and sent on to those who may benefit from the information. Each of the above recommendations is based on the finding that participating in the actual teaching situation is felt to be a desirable and valuable means to learn about teaching. Education majors want to learn what is involved in teaching before they proceed too far into a major. Also, greater association and feedback is needed between the subject matter teacher education staff and the student teaching supervisory staff. The recommended education 196 curricula for the undergraduate home economics teaching major may be described diagrammatically as follows: Year in College» Experiences Field Contact lst or 2nd Introduction to the Student obser- field of teaching ér———— vation and ————4> participation in the field 3rd or 4th Special methods, including micro- teaching. a) Field experi- ence and student One contact from teaching methods teacher to the field. / Post-student teach- Student obser- ing seminar 1 > vation (optional) \ The above recommendations are in conjunction with the present educational sequence of courses offered through the College of Education. Should these experiences change, then the home economics education program will again need to re-evaluate its offerings. Roles and Functions of the Subject Matter Teacher Educator in Student Teaching The home economics subject matter teacher educator need not be as concerned about the types of experiences the home economics student teacher is getting since this study revealed that important objectives in home economics stu- dent teaching are currently being provided for under the regular student teaching program. However, some of the 197 special aspects of vocational home economics are not a part of the regular program in student teaching. For example, some effort should be directed to adult edu- cation programs, occupational education, home experiences and home visits, Future Homemakers of America, and new trends and resources in the field, to efficiently, yet effectively, acquaint the student teacher with the aims and directions of these aspects of secondary home eco- nomics. To these specialized ends of home economics student teaching, the home economics teacher educator performs her roles and functions. In order to overcome possible shortcomings of the present student teaching program, the roles of the teacher educator in home economics student teaching at Michigan State University may conceivably be described as follows: 1. Clarifies and describes specific, behavioral objectives for student teaching in home eco- nomics, and provides the means for evaluating the student teachers' achievement of the ob- jectives. The objectives are those which supplement those expected of all student teachers. They are to be shared with each University Coordinator, Home Economics Super- vising Teacher, and Home Economics Student Teacher, and evaluated by the supervising and student teacher. 198 Participates in some in-service educational conferences of University Coordinators to discuss and develop student teaching objectives and to learn about innovative procedures and thinking in student teaching. Attends at least one national or state meeting in stu- dent teaching each year. Establishes rapport between Home Economics Supervising Teachers, University Coordinators, and home economics education staff to assure the supervisory staff that home economics edu- cation intends to provide resources and special consultative assistance when needed, to either coordinators, teachers, school, or community. Participation by the teacher edu- cator in the activities of the secondary school are recommended to maintain a greater degree of relevance in teacher training. Provides needed resources and materials to the supervising teachers and student teachers wherever possible. Provides a liaison between secondary home economics teachers and subject specialists within the field of home economics. This may take the form of arranging for special con- ferences, or enabling supervising teachers 10. 11. 199 to participate in subject matter and methods classes. Arranges for special conferences, workshops, or seminars with either University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, or Home Economics Student Teachers at least once a year, but more frequently if feasible. Assumes the essential responsibility for pre- paring the student teacher in methods of teach- ing home economics. Recommends progressive secondary home economics programs, or the criteria for evaluating forward-looking programs, to the University Coordinators for student teacher placement. Encourages the student teacher to have com- pleted needed subject matter background before beginning her term of student teaching. Obtains continuous feedback from University Coordinators and Home Economics Supervising Teachers concerning the adequacy of pre-student- teaching preparational needs, and recommends changes where needed. Provides feedback to University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers, and sub- ject matter specialists through student evalu- ations during the post-student-teaching seminar 200 and during the first year of actual teaching experience. The above role description does not suggest it is necessary for the home economics teacher educator to make regular school visits to each of the student teachers or supervising teachers each term. This practice requires costly resources and according to most of the participants in this study, is not needed. However, the home economics teacher educator can assume responsibility for the in- service education of the supervising teachers as well as provide specialized assistance upon request. In-Service Education of Supervisory_Staff The role that will perhaps involve the greatest amount of effort, time, and money will be the one that relates to in-service education of Home Economics Super- vising Teachers. The purpose of this role is to estab- lish a quality supervising teacher staff that is well- informed on objectives and means for providing quality experiences in home economics student teaching. Although the college supervisor may have the greatest impact on the student teacher, the long-range effects may be greater with those whom one has contact over an extended period of time, namely, the supervising teachers. Therefore, during student teaching, efforts should be directed to developing well-qualified Home Economics Supervising Teachers and knowledgeable University Coordinators who 201 will provide Home Economics Student Teachers with experi- ences for achieving the objectives of home economics stu- dent teaching. New ideas can be shared with the supervisory staff through regular news bulletins. Supervising and student teachers may wish to contribute to the articles in the bulletins. Also, special conferences and workshops, either on- or off-campus, may accomplish the purpose of learning new ideas and providing feedback. During these sharing periods, student teaching objectives may be reviewed, important observations revealed and new programs for experimentation may be pursued, all in an effort to up- grade secondary home economics teaching, now and in the future. Administration of Activities Related to Home Economics Student Teaching The special methods teacher of home economics will need a small portion of her assignment devoted to aiding and assisting student teachers in home economics if she is to adequately carry out her carry-over role to student teaching. A half-time graduate assistant could assist with news bulletins and other written publications as well as assist with the arrangements for special con- ferences and meetings. To carry out the home economics student teaching program plans as previously identified / above, a staff member would also need to be available to: 202 (l) attend professional meetings in student teaching, (2) advise and consult with University Coordinators on program objectives and criteria for placement of student teachers, (3) develop a directory of supervisory teachers in home economics to have ready access to addresses and telephone numbers, (4) administer follow-up studies of former Home Economics Student Teachers and report findings to the appropriate sources, (5) organize and maintain a system for providing resources to the secondary schools, super— vising teachers, and student teachers when requested, and (6) be available for consultation services when requested. Considering the responses of the questionnaire from University Coordinators, Home Economics Supervising Teachers and Home Economics Student Teachers, one impor- tant conclusion was reached. There exists a need for greater communication and understanding between those most involved in the student teaching program and the subject matter teacher educator in home economics. Without com- munication, there is misunderstanding of purposes and actions. Conflicts between what is and what should be exists. If these communication difficulties can be over- come, then both the home economics education program and student teaching program can move forward together. 203 Future Research Needs The preparation of students who major in home eco- nomics in the 1970's is vastly different from that of earlier decades. In the last decade, strong adherence to the practices of the past were apparent in the teaching and supervision of home economics. Today numbers of stu- dents, distances from campuses where student teaching centers are located, and limited staff and financial resources call for a re-evaluation of past practices in the college supervision of home economics. Means are being sought to continue quality experiences with the resources available. However, many solutions to the new problems in student teaching have not been resolved and continuous efforts to analyze the effects of current practices is needed. For example, the study reported herein suggests the need for research in the following areas: 1. The development of instruments to measure specific outcomes of various types and organi- zational practices of student teaching pro- grams should be refined. This would give some indication of the effects on student teachers of the various types of programs and identify specific program strengths and weaknesses. 2. Other subject matter areas should examine the unique aspects of student teaching in their field and provide continued clarification of 5. 204 the role of the specialist college supervisor in the student teaching supervising team. It is suggested that experimental programs be designed for home economics student teachers and the specific outcomes of the programs be evaluated. For example, all majors who must fulfill vocational certification requirements could be clustered in one teaching center. The college supervisor would be one of the vocational teacher educators. There should be continued effort to study the roles and role-relationship conflicts among each of the persons involved in student teach- ing supervision in order to better describe the functions of the subject matter teacher edu- cator, college coordinator, clinical con- sultant, and supervising teacher. A study is needed to compare the differences between what home economics teacher educators believe the purpose of secondary home eco- nomics to be with what they actually are in the secondary schools, to determine if the gaps are as great as many secondary teachers in this study believed them to be. It is recommended that student teachers who have completed a student teaching program under the total supervision of a generalist 205 college supervisor be compared with student teachers who have come through a traditional home economics college supervised student teaching program, to measure the affective as well as cognitive outcomes of the two types of programs. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Andrews, L. 0. Student Teaching. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, 1964. Anthony, Hazel. "An Appraisal of the Services Rendered to Off-Campus Supervising Teachers and Centers by Michigan State University." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961. Arthur, P. "Changing Dimension in Teacher Education." American Association of Colleges for Teacher Edu- cation. Fortieth Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1967. Aspy, David. "Maslow and Teachers in Training." Journal of Teacher Education, XX, No. 30 (Fall, 1969), 303-09. The Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Cooperative Structure in School College Relation- ships for Teacher Education. Report No. 2 of the Subcommittee on School College Relationships in Teacher Education. Washington, D.C.: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1965. The Association for Student Teaching. The College Super- visor, Conflict and Challenge. Forty-third Year- book. Washington, D.C.: The Association for Student Teaching, 1964. The Association of Student Teaching. Research and Pro- fessional Experiences in Teacher Education. Bulletin No. 20. Cedar Falls, Iowa: The Associ- ation for Student Teaching, 1963. Association for Student Teaching. Research on Student Teaching. Bulletin No. 5. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1965. 206 207 Backstrom, Charles, and Hursh, Gerald. Survengesearch. Chicago: Northwestern University Press, 1963. Bennie, William A. Cooperation for Better Student Teach- ing. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Burgess Publishing Company, 1966. Clark, Louise. "The Student Teaching Program in Vocational Home Economics at Jacksonville State University." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Alabama, 1968. Clem, Paul. "A Study of the Michigan State University Full-Time Resident Student Teaching Program." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1958. Conant, James. "The Certification of Teachers: The Restricted State Approved Program Approach." A Decade of Thought on Teacher Education. Washington, D.C.: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1969. . The Education of American Teachers. New York: McGraw Hill, 1963. Coon, Buehal. Home Economics Instruction in the Secondary Schools. Washington, D.C.: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1964. Corrigan, Dean, and Colden, Garland. Studying Role Relationships. Research Bulletin No. 6. Wash- ington, D.C.: The Association for Student Teaching, 1966. Dean, Leland. "A Description of Michigan State's Full- Time Student Teaching Program." Unpublished material, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1966. . "A Position Paper on Student Teaching Programs." Teacher Education in Transition. Vol. I. Baltimore, Maryland: Multi-State Teacher Edu- cation Project, 1969. . "A Student Teaching Program for the 1970's." Unpublished paper, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1969. 208 Dirks, Marie; and Elliot; Lowe; and Nelson. “The Special Contributions of the College Home Economics Edu- cation Supervisor to the Student Teaching Situ- ation." Studies in Higher Education. No. 94. LaFayette, Indiana: Purdue University, 1967. Dow, Clyde, ed. "Programs and Papers of the 1968 Workshop for Directors and College Supervisors of Student Teaching." Unpublished material, College of Edu- cation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1968. Erickson, John. "On the Development of School Super- visory Personnel: A Case in Point." Journal of Teacher Education, XX, No. 1 (Spring, 1969), 66-69. Eye, Glen, and Netzer, Lanore. The Supervision of Instruction: A Phase of Administration. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. Flowers, John G. "School and Community Laboratory Experi- ences in Teacher Education." The Sub-Committee of the Standards and Surveys Committee of the American Association of Teachers Colleges, 1948. Good, Carter. Essentials of Educational Research. New York: The Merredith Publishing Company, 1966. Gross, Neal; Mason, Ward; and McEachern, Alexander. Explorations in Role Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958. Harris, Chester, ed. Encyclopedia of Educational Research. New York: Macmillan Co., 1960. Haskew, Lawrence. "Planning for the Education of Teachers." Journal of Teacher Education, XVII (Summer, 1966), 251-61. Herrick. "The Future of Off-Campus Programs." Off-Campus Student Teaching. Thirtieth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching. Lock Haven, Penna.: Association for Student Teaching, 1951. Hicks, E. Perry. "Changing the Role of the Cooperating Teacher.“ Journal of Teacher Education, XX, No. 2 (Summer, 1969), 153-57. 209 Hicks, William. "Information About Off-Campus Student Teaching Programs in Big Ten Universities." Unpublished material, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1959. Hodenfield, G. K., and Stenneth, J. M. The Education of Teachers. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961. Home Economics Education. Objectives and Generalizations Related to Selected Concepts. Lincoln, Nebraska: Department of Home Economics Education, University of Nebraska, 1966. Howd, M. Curtis, and Brown, Kenneth. National Survey of Campus Laboratory Schools. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1970. Hoyt, Cyril, and Stunkard, Clayton. "Estimation of Test Reliability for Unrestricted Item Scoring Methods." Educational and Psychological Measure- ment, XII (1952), 756-58. Johnson, James. A National Survey of Student Teachipg Program . Monograph 4. Baltimore, Maryland: Multi-State Teacher Education Project, 1968. Johnson, Jim. A Brief History of Student Teachipg. DeKalb, Illinois: Creative Educational Materials, 1968. Kahn, Robert, and Cannell, Charles. The Dynamics of Interviewing: Theogy Technique and Cases. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1957. LaRowe, Annette. "The Special Contribution of the College Home Economics Education Supervisor to the Student Teaching Situation." Unpublished Master's thesis, Purdue University, 1965. Leonard, Thelma. "Role Expectations and Perceptions for the Home Economics Supervising Teacher." Un- published Ph.D. dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1965. Lindsey, Margaret. "Speculations on the Future of Teacher Education and Cooperative Endeavors." Partnership in Teacher Education. Edited by Smith, Olsen, Johnson, and Barbour. Washington, D.C.: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Edu- cation, 1966. 210 Lowe, Phyllis. "The College Supervisor in a Federally Aided Vocational Education Program.“ The College Supervisor, Conflict and Challenge. Forty-third Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching. Washington, D.C.: The Association for Student Teaching, 1964. Maidment, Robert. "A Prototype of the Clinical Professor in Education." The Clinical Professorship in Teacher Education. Evanston, Illinois: North- western University Press, 1967. McGrath, Earl, and Johnson, Jack. The Changing Mission of Home Economics. New York: Columbia University Teachers College Press, 1968. Michael, Lloyd S. "Responsibilities of School Systems for Clinical Experiences." The Clinical Professor- ship in Teacher Education. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1967. Michigan State Department of Education. "Requirements for a Michigan Vocational Home Economics Certificate." Unpublished material distributed by the Division of Vocational Education, Home Economics Education, Lansing, 1968. Morse, William. "Anxieties and Role Conflicts in an Interrelated Triangle." The College Supervisor, Conflict and Challenge. Forty-third Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Co., 1964. Myers, George. "The College Supervisor in a Resident Center." The College Supervisor, Conflict and Challenge. Forty-third Yearbook of the Associ- ation for Student Teaching. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Co., 1964. Neal, Charles; Kraft, Leonard; and Kracht, Conrad. "Reasons for College Supervision of the Student Teaching Program." Journal of Teacher Education, XVIII (Spring, 1967), 24-27. Noll, Victor. The Preparation of Teachers at Michigan State University. East Lansing: Michigan State University, College of Education, 1968. O'Hanlon, James P. I"Considerations About Student Teach- ing." Educational Forum, XXXI, No. 3 (March,‘ ‘l967), 339-43;"I .. 211 Otto, Arleen, and West, Dorothy. "An Exploratory Study to Determine Methods for Regularizing Contacts of the Home Economics Education Staff With Student Teachers, Supervising Teachers and Coordinators." East Lansing: Michigan State University, College of Education, 1969. Pfeiffer, Robert. “Common Concerns of College Supervisors." The College Supervisor, Conflict and Challenge. Forty-third Yearbook of the Association for Stu- dent Teaching. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company, Inc., 1964. Purpel, David. "Student Teaching." Journallof Teacher Education, XVIII, No. 1 (Spring, 1967), 20-23. Reed, Helen. "The College Supervisor in a Multi-Purpose University in a Rural Setting." The College Supervisor, Conflict and Challenge. Forty-third Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company, Inc., 1964. Richardson, Dorothy. "An Investigation of Unique Home Economics Student Teaching Objectives." Unpub- lished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1969. Rucker, W. Ray. "Trends in Student Teaching, 1932-52." Journal of Teacher Education, IV (1953), 261-63. Sarbin, Theodore. "Role Theory." Handbook of Social Psychology. Vol. I. Reading, Mass.: Addison- Wesley, 1954. Shapin, Judson. "Practice in Teaching. Breakthrough to Better Teaching." Harvard Educational Review, Special Issue (1965). Sharpe, Donald M. "Threshold to the Profession." National Education Association Journal, LIV H965) I 33-35. Smith, B. O., et a1. Teachers for the Real World. Washington, D.C.: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1969. ; and Olsen; Johnson; and Barbour. Partnership in Teacher Education. Washington, D.C.: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1966. 212 Smith, E. Brooks. "Needed: A New Order in Student Teaching That Brings Joint Accountability for Professional Development." Journal of‘Teacher Education, XX, No. 1 (Spring, 1969), 27-36. , and Goodlad, John. "Promises and Pitfalls in the Trend Toward Collaboration." Partnership in Teacher Education. Edited by Smith, et al. Washington, D.C.: Association for Student Teaching and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1966. Southworth, Horton. "Issues and Problems as Viewed by a Large, Multi-Purpose State University Located in a Small City in Establishing Off-Campus Student Teaching Operations." Partnership in Teacher Education. Edited by Smith, et al. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1966. Steeves, Frank L. "Crucial Issues in Student Teaching." Journal of Teacher Education, XVI, No. 3 (September, 1965), 307-10. Subcommittee on School College Relationships in Teacher Education. Cooperative Structure in School College Relationships for Teacher Education. Report Number 2. Washington, D.C.: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1965. The College Supervisor: Conflict and Challenge. Forty- third Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Com- pany, Inc., 1964. Walsh, Ann. "Some Practices in Home Economics Student Teaching Which Produce Satisfactory Supervisory Relationships." Unpublished Master's thesis, Oregon State University, 1960. Walton, John. Toward Better Teaching in Secondary» Schools. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1966. West, Dorothy. "An Exploratory Study to Determine Methods for Regularizing Contacts of the Home Economics Staff with Student Teachers, Supervising Teachers and Coordinators." Unpublished progress report for the period ending August 31, 1969, Michigan State University, 1969. 213 West, Dorothy. "Phase I: Objectives Unique to Home Eco- nomics Student Teaching." Unpublished progress report, Michigan State University, Home Economics Education, East Lansing, 1969. Woodruff, Asabel. Student Teaching Today. Study Series No. 5. Washington, D.C.: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1960. Young, William. "A Critical Analysis of Selected Research on Student Teaching in the United States 1929- 1959." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University, 1961. APPENDICES APPENDIX A CONTACT LETTER TO WINTER TERM HOME ECONOMICS SUPERVISING TEACHERS MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN 43323 COLLEGE OF EDUCATION - DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM - BRICKSON HALL March 14, 1969 Dear (Home Economics Supervising Teacher's Name): The home economics education division of Michigan State University is seeking your help in a research project concerning home eco- nomics student teaching. Because of your recent experience as a supervising teacher of an MSU student teacher in home economics we feel you can make valuable suggestions toward strengthening the student teaching experience in home economics education. With the support and encouragement of the Student Teaching Office, we would like to schedule a future conference time with you to talk about some ideas related to student teaching. The project is funded by the State Department of Education and is entitled "An Exploratory Study to Determine Methods for Regularizing Contacts of the Home Economics Education Staff With Student Teachers, Supervising Teachers, and Coordinators." As you probably know, within the last few years home economics education has not been directly involved in the college super- vision of student teaching. The staff is, therefore, interested in identifying feasible and educationally relevant roles for the home economics teacher educator in contributing to an effective student teaching program. In the first stage of the project, home economics teacher edu- cators across the country were asked to identify behavioral objectives which are unique to student teaching in home economics as compared to other teaching fields. A unique objective is one which requires a home economics trained person to help guide the student teacher toward her achievement. The teacher educators identified nineteen objectives as unique to home economics student teaching. Enclosed is the list of unique objectives. The major portion of our conference will focus on your opinions and reactions to these objectives. What importance do you think they have for the present-day student teaching experience? Was your last student teacher competent in this area and what specifically leads you to believe she did or did not achieve the objective? 214 215 March 14, 1969 Page 2 Will you please be thinking of a concenient one-hour time period during the week of March 24, 1969 when someone from the project staff can meet with you at your school to discuss the various aspects of student teaching. We plan to telephone you within the next few days to arrange a specific conference time. The primary purpose of our visit is to identify areas where the college home economics teacher educators can be of most help in student teaching. If, for some reason, you cannot meet with us during this time period, we will try to make other arrangements. We will appreciate any comments you have and will really appreciate your cooperation in making our research project successful. All those who participate in this project will receive a summary of the results. Sincerely yours, Arleen Otto Project Director Dorothy West Associate Project Director Dorothy Richardson Graduate Research Assistant DW:ag cc: Principal University Coordinator Enclosure APPENDIX B LETTER TO WINTER TERM HOME ECONOMICS SUPERVISING TEACHERS FOR INTERVIEW CONFIRMATION MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN 43823 _4 COLLEGE OF EDUCATION - DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM ° ERICKSON HALL March 17, 1969 Dear (Home Economics Supervising Teacher's Name): The project staff is extremely grateful to you for setting aside a time to visit with us on (date and time) at your school. Through your help we are sure we can continue to look forward to planning and implementing one of the best home economics teacher preparation programs in the country. In addition to your overall reactions to the home economics student teaching situation, we are interested in: a. The priority level you believe the unique home economics student teaching objectives should have for the present day student teaching experience. b. An evaluation of your last student teacher as to the level she reached in achieving the objectives. c. An example of a specific learning experience for the student teacher which contributed to her achieving each of the objectives. Questions you may have about the objectives may be freely asked during the visit with one of the members from the project staff. Thank you very much for giving us this time to visit with you. Your name will not be attached to your comments in the report- ing of the results of the study. Your cooperation will mean a great deal to the future of home economics education. The Project Staff: (Mrs.) Dorothy West, Assistant Project Director (Mrs.) Sarah Berglund, Graduate Research Assistant (Miss) Dorothy Richardson, Graduate Research Assistant 216 APPENDIX C INTERVIEW GUIDELINES APPENDIX C INTERVIEW GUIDELINES 3/19/69 Taken from the Dynamics of Interviewing, Kahn & Cannell, 1957 A. Obstructions to Communication l. The interview must be a process in which the forces to distort or withhold communication have been eliminated or reduced as much as possible (p. 8). 2. Be sensitive to "communication barriers"--memory failure, emotional forces, vocabulary differences. (If the interviewee looks puzzeled over the state- ment, please define words, restate, e3 clarify phrases). 3. The interviewer's problem is to bring about a much smaller stream of communication, consisting almost solely of the relevant items. The irrelevant topics must be avoided, and the rele— vant bits of information must be communicated in rapid succession over a short space of time (p. 15). B. Provide Motivation for Interview By: l. Encouraging the supervising teacher to influence you, or student teaching, in some manner. A person will communicate in a given situation if he be- lieves that such a communication will bring about a change or an action that he considers desirable (p. 45). 2. An individual is motivated to communicate with another when he receives gratification from the communication process and the personal relation— ship of which it is a part (p. 46). 217 218 Avoid Interview Bias 1. Bias is rewarding and punishing certain respondent behavior (p. 59) the interviewer who rewards or punishes certain attitudes or expressed values on the part of the respondent, motivates the respon- dent to a distortion of his own feelings. Role of the Interviewer 1. 2. Maximize the forces to communicate and reduce the negative forces. Measurement-~must teach the respondent what your role is. The interviewer tells the respondent, directly and approvingly, when he has answered the question completely, he also lets the respondent know, tactfully but definitely, when he has not fulfilled the requirements of his role. Be fullyeaware of the purposes ofeyour interview with the supervising teachers. 1. Find out if the unique home economics student teaching objectives are being planned and pro- vided for in a home economics student teaching program coordinated by generalists. Find out which of the nineteen unique objectives are considered to be of tOp priority to student teachers. See if there are any particular problems to the home economics supervising teacher in the present program. Find out what supervising teachers would like to see done in the future development of home eco- nomics education and student teaching. Probe the Supervising Teacher to Meet the Objectives 1. 2. Probe without introducing bias; motivate communi- cation and enhance interpersonal relations. Examples of probing comments: a. I see b. um hm c. show interest, nod head d. how do you mean? 219 I'd like to know more about your thinking on that. ‘ What do you have in mind there? I'm not sure I understand what you have in mind. Why do you think that is so? Why do you feel that way? What do you think causes that? Do you have any other reasons for feeling as you do? Anything else? APPENDIX D CONTACT WITH COLLEGE COORDINATORS REGARDING INTERVIEW SCHEDULING MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN 48823 COLLEGE OF EDUCATION . DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM - ERICKSON HALL April 30, 1969 Dear (University Coordinator's Name): The Home Economics Education Division in the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum is now completing the second phase of the research project funded by the State Department of Education, Division of Vocational Education. The results of the first phase, "Identification of Objectives Unique to Home Economics Student Teaching" are in the final stages of analysis. Your participation in phase one has already proved to be a valuable contribution. In order to make the study complete we are asking student teaching coordinators for additional suggestions and ideas about student teaching in home economics. Your contributions will help lead to the identification of educationally relevant roles for the subject matter educator in student teaching. We would like to schedule a time, during May, to discuss with you various aspects of student teaching as it effects home economics majors. Enclosed is a list of objectives which home economics teacher educators identified as unique to student teaching in home economics. The major portion of our conference will focus on these objectives. What importance do the objectives have for the present-day student teaching experience? Do coordinators provide home economics student teachers with learning experi- ences related to achieving these objectives and, if so, what types of experiences help the student teacher achieve the objectives? Will you please be thinking of a convenient one-hour time during May when you will be on campus? We would like the opportunity to visit with you and we plan to contact you shortly in order to arrange a meeting time. 220 221 April 30, 1969 Page 2 The primary purpose of our visit is to identify areas where the college home economics teacher educators can be of most help in student teaching. We will appreciate any comments you have and will really appreciate your cooperation in making the research project successful. Sincerely yours, Dr. Arleen Otto Project Director (Mrs.) Dorothy West Assistant Project Director AO;DW;jt Enclosure APPENDIX E A SUPERVISING TEACHER SURVEY OF OPINIONS AND IDEAS RELATED TO THE HOME ECONOMICS STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCE AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Michigan State University Rese Department of Secondary Education The and Curriculum Stat Home Economics Education Study Lans PART I. arch Project funded by: Division of Vocational Educatic e Department of Education ing; Michigan I A SupervisingnTeacher Survey of Opinions and Ideas Related to the Home Economics Student Teaching Experience at Michigan State Universit BACKGROUND INFORMATION. Please complete a. Name of School y the following information: School Address The type of home economics program you teach. (check) Did you receive an undergraduate degree from Michigan State Univer- sity? (check) If no, did you ever take course— work at Michigan State University? ( Identify your undergraduate Major and Minor. Have you had a course in super- vision of student teachers? (check) How many graduate term credits do you have beyond the bachelor's? (check) How many student teachers have you ever supervised in home economics? (check) Including this year, how many years have you taught home economics? (check) Your last M.S.U. student teacher was placed with how many supervising teachers? '(check) 222 Vocational (Reimbursed) General (Non-reimbursed) Both Yes - No Yes ___ check) No 4: Major ___ Minor Yes _ No 0.________ 16-30 1-6 31-45 7'15 46 or __ more One - two Three - five-_—— Six or more One Two Threecfive Six or more One Tw0‘ Three or more *_0. c 223 j. The curriculum areas usually included in a home economics pro- gram in the public schools in Michigan are listed below. To the right are the levels of instruction in the school program where home economics is offered in Michigan schools. Check the curriculum areas your last Michigan State Student Teacher observed or participated in during her student teaching period. Also check those curriculum areas she participated in with any other regular teacher. Curriculum Areas In Home Economics Grade Level 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Adults (1) Child DeveIOpment (2) Family Life (3) Clothing and Textiles (4) Foods and Nutrition (5) Health and Home Nursing (6) Housing, Home Furnishings and Equipment (7) Home Management (8) Consumer Education (9) Education for Employment (Briefly describe in this space) (10)FHA (11)Home Experience Progran (12)Other: (BrIefly list in this space) 22H- PAI‘T II. "Ix"SSIE'ICATIOII Oi‘ S'l'L'DIIT-{l‘ 'IEL-‘ICZIER )I‘IJ‘IWTVLS I‘\'I O PRIORITY LIIIILS ICC-IE ECOZJC‘I‘I'ICS STUDLIJI 11? .Cl; IIIG ELZQISNIENCIC. Directions: The follcsing‘obje economics student to I in; ob' tives are tne Iinetecn uni que home c1 - I 1'. J ILL of home economics tea mler educators. cred by a national sample Read each student teacher objective aIE cietermine the uric“i‘v level the Object’vc should have for ho"e ecorlc*ics student t‘.I,.".c'I‘.in>r If ‘---. you believe the objective is \cry ir.portant for ”LICZET"CEETEIA3 label the objective with a "l" . If tie objective is of medium impor« tance to the student to whing experience label the objective with a "2”. If the objective is not critical to home economics student teaching or could be learned through some other educational exper- ience, indicate by marking it "3”. Place either 1, 2, or 3 in front of each objective in the Space provided. To summarize—- l - High priority for student teaching 2 - Medium priority for student teaching 3 Low priority for student teaching - 8. Visits a school lunch program to analyze its relationships - to the department. b. Plans and provides learning eXperiences based on knowledge of the representative types of families in the community. c. Integrates into teaching plans and activities knowledge from relevant disciplines aId fields as it focuses on family life. d. Approaches a lesson visualizing the relationship of tepics ' to the meaning and quality of family life. e. Interprets the department's program to the community through home visits, experiences with parents, talks in community, exhibits in donwntoIn area. f. Suggests and guides pupils to plan for home eXperiences and helps evaluate learnings. g. Evaluates FHA experiences in a local situation. __ h. Plans and carries out thought- provoking, problem-solving activities related to the realistic concerns the pupils have for family life. 1. Interprets the observations of one or more home visits. Interprets results of home visits, conferches class contacts as a means of increasing understandin of pupils, families and connmnity. 0? Uses a department budget in planning for learning exper- iences and keeps financial records. Guides or instructs pupils in the selection, care and use of department equipment and supplies. Verbally ideatifies significant needs, interests, personal and home problems of pupils and relates to the unit taught. Assumes some of the responsibilities of an FHA chapter adviser. Contact and/or works with county home economists and agencies related to families when feasible. Assists with the planning of activities for a Future Homemakers of America Organization. Applies the characteristics of families in the community and general trends in family life to an evaluation of the total pregrmn. 226 PART III. IDENTIFICATION OF LEARNING EXPERIENCES TO ACHIEVE UNIQUE . HOME ECONOMICS STUDEISI‘ TEACHING OBJECTIVES. if Directions: The questions below refer to the unique student teaching objectives you responded to in Part II. In this section you are asked to react to the objectives in two ways. (a) Decide the level your last student teacher attained in achieving the objective; and (b) give a specific ex- ample of an experience your student teacher had which helped her achieve the objective. If the student teacher did not participate in a learning experience related to achieving the objective, check not observed. The rating scale for checking the level of achievement attained by your last Michigan State student teacher is as follows: O-l demonstrated little,if any,achievement of the ob- jective at the end of the student teaching experience. 2-3 demonstrated average achievement of the objective at the end of the student teaching experience. 4-5 demonstrated above average to superior achievement of the objective at the end of the student teaching experience. 6 have not observed the student teacher participate in a learning experience related to the objective, there- fore, I am not aware of her achievement level. Example One: Indicate the level of achievement ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) attained in: BASING THOUGHTS _____I__ __:;,4L. .______. ._______ AND ACTIONS ON A PHILOSOPHY L_____/ ./______/ .L_____../ L.___.._/ OF LIFE, PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCA- 0-1 2-3 4-5 6 TION, AND PHILOSOPHY OF HOME None Average Above Not ECONOMICS. '0 little Average to Observed Superior Give a specific example of , an experience you provided (description) 33 252* (‘1 j'lc"’ C'm’ L‘jfl the student teacher which a , 3 fl helped her achieve this _Jfflfifij/(Ilfizrffl Jfifi’éuvtflfl/ jyg7u-*fC4/uflv'cM$z objective. / 7 fl ASIA: ”fr '1, ' :3?!) r'ilz' .A' - j }/"' A/) f// 1’} [3}1'1, [a fI-j-TQCTT’Q. / t 7 . . N J/.6 41' "'(n'rr’f/W +11) 7 ”(Fa/u: ..‘.:l'7?':'rt V ,1 A ‘1] ”J ,3 A ‘ " i ,3 :C’CQ'7.“C}T-h. ,"1 31'! It 1_£6!'\5* 4 .r C/ 1' "1L 7%. 12.62», "2’ \ /I‘ 'l i. V , f": . ’1. . Q I If 3’) (A); ,f/f.’ I u“ ‘13:: if: ,I l; ‘ IV ‘ ‘. .. ,"i'g" . I ‘ ' ' 227 Example Two: ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) Indicate the level of achievement ‘5 attained in: PLANNING AND 1 / z / [_______/ z / PROVIDING SOME WORTHWHILE 0-1 2-3 4-5 6 ~ LEARNING EXPERIENCES FOR None Average Much to Not ADULTS- to little complete Observed Give a specific example 0f (description) 7Zg'4fiiflt0ififn JQEVSI‘Hq'fir/ an experience you provided '—_ (l '/ . the student teacher WhiCh jLM5V'fgffi”{nU/%/afiMVUTHCQa>%?,76yy:J Qflfl/(hvag helped her achieve this " Objective . (ll?!) 01,7; «276 LU-A‘ CU” ”Hf: jig, ,fi / gay IL 0,9'} V 4129.41; (L00 c; .«2/ 51,77 Yip: Z": Illa 3W. Please respond to each item below. REMEMBER: Each of the following state? ments refer to the last Michigan State student teacher you have supervised. “A. Indicate the level of achievement ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) attained in: VISITING A SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM TO ANALYZE ITS L_'_/ _/_______/ z / / / RELATIONSHIPS TO THE DEPART- 0-1 2-3 4-5 6 MENT. None Average Above average Not to little to superior Observed Give a Specific example of an experience you provided the student teacher which helped her achieve this objective. 228 B. Indicate the level of achievement attained in: PLANNING AND PROfi ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) ,4 VIDING LEARNING EXPERIENCES _.._____._./. *7 /""""‘"'""'/‘ /"""_'7 BASED ON KNOWLEDGE OF THE 1‘6:T—-' 1LEZET_' "ZjE——"' 6"— REPRESENTATIVE TYPES OF FAMILIES None Average Above averaae Not. IN THE COMMUNITY. to little to superior Observed._ '_ Give a specific example of an experience you provided the student teacher which helped her achieve this objective. C. Indicate the level of achievement ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) attained in: INTEGRATING INTO TEACHING PLANS AND ACTIVITIES ———————- ——_—_——- —______. _______. KNOWLEDGE FROM RELEVANT DIS- 1_.___./ 1L_____/ .L______/ 1L_____/ CIPLINES AND FIELDS As IT 0‘1 2'3 4‘5 6 FOCUSES ON FAMILY LIFE. None Average .Above average Not to little to superior Observed Give a specfic example of an experience you provided the student teacher which helped her achieve this objective. D. Indicate the level of achievement ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) attained in: APPROACHING A LESSON . VISUALIZING THE RELATIONSHIP “"7 /__._.__._7 """'""'"'7 """—""'7 OF TOPICS TO THE MEANING AND ILiifif“ “7Z:;" . 1L7:3;" 1L‘1r"' QUALITY OF FAMILY LIFE. None Average Above average Not to little to superior’ Observed Give a specific example of an experience you provided the student teacher which helped her achieve this objective. 229 w—. E. Indicate the level of achievement attained in: INTERPRETING THE ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) DEPARTMENT'S PROGRAM TO THE /“‘"'"‘7 /“——*‘*7 f—‘"“‘7 / 7 COMMUNITY THROUGH HOME VISITS, ~.O:I._ ‘——§:§"' "j::§“— '*—~g—-— EXPERIENCES WITH PARENTS’ None Average Above average Not |TALKS IN COMMUNITY, EXHIBITS t l'ttl , Ob d IN DOWNTOWN AREA. 0 i e to superior serve Give a Specific example of —* —— 'Ean experience you prOvided the student teacher which helped her achieve this objective. -—— F. Indicate the level of achievement ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) attained in: SUGGESTING AND GUIDING PUPILS TO PLAN FOR HOME EXPERI- ENCES AND HELPING EVALUATE Z / l / l / l / LEARNINGS. 0-1 2-3 4-5 6 . ' ' None Average Above average Not Give a SPeCific example 0f to little to superior Observed an experience you provided the student teacher which helped her achieve this objective. G. Indicate the level of achievement ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) attained in: EVALUATING FHA ' EXPERIENCES IN A LOCAL ""'“" '—““" "“""' """"' S ITUAT ION . I'm—”l 17:53", Lifg—l L-6‘_/ Give a specific example of None Average Above average Not to little to superior Observed an experience you provided the student teacher which helped her achieve this objective. 230 Give a specific example of an eXperience you provided the student teacher which helped her achieve this objective. H. Indicate the level of achievement ACHIEVFflENI LEVEL (check) attained in: PLAENING AND ' _ CARRYING OUT THOLGHT-PROYOKIXG, - “ *—"-—-*' ‘‘‘‘‘ -—-“~ PROBL’D'i-SI'JL‘JING ;‘~.C'fl\"l’l‘l3iS / OT/ 1“;§~/ Lajgrr/ LEO“. / RELATED TO THE REALISTIC CONCEAUS THE PUPILS HAVE FOR FA {LY LIFE. None to Average Above average Not little to superior Observe: Give a specific example of an experience you provided 'fiv ___ _fi_ _ the student teacher which helped her achieve this Oh» _,_ __, __ ,__ jective. I. Indicate the level of ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) achievement in: INTERPRETING THE OBSERVATIONS OF ONE OR --*~*- -—-—-- -—-—~—- MORE HOME VISITS. £”-“~*/ l-"-—“*/ l“"~“*—/ l*-—’~—/ 0-1 2-3 4-5 6 Give a Specific example of None to Average Above average Not an experience you provided little to superior observed the student teacher which helped her achieve this __ ___ oojective. J. Indicate the level of ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) achievement in: INTERPRETING RESULTS OF HOME VISITS, —— '-—--- -—-—-- -"~*-— CONFERENCES, CLASS CONTACTS LOTI”_/ LETS—“l 'Lajgfl/ L‘éfi/ AS A MEANS OF INCREASING UNDERSTANDING OF PUPILS, None to Average Above average Not FAMILIES AND COMKUNITY. little to superior observed A—o‘AW 9...“- —-—.'» §-~—s.~—__ ~._~' 231 ‘— ‘—_.-._a- ‘- ~4—~_-- . . UNIT TAUGHT. Give a specific example of an experience you provided the student teacher which helped her achieve this objec- tive. K. Indicate the level of ACHIEVIQIECNI‘ LEI-’EL (check) achievement attained in: USING . A DEPARTMENT BUDGET IN PLANNILI? -***~**‘ *“*~*““ ”“*““~“' "“““"* FOR LEARNING XPERIENCES AND -L--*'/ -L*—~“-/ 1L~w-—/ / -—-/ REEPING FINANCIAL RECORDS. 0—1 2-3 4~5 6 None to Average Above average Not Give a specific exaaple of little to superior observed an experience you provided the student teacher which __, ___ ‘_ helped her achieve this —' __ objective. _“ ‘;_P L. Indicate the level of ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) achievement attained in: CUIDING OR INSTRUCTING -'"'-—- -**-“-' -*_*"-—' --**-— PUPILS IN THE SELECTION, 1—6:I*—/ l%;:;-—/ lzjg-~/ 1.3..._/ CARE AND USE OF DEPARTMENT None to Average Above average Not EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES. . . 0 little to superior observed Give a Specific example of an experience you 4‘- 7rovided the student teacher which helped her “i ‘- achieve this objective. M. Indicate the level of ACHIEVEMENT LE'EL (check) achievement in: VERBALLY IDENTIFYING SIGNIFICANT --~-- -—*-—-- “—*——-—"' -—-——-* NEEDS, II~ITI‘.RESTS, ERSOXEI L-_.:1...,-/ an‘T/ L—ngrm/ '/*'~"*”“/ AND HOME PROBLEMS OF None to Averaoe Above averaoe Not PUPILS AND RELATING TO THE . O . ° little to superior observed .u-Mv ”-0“- .5. N. achi evezazent i n: ASSUI-EI BIG SOME OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF AN FHA CHAPTER ADVISER. t Give a Specific example of an experience you provided the student teacher which Ehelped her achieve this ob“ jective. I 232 -~'& ‘-- Indicate the level of -O‘——.-v.....—--A Q... -_ ...u-o -. ~ .« ‘wmm. ...‘.. ...—....- ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) ~.— chm V. g...“- / .__/ v/"“’“',/' / / -«--«-u . 0-1 2-3 4‘5 None to Average Above average little to superio: Indicate the level of achievement in: contacting AND/OR WORKING WITH COUNTY HOME ECONOHISTS AND A EN- CIES RELATED TO FAMILIES WHEN FEASIBLE. / / 0-1 None to little M. ”‘— ‘-——-.-a W ‘— ACHIEVEHENT LEVEL (check) -m9— 1. ....___ J 4 - 5 Above average Give a specific exarple Of an experience you provided the student teacher which helped her achieve this objective. Indicate the level of achievement in: COMPETENCE IN THE ESSENTIAL SKILLS OF MAINTAINING A HOME, Give a specific example of an experience you provided the student teacher which helped her achieve this objective. _— ---~~.-—-......’-._n—b «b “M-mr'~'%<~fl'&~o ..D—O—‘—-‘.-.—-—--.-om¢-.-H- to superior 7“,:- u—‘Muxa . -.. —. ' ""~ ~‘M’ —‘.‘- --.‘-N‘.m.—..~ “*n‘W-g «a. fi...-..n—h .- Woo—‘- wan- --.—-.-oo-. Not observed DEMONSTRATING ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) I ...a 2-3 20 one to Average Above average little to superior Mumm- .- val-Ow Wm~- D—pooflh-M “Au-...- (”I—”7 6 Not observed — ..m—p—--.o.o-—~o..-r~—~_-..- ..- -..N...‘ .- — .~-—--«——_H-— “._ . — -“ .4.-~'h.,v-- -~—-‘“._a.—--§-..——‘-...-.v 0“. W§.-——ocr~ .. -- a. - ..-- m..m mm— Q. In:lit a-eztlra level of ACHIF VFSnEET Iififllu (ChLCF) achieven.ent attaint d in: ASSII)TI A“: 531111 1111‘; Plu‘fhl- ”t; ' l"""“'"“‘7 /-----~---—-----/- /—---—--~-—/- Linen]. or ACT aunt-:3 up FLIL’L‘; ANCTI‘" ~---—---—2__3 ~22?“— 6 ..._.. HOE-I :1.u<2 23 or AT-ZIE‘IIC‘ 071;. - ,. - . ’ . NIZXIION. none to .Averoge Above average hot little to superior observc' Give a specific exexgla of-an experience you -" ‘h‘ ‘4‘“ provided the student teacher which helped “ -- .___ her achieve this objec- tive. ~ ‘w- .fi. R. Indicate the level of ACHIEVEMENT LEV? L (check) achievement attained in: APPLYILG THE CHARACTERIS- /~—~*-7 TICS OF FAEIILIES IN THE O-L—-_ COH.‘ 1UlI TY AND GE LIE}? AL 1 I I.. . I I“ I bone to TRENDS IA FAMILY I_l}n 10 little AN EVALUATION OF Tr'E TOT‘J HOH. ECONifl ICS PR CRAM. Give a specific example of an experience you provided the student teacher which helped her achieve this objective. / 2-3 Average _[__ / 4-5 Above average to superior _/_..__._...../ 6 Not observed ART IV. 1. 231+ REACTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR STUDENT TEACHING IN HOME ECONOMICS What do you,want your student teachers to learn about most while they are student teaching? __r What are some of the strengths and weaknesses of the M.S.U. home economics student teachers when they arrive for student teaching? Strengths. Weaknesses. What kinds of additional preparations are needed at the University to make home economics students more ready for student teaching? How frequently did you come in personal contact with the resident college coordinator during_the student teaching term? was this an adequate amount of time, considering your student teaching situation? Yes No If no, describe Did your student teacher ever indicate a desire to visit with or talk over concerns with the college home economics methods teacher during student teaching? Yes No If yes, please describe 10. 235 Did your student teacher ever indicate a desire to visit with or talk over concerns with the university academic advisor during the student teaching experience? Yes No ' If yes, please describe ‘Should supervising teachers (college coordinators) have more communication contacts with the subject matter teacher educator at the University than at the present time? Yes No If yes, describe types of contacts needed What are the contributions the home economics education staff at the Univer- sity can make to student teaching in home economics? What are your most satisfying and dissatisfying experiences as a supervising teacher (college coordinator) of student teachers? Satisfying Dissatisfying If you were in the top decision-making position and had all the resources available to you-~time, money, talent, energy, and technology--what would be your description of the ideal home economics student teaching experience? Date APPENDIX F A SURVEY OF COORDINATORS OF STUDENT TEACHING: OPINIONS AND IDEAS RELATED TO STUDENT TEACHING IN HOME ECONOMICS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Michigan State University Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum ' Home Economics Education Study Research Project funded by: The Division of Vocational Education State Department of Education Lansing, Michigan PART I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION. a. A Survey of Coordinators of Student Teaching: Opinions and Ideas Related to Student Teaching in Home Economics at Michigan State University Coordinating Center Please complete the following information: student teachers in your center. (check) one other two or more b. Undergraduate major Master's major__‘ Doctoral major c. Highest degree earned (check) Bachelor's Master's ______ Doctor's d. Years of experience as a coordinator of student teachers. ,.. _ c. Number of different home economics none supervising teachers you have worked one-two with while a coordinator. (check) three-five six or more f. Number of home economics student nOne teachers you have ever super- one-two vised. (check) three-five six-ten eleven or more g. Number of other universities placing MSU only 235 h.” 237 What criteria do you use for placing a home economics student teacher with a home economics program and supervising teacher? In your center, would it be possible to yes place all home economics student teachers, no for at least some period of time, in a I don't know vocational program? Number of home economics student one teachers you have supervised Winter two Term, 1969. three four five or more Did other part-time coordinators help yes supervise the home economics student no teachers during Winter Term, 1969? Briefly describe their role I i ll HH! PART II. 238 CLASSIFICATION OF STUDENT ”HACKER OBJECTIVES INTO PYIOAITY LEVELS FOR A HOME ECONOHICS SICDEXT TEACHING EXPERIENCE. Directions: The following objectives i the ninete n unique home are e economics student teaching objectives selected by a national sample of home economics teacher educators. Read each student teacher objective and determine the priority level the objective should wave for hone economics student teaching; If you believe the objective is very important for student teaching label the objective with a ”1”. If the objective is of medium impor— tance to the student teaching Xperience label the objective with a "2". If the objective is not critical to home economics student teaching or could be learned through some other educational eXper- ience, indicate by marking it "3”. Place either 1, 2, or 3 in front of each objective in the space provided. To summarize—- l - High priority for student teaching 2 - Medium priority for student teaching 3 - Low priority for student teaching a. Visits a school lunch program to analyze its relationships to the department. b. Plans and provides learning experiences based on knowledge of the representative types of families in the community. c. Integrates into teaching plans and activities knowledge from relevant disciplines and fields as it focuses on family life. d. Approaches a lesson visualizing the relationship of tOpics to the meaning and quality of family life. e. 'Interprets the department's program to the community through home visits, experiences with parents, talks in community, exhibits in downtown area. f. Suggests and guides pupils to plan for home eXperiences and helps evaluate learnings. g. Evaluates FHA eXperiences in a local situation. h. Plans and carries out thought-provoking, problem~solving activities related to the realistic concerns the pupils have for family life. i. Interprets the observations of one or more home visits. LA. 0 239 Interprets results of hose visits, conferences, class contacts as a means of increasing understanding of pUpilS, fazz'ilies and cedur‘nunity. Guides or instructs pupils in the selection, care and use of.department equipment and supplies. Verbally identifies significant needs, interests, personal Iand home problems of pupils and relates to the unit taught. Assumes some of the responsibilities of an FHA chapter adviser. Contact and/or works with county home economists and agencies related to families when feasible. Demonstrates competence in the essential skills of main- taining a home. Assists with the planning of activities for a Future Homemakers of America Organization. Applies the characteristics of families in the community and general trends in family life to an evaluation of the total program. - T ZLFO P Kfii‘ I I I . I L3 H Ii WI 7:5.3‘I ()57 LTE7 {.11 K {)7 LIJC§ :..Ci {LR i 2;) 777’: 7II) i‘CJEiifri\’EI L'TJIICftizf HChn.'. 0N HCS 8? L71 EXT IYL\CHIIC} OB {\ZIIUES. Directions:_ The questions heiow refer to the student teaching ObjCCCIVUS you responded to in Part II. React to each objective in two ways: a) Indicnie to what extent you provided learning <'rc .SARF *‘ 1 I!/\rul ( A'l {ii iii“. 1i.:‘13c hone One Two or more EXPthIhNCEh BAth 03 KNochDGE , OF 11H? REPRVSVfiTATIVE TYPES OF FAMILlES “diva coinnniy. Give a specific example of an experience you provided winter term home economics student teachers which helped _ them .achieve this objective. 1 ' 0 ' 4 ' -~ ) )‘ ce ' -r A , C. {Did yin} [rLJi klnCL term home (ChECK) eccnuxnics Student teachers With learning; experiences related to: / _/ / / / / r'r:z : NC Info TfifCHlfiQ ri‘ws IEILCEfxrl “w“. "-M‘“ a" ‘_ ?‘ None One Two or more AND AC'l‘IViiLm M«_L,-.L.:D(_.r, I‘HOL'i ‘ RELEVANT DISCIE’LINESS AI." FIELDS - V -. 'l" ,‘ .AS IT’INJCUSES ON FANILY Lire. Give a specific example of an experience you PrOVidetd ~ ‘‘‘‘ winced: ternlhome economic 8 student teachers which heiped j thtnn atfirieve this objective. —-—- ---_‘do—O". ..- ,__.._o~ >- “.~.-..— do... 2’42 Did you provide winter term hvne ecorunnics stiuhwit Ct%MleFS \Jith learning experiences related to: L “““““ / AlddhifiChlfk; A l1$%SCHI‘JISUSC.lZIJKT 1111C {lilu\1‘l\)}k>!iil’ (li lWll‘lCZS l?) 'fE{E I‘TI‘IANWG ARE) QUALITY ox? FARM)! None (check) Two or more LIFE. Give a specific example of an experience you provided winter term home economics student teachers which helped them achieve this objective. I?) Did you provide winter term home economics student teachers with learning experiences related to: / / 1m ERPRE’l‘lm‘, 'l‘tih‘ DliPAR'i'T-Ifll‘x'i‘ ' PROCILRM TO THE COE't-lTNlTY TEL Ci'GH HOME VISITS, EXPERIENCES WITH PARENTS, TALKS IN CONVENITY, EXHlBlTS IN DOWNTOWN AREA. (check) [“7 One Two or more ».--s.o- a. -_ -—..---—.—. -m‘— 6110 a specific example of an experience you provided winter term home economics student teachers which helped them achieve this objective. F. Did you provide winter term home econondcs student teachers with learning eXperienCes related to: Z / SUIXHfiVFIN‘ AND GUIDING PUPILS (check) Z / One [—7 Two or more TO PLAN FOR nor-1r sxermxzcrs AND None HELPING EVALUATE LEARNINGS. Give a Specific example of an experience you provided winter term home economics student teachers which helped them achieve this objective. L, -_...iwui___iii--~__nn__.w--fl-_-_Mshni. 2u3 Did You Provide winter term hdfiv t-Ct.“nr:)mics Student to-acwurs‘ 2:12.11 ”on...“ 1__ / Two or IOI‘C learning experiences related :3: 1,“. _ EVALUATiEU FHA txernterEs 1x :Wnc /\ I.()(TfiJ. S ll'LM\l‘i(12£. Give a Specific C:Z-;.:.‘.;L"le of 52!: experience you proviied winter __ term home ec0noxics student C(HlClIUIS vdiicli ll€l[)U(i tiietn -,____ achieve this objective. H. Did you provide winter tern h-vrzze (a. e l) . . c!“ C 2 economics student teachers w1 th ‘ learning experiences related to: / / / / / PLANNING AND CARRYING our THotuHT- “”“””“"‘ l’ROVUKIN ', l’Rt‘iBI.tZ.-‘-1-;$Ol.\’lNU AC‘TIV- None [TIES RELATED TO THE REALI TIC One Two or more CONCERNS lWHSldJPILS HAVE fldl FAMILY LIFE. Give a specific example of an experience you provided winter term home economics Student teachers which helped them achieve this objective. Did you provide winter term home economics student teachers with learning experiences related to: -——-‘~J INTERPflfiilNG Thi UB¥ERYATIUNS OF hone ONE OR MORE HOE-1E \I'IAITS. (check) j______/ One C__-_/' Two or more Give a specific example of an experience you provided winter term home economics student tea teachers which helped them achieve this objective. .———. “as--- -- J. Did you provide wint“r zero heme economics student teachers with learning experiences relate! to: iifiifiiiiifii‘ixti Rtiitiffj (3F iifii' . AS A f-liSAI‘JS OF ii‘TCRiSRJd L. EYFADH)1NL;(JF ii Fifnfi, EQCiILIJi~ ICE) COHEUNITY. V115 1T5 , C(iXi‘1-Ii‘1if‘ICl‘33 C‘: AS C “Win"; {:1 I 0‘ l Give a specific example of an expzrienCv you provided win: L(?r1n il\‘fli“ (wzt)n<)nzit‘s 5 LleI;IFC teachers which helped thew achieve this objective. 21m ...n ..._fl --w None -- (CiLRCiQ) .’ /‘ —. c! n r) _‘wmd- / / o .-W- Two or more Did you provide winter term home economics student teachers with learning experiences related to: USING A DEPARTMENT BUDGET IN PLANNING FOR LEARN KG EXPERIENCES AND KEEPING FII‘QNL‘iA, RE'ZCURE)5. Give a specific example of an experience you provided winter tern home economics student teachers which helped them achieve this objective. Did you provide 'inter term home economics student teachers with lonrninb experiences related to: GUIDING OR i?u‘“n"i‘f(iiCi‘i;\'G i’LTPii..€ IN THE Sil’l’JiC'l‘IUN. CALIF-t Am ('55 ct DHPARiiHRVF FQUIIWfiHii AN) SLHWW.1EC Give a specific example of an' experience vou provided winter A l term hon”: economics studen. teachers which helped them. acixic\N) LiliS tfljjzx:ti\u*. ......-. .- ..... ...___” —. . ————v—r— /____,/ None wo.-—..- v- . (check) [_______/ L._.._./ Two or more ct.— -. - X0118 nu...— -..— Mq-~ / / Two or more . h-..“ \_. - . ~..—.-- *a—rm -. _-.—.-..-..—.- ..— r‘“ , I , ‘ . b1, Ilitl )wsn ptxwx'idtr Villlll‘r ttfrn lzox"e Ltmzch<*r3 avitfz (wxnnnnics sLLuicnt learning cxpcriQnCes YIHIHPJ.L\' 11M NI lYl’iht§ fililfiif‘lCKCJT llfilfils, llCIIREILViS, Péfilfiilfififli :39? hot-1:1 Pmnwiws or meets Am :23“.- LAIING TO THE Ufill TAVGHT Gina: a SptflIiflC tauurplt'rgf 9n ’CxpurionCU you provided winter term home economics Studtni I teaclnérs vdlich Iltliufd tluxn achieve this objective. --.——.-..--- -7- -.. A , .§- (...».....--—.---—~—~..a_.-. 7‘..— 'Klllt‘ -—~.-.. . ,..-.—.o_'* a. w- —.—.--. -.__ —. _h...‘ I I N. Did you provide winter term hone stud'nt teachers with learning experiences related to: ASSUI‘Ilix’G SIX'EI‘I OF THE: RESPONSI- BILITIES OF AN FHA CHAPTER ADVISER. economics Give a specific example of an experience you provided winter term home economics student teachers which helped them achieve this objective. None (Check) *- »—. -.-—-.—.—- 1” _/ I" / -~—p—I.~~_—. One Two or more .. ..s- ...‘ .c—a - -_‘__~._ O.Did you provide winter term home economics student teachers with learning experiences related to: CONTACTING AND/OR WORKING Wild COUNTY ROME ECUNOMISTS 53h AGENCIES RELATED TO FAMILIES WHEN FEASIBLE. Give a specific example of an experience you provided winter term home economics student teachers which helped them achieve this objective. [ / None (check) (“m—7 One 1......27 Two or more -----— wnfi- -\‘- *w—a-‘w-w v..---..o—--~ --..—..~. .. 2M6 Did ou )FOVidC winter term home 0 Y economies student teachers with learning eXperienccs related t»- L‘. . DlZi-iz’lfx'fi'i‘RA'I‘lI‘IG CCU-illii'f'rliiCii Iii 111E lfhihifllfu. SliIlJiS ()F IfiAlfffAlillfk? A HUHE. Give a specific example of an experience you provided winter term home economics student teachers which helped them achieve this objective. (check) .- ~...._ _/___a / .0... a.‘ —-o.-—---- 9.— / / ow-“ - ---—-.- Q.[Hd you provide winter term home economics student teachers with learning experiences related to: ASSISTINC WITH THE PLANN NC UY ACTIVITIES FOR A FUTURE HUHENAKERS OF AMERICA ORCANIZATlON. Civca speciiic example of an experience you provided winter term home economics student teachers which helped them achieve this objective. None One Two or more (check) 1;. -/ 1.-__._.--/ 1..--..__.-/ None One Two or more Rm Did you provide winter term home economics student teachers with learning eXperiences related to: APPLYTNCITTHi(UlARACTlilfiillCS'OF FAE-HLHCS IN THE C()_‘-':.‘il-'t\l'l"t' AND (iiii§l{i{z\l. 'ii{l;i{l):1 l 31 P'Sifil l.\f l.l E'ii l"' AN i'2\.’AI.LiATIHN or THE 'ro'i‘AL HOT-1E ucoxoni :2; moon»; 1. Give a apecific example of an experience you provided winter term home economics student teachers which helped them achieve this objective. (check) 1 7 One ..._Myy Two or more A, _...... ”Ova-m..-- 21+? ‘II|.~_ \\Vv " """"“" ‘rv \'.‘ ,' .u-‘1«v-v‘ m-V r~ . : [humid/hf» AM) bt‘CanhiiLlin FOR 0111111.»! ‘xrfnrru in h... I What do you want your studint teachers to learn about most w1i1e they are sLudcnt teaching? Hen» -a-.~_m-.¢.C lfliut afthMfiHQ of tluf:5trengtru~ and uwudmiesses ()1 the P1;S.U. inane tuxanomics .student teachers when they arrive for student teaching? Strtwig ths. ~ -~ Weaknesses. rations are needed at the University to make 3. What kinds of additional prepar‘ ching? more ready for student tea home economics students 4. How trcquently did you come in personal and/or group contact With th super- teachers and stiuhuit teachers thiring tin: term? vising in mg teachers What is the ideal time a coordinator should spend with supervis and student teachers? ml nt teacht rs visit with the subject matter methods teachers (or 97 5. Should s- during student teachinu. other colic ge of educatiOn Specialists: Yes No wo.‘ Support your answer “W'MJH . Hugo-.. ..._ a“, »--.--O-—a-~.-o Io‘ -.-.._. ”4...... h~--~- M -4 -“M.-wu--_——— «_- --o~‘ an..- “.1. a. ~t~—‘:l- ,, u, ' " ' ‘ -t! A ’."". "1‘. “.'.‘., ' - 1 ‘~ . r - \u- \‘r «r. 1 w [GethLo or wilt L toa-d1nnto1s “axe more coaaun1~ k.‘ ‘- 1 _‘ ' 1V. ‘ 6. ohoUld hUJC.Jl5 L - ( at.it1n chnL.ac ts wi.tr1 tlie szzb je<1t nuxttzer tc12c :1C‘r etajcsltlir at le7 liniw¢a.rsi,t3r than at the present time? 105 No Describe types of contacts needec *- "v-F’w -.- ...4-—-—- u w--.— ..- MA... _. w‘-. 7. What are the Contributions the home economi cs edL:catioz1 5 University can mrne to stude n teaching in hon: econorni 8. What are your most satisfying and dies atis fying experiences as a coordin- ator of supervising teachers and student teachers in home economics? Satisfying ~'_---—-~~~» .‘ —-..--.—_ .- A‘-\--‘—-Iw~“M—n- .._ -.. .-.u .. i. - . . .v , - ‘ _ . ,,_ u-.. ..- _-_. .-_-_.--o~--- ,7- a.-—.r-- Dissatisfying 9. It you were in the tOp decision-making position and had all the resources available to you--time, money, talent, energy, and technology--what would be your description of the ideal home economics student teaching experience? ~C v — M ~C'“. ——-- .——--—--~ —— h ..-,-,,-.__ 7n.- —-....- -.._“H'O- -‘-.- ~~v~m.—»., ~- .. V— — -.~— g...» t, .— —~ ——- -.- ~—._. -x»..._——. o- ‘h- U’iti? APPENDIX G A STUDENT TEACHER APPRAISAL OF THE HOME ECONOMICS STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCE AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Michigan State University ‘ Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum Home Economics Education Study PART I. a. Research Project Funded by: The Division of Vocational Education , State Department of Education Lansing, Michigan A Student Teacher Appraisal of the Home Economics Student Teaching Experience At Michigan State University BACKGROUND INFORMATION. Please complete the following information: Name of school where you student taught *‘flSchool Address Term and year you student taught Undergraduate major Undergraduate minor _w_ With how many supervising teachers were you placed? (check) Did you teach any mixed (boys and girls) home economics classes? (check) Of the home economics classes you taught, what was the approximate number of students in your smallest and largest classes? When you were a high school student, in which grade levels did you have home economics? (check the grade level or levels) How many years were you a member of a high school FHA organization? (check) How many years were you a member of a 4-H organization? (check) 249 one two three or more yes no smallest class largest class no grade level 7th___ 10th_ 8th___ 11th 9th‘__.12th‘___fi none ______ one two three or ._____ more none one two three or _"'”_ more _L. 250 The curriculum areas defllly included in a home economics program in the public schools in Michigan are listed below. To the right are the levels of instruction in the school program where home economics is offered in Michigan schools. Check the curriculum areas you observed or participated in during the student teaching period. Also check those curriculum areas you participated in with any other regular tea- cher in the school system. -‘A"—-- ->~~'-.1 . -. Curriculum Areas In Home Economics Grade Level 7th 8th E 9th 10th llth 412ch'? (1? Child Deve10pment “Adults . (2) Family Life (3) Clothing and Textiles (4) Foods and Nutrition (5) Health and Home Nursing (6) Housing, Home Furnishings and Equipment (7) Home Management (8) Consumer Education space) (9) Education for Employment (Briefly describe in this (10)FHA (11)}Iome Experience Program space) (12)Other: (Briefly list in this A I‘ '7‘ Ihs-\1 II. lt???ll"7- l “. . “*Z . E 'V “ 7f) ’ ” USE-LF‘ALTEZ‘U"? to, .lm‘ "2 77 f ' .;. Direction: Below 37¢ a list of objectives which a n; 3;. of home econom cs tcatlr f rhxcators ha/e Cgreei are nique to More e7'r' --s utt‘4 t teach'ng. Tact | is, student tefithczs .u O'hrr fiLid: .:e net 1n~ volved in acnieiln; tn 7: objective. .3 are to 4 eccxxondxzs s;tu-o."' [W I x; 41‘ 1’7 01/3, 2"] _, ((1 ’QAV {/,/ /7 .,7rJ~///; , 3...; J"! (K; t? .‘ ...- an...-o-.'°‘ "A . c..-“ .t .5 ~l--‘..~.‘ 252 [193310 'fto b .--. -..U-O-v. .- --. __..- -—- -—.. 4 .w -- “coo-W- ‘-..- “a e...- —- - . -..‘q—u F--~ml- “u- “MC-'m‘m w-w'»\---fi aceirvzc t1 LL‘ EL (~ ark» - . .’ l " P r’ “‘0' . 7 ‘ A .A ’ . ' ‘ l L~:&\—o Itldi-Cé’ot-C “"'1 101B]. OI C‘"-t.1,t,'v’..,....'.\.t . .9 . :“~"’\ ""‘~ ' ".~ 7 “ 1‘.‘ ‘ _u 11]: 1214“} ‘II- L' \) 1“. -l’ ‘1‘! "\I 11'1 '7‘.) DK'.>_I_ - ....._~ —\d--~.---.- . _ -. - . .,...,. ...... . /~.\/ 1 ICYlTlK.‘Hil a l.Lft.f¢ h.) E..:;;Ll~ ' ”.--_/ 1--m~—«-/ -~~«m-‘-/ ENCES FOR ADJLls. 0 1 2’3 *“5 home to average Above ave“aze Give a tracific exasple of little to super a student teaclinj exper- L2'% ience which helped vca lifififhifloql- achieve this objective. (If / / . / . . v 1 o n "l ' w I b ' no experience, tnen indicate _jffih'ldvfib ' 1_’/ /{\L :({ C,/N ’ L0 {lflafiéézkcyag this) (,1. 1‘ 877/” r: . IA '5 '7/x7//./;"?/' r.” I ' ” V l - i.‘ . / , f(:7..¢...i- {LeM..CC€4,4c:’/.....-_.-{~.:;f:./177; ’. f? C» 4?. M? r a ' ' 7 [ .7 . .' ' 77.4.4.7 ..iiifitawiw’ _, ,..‘- vlLR'?x.j_~_/.ZZ f" . ”Ag: ’_/I P 2.11%: a“ Cc! fi_..C,.f-.: Q-J/m fi/ZL‘Z L ‘7 ‘k****‘k*******‘k PLEACE RhSPUHJ TO BOTH PARTS OF EACH ITEM BFLON: A. Indicate your level Of ACHIEVEHENT LEVEL (check) achievemer r in: VISITING ._””___. __.. _.__- A SCHOOL LUNCH laosehm TO £___i_w/ [...___/ 1, / ANALYZE ITS REI Alinusarp 0'1 2’3 4'5 TO 1“E D? PARIMEHI None to Average Above average little to superior Give a Specific example of a Student teaching ex- perience which helped you achieve this objective. (If no experience, then indicaurz this _ ' _" ‘. .u- ~—.---.o -——-.——.. ,- row—‘9’-" ..——- -~-‘.—~.-.- ‘ B. Indicate your level OI ' achievement in: PLANNI‘ AND PROVIDLSG LEI"’ “" \l\¢)J_k‘U E"i’i§R filCHS L’bhu ON ‘M!\}IIIJFI’1A (lf‘ 'iilfl fiESE’ZLIZ- SEnTATIVE TVPES 03 FAA LIES Iii T153 CCLEJ'NLESS. Give a sy>e c'fie cznmple of a stL deg C Czeching eir perience \L izh help~i you achieve this objective. ,.._.—-- -“ .- o unfit. “on—”sq— / IMHO-.. c. i._,._.,,,,...__/ I”... ._.- J H 1 '0—1 2~3 A»: Gone to Avert Above av-:nge little to superiwr own-mm‘ "new. ‘va-o’ m 0“--.“ . g.“ _— -TING INTO TEACHING PLANS AND ACllVlfI ES Y“On,L DCE FROM RELEVATTI DISCIPIJI ES AnD FIELDS AS I'i IOCUSZS ON FAMILY L IFE . Give a specific exanple of a student teaching x- perienee which helped you achieve this objective. (If no experience, then indicate this) (l,f 110 e*:p<7ri,e:1c¢:, tizeii indicate this) - , fl “_ 4_ _w .“_ ACHTEVEKiNT LEVEi (check) C. Indicate your level of " "‘ " achievement in: INTEGRA- "m“ - " 1......” W7 [...___1 0- 2-3 None to 1...... __/ 4-5 Above average to superior Average D. Indicate your level of achievement in: APPROACHING A LESSON VISUALIZING THE RELATIONSHIP OF TOPICS TO THE ‘EANING AiD QUAI ITY OF FAMILY LIFE Give a Specific exanp ole of a student teaching ex- perience which helped you achieve this objective. (If no experience, then indicate this) L~—-~a— m..- u- A l§ ACIIIEV’BEENT LE VEL (Check) _/.___..__...__/ L_._.J / M... 0-1 2-3 4- 5 .a—v ..I u.- .4 94!- None to Average Above average little to superior w-o-.\uu-s-u-v-——.'— F- ., atmmgnv--. w-w—.-—~y c—F...‘ ~-~~ -_-. E. Indicate your leW. aclli-ev(‘:zr";nt in: I?" 1:1“ IKtETIiXS I‘M; Dil.lififhi- PROGR/fii'.UJ 1H3 CfsqlLJII' T”7OUGH EOXE VISIIS, EL" . PLRIESCF‘ VITA F, E IN coezm Iv, EZT;’Z!'-‘,Zi'.-7 DU'JIG.J ‘ Give a of a. stud? perienee wl. achieve this cg indicate this ) ‘Wfi‘vhw-_cmov—~-——W w” “on.” ~a- un- .- o .. 25h. AGH IEI m— ,w—u-o j / _ -_-~——._.~—-‘-.o O-l Hone to little u... ..“-M yvs—r- -y\ 1,.J.I LEVTL (check) '- .—..—o—— .--a / - -/ j: ‘/ --.F-- nan—w"... w-‘fl—aum 2"3 4~5 . .,. \ .» w .. Ewezdge Aoove average to superior mm...“ - u- .1 . _.- M-u.a.m—a v ~o~o~u c‘.‘ r...»- om-n-m F. Indicate your level of achieve a nt in: SUGGESTING AND GUII )ING PUPILS TO PLAN FOR HOME: EXP IRIFI'ICES AJD HELPING LVALUATE LEARPHITG S. Give a Specific ezr arple of a student teaching ex- perience which helped you achieve this objective. (If no experience, then indicate this) 0. Indicate your level of achievement in: EVALUATING FHA PKPBQIF“""9 IN A LOCAL SIIU\fl J. Give a Specific example of a SCUGi nt teaching perience which helped you achieve this (If [10 (7":‘1 1? indicate tl.!£) objective. 0 Lenee, tilerx L..— -.--. , ACEIIEV’EFEN" 1:1-..J 0 ~ 1 ~J‘I - LEVEL (check) "m OI-a-I-c -‘—.-..- / / L. ...___J ”...___.“ 4 —5 2-3 None to Averc 3e Above average little to superior ACH IEVLL‘IEL'l' LEV {1L 1....-.“7 0-1 .L_.__.../ Leg—:7 2*3 4~5 ~- sn»-¢—-—., None to Ave age Above average little to superior ex~ 255 Indicate your level of achievement in: PLANNING AND CARRYING OUT THOUGHT-PROVOKING, PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITIES ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) RELATED TO THE REALISTIC CON- Nogelto AV:;: e Abo:;5avera e CERNS THE PUPILS HAVE FOR FAMILY . g . g little to superior LIFE. Give a specific example of a __. student teaching experience which helped you achieve this _' objective. (If no experience, then indicate this) fi_ I. Indicate your level of ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) achievement in: INTERPRETING THE OBSERVATIONS OF ONE OR MOPE HOME —--—- -—-—-- --———- \ Z / z / Z / VISITS. 0-1 2-3 4-5 Give a specific example of a None to Average Above average student teaching experience little to superior which helped you achieve this objective. (If no experience, then indicate this) Indicate your level of achievement in: INTERPRETING RESULTS OF HOME VISITS, CON- FERENCES, CLASS CONTACTS AS A MEANS OF INCREASING UNDER- STANDING OF PUPILS, FAMILIES AND COMMUNITY. Give a specific example of _a student teaching experience which helped you achieve this objective. (If no experience, then indicate this) ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) 1L_.___/ 1______/ 1L_____/ 0-1 2-3 4-5 None to Average Above average little to superior 256 Indicate your level of achievement in: USING A DEPARTMENT BUDGET IN PLANNING FOR LEARNING EXPERIENCES AND KEEPING FINANCIAL RECORDS. Give a specific example of a student teaching experience which helped you achieve this objective. (If no experience, then indicate this) ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) / / O-l None to little / / 2-3 Average Z / 4-5 Above average to Superior Indicate your level of achievement in: GUIDING OR INSTRUCTING PUPILS IN THE SELECTION, CARE AND USE OF DEPARTMENT EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES. Give a specific example of a student teaching ex- perience which helped you achieve this objective. (If no experience, then indicate this) ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) / / 0-1 None to little / / 2-3 Average Z_______/ 4-5 Above average to superior Indicate your level of achievement in: VERBALLY IDENTIFYING SIGNIFICANT NEEDS, INTERESTS, PERSONAL AND HOME PROBLEMS OF PUPILS AND RELATING TO THE UNIT TAUGHT. Give a Specific example of a student teaching experience which helped you achieve this ' objective. (If no experience, then indicate this) ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) Z / 0-1 Z / 2-3 Z / 4-5 Indicate your level of achievement in: ASSUMING SOME OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF AN FHA CHAPTER ADVISER. Give a specific example of a student teaching ex- perience which helped you achieve this objective. (If no experience, then indicate this) ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) / / / / Z / 0-1 2-3 4-5 None to Average Above average little to superior Indicate your level of achievement in: CONTACTING AND/OR WORKING WITH COUNTY HOME ECONOMISTS AND AGENCIES RELATED TO FAMILIES WHEN FEASIBLE. Give a Specific example of a student teaching experience which helped you achieve this objective. (If no experience, then indicate this) ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) Z______/ Z______/ / / 0-1 2-3 4-5 None to Average Above average little to superior Indicate the level of achievement in: DEMONSTRATING COMPETENCE IN THE ESSENTIAL SKILLS OF MAINTAINING A HOME. Give a Specific example of a student teaching ex- perience which helped you . achieve this objective. (If no experience, then indicate this) ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check Z / Z / 1L__,___/ 0-1 2-3 4-5 None to Average Above average little to superior 258 Indicate the level of achievement in: ASSISTING WITH THE PLANNING OF ACTIVITIES FOR A FUTURE HOMEMAKERS OF AMERICA ORGANIZATION. Give a Specific example of a student teaching experience which helped you achieve this objec~ tive. (If no experience, then indicate this) ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) / / / / / / 0-1 2-3 4-5 None to Average Above average little to superior Indicate your level of achievement in: APPLYING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF FAMILIES IN THE COMMUNITY AND GENERAL TRENDS IN FAMILY LIFE TO AN EVALUA- TION OF THE TOTAL HOME ECONOMICS PROGRAM. Give a specific example of a student teaching ex- perience which helped you achieve this objective. (If no experience, then indicate this) ACHIEVEMENT LEVEL (check) .1..___.___/ _/__.___.__/ L____/ 0-1 2-3 ' 4-5 None to Average Above average little to superior 3. . ' < , A -< ’u I ,. v w ~ -’ v-. '\ , ‘ , « r< o ‘ i a -\ . f — ~‘ ‘ ‘ - ‘ »‘ ,\ ., . ‘ .~ , , y, . ,Y , L . ‘ _ , ‘ ‘7- ' . . W" ‘ ' _ , ‘ M. [4]“ T L, n‘ ‘. f‘ l‘ ’ . l,‘..‘> l - \-l f 1 » ‘ ‘ ' ‘ ’ \ p. |.\ '\‘ I' T ;|£ \ f . ‘ f‘ i 3 r. r‘ 7A? V 'H _, l ' . I j , ( ~— A.\.! .-o E‘ 1.‘.‘.‘ ’_. v'-' 7 , u. l '.'- .J ’«‘~. A ’ ‘. ‘v -’ ' .._‘_. .\- "~l _I_ _ I. . _. 'J .- u..-“ r.“ - "m- w.- ~--v- - —- ..- .— - --..,. 1“ ‘u—.— u ‘W*u——- ——-- _- ~.~-_ 9 .. 1.; -.._qwi- -.—.~ —~ .mrM ' 1'1 ‘ 1" ‘- '— "1 -' -‘ , . . r ‘ V v.v _. ”VA 73 (.y o‘v \' ‘ j '1‘. 1"} v1 r V , ,1 - i ‘Jnglt ('._'..( you ‘\ Unit L0 L3.“ “cw -71. i.‘.\}u. ".11L x, juu V.‘ L\, .wLLLLt L.::t\-.u.'..t ,. O n ' I ”mp-~-—‘ -- w o. —- .— e d .4; I. .- 0 'r-v .— --.-.-— cannw—gn ‘¢-A‘-—"A-,‘t.*‘-."-Vpr -| .o-- - _ w~-s*-o,a.lv~<“ .4 I n W u”w-~n---——4—”n-~ouc-—nr-Q- >rr~--——-o~v~— . \v I“w&cq«fih~fifl-‘“~ “gromm‘MWdD—nh-fiJo—“M I-ut M.“‘v‘~-.fl~;w .-Q ~.-— .4.--.¢—‘d‘-——-.‘~ v__ _..’. v:-.~ --c‘ ‘-.‘. ‘fi- ”w”-h A ~aa—cwa- “Mu»‘ i.‘hu_A-o-s.-vo- -v-FII-AC‘ - ‘-.a m .a 0*. ...ga—u. — va. Wham“. gm oM‘s—y.-w.~ a... hit-HM). . .N...‘ A‘o-k» flan-raw ul-a a...” - ‘r~ .— - r (- v‘vo‘r‘ -\ ' ~ ‘p‘r’r‘ «’ v . ‘P 1‘ -' i “ ‘c ‘ "‘0 'F- 'I' '. What were some oi year st gins and Jfiinficm ‘S as a home LCOHOJLC~ stule‘ V \. teacher when_ygg ergiyca for student caching? u Strengths_ _- _.”... ”my.” -meuw ...m or- awh-WWWL—H Weaknesses _“_ ..v nuance—‘r- What kinds of additional preparations do you more ready for student teaching? -- t -2 1- v—a ,A - ..-.-‘ (Tex thin.“ “.t-‘L‘iC,’ lth: {have How frequently did you come in personal and/or group contact with the college coordinator during the student teaching term? -.-,-. ---~v‘.—‘ -« .- «o :Q-nvcaov—n... .-. - - ,. .-.-~—.¢ a." --—--~ 4- ...o...-...‘ --.....- Was this the "right" amount of ti .tze, considz-tzring your own pérsonal student teaching situation? Yes No “__.- Support your answer m - «nfi- “W cm -~-o- .a «um»- noon-o... .~‘.-.-.nmw«-~~ no- “u mhmww . on ~ 0‘...”— lknq frequently did you and your supervising teacher in 25-.“ matters and class planning? (i.e. min./dey or hours/week) an effectiv " . ‘ ' ' "' . "\ ‘ . ‘ .“ . ‘ {V V"- v ‘ “ fis- ~ ,- "y' j N 1“ vuw fl 1‘ A ,‘ EJas txiis entouggl tiEL- CCULSiflbeilnu3‘7vb1 kJCLbk. El IlcuCa) t;vi atnzceixls? Y ‘Y 198 no 0 ‘ .“«-~. ..ro Support FORE answer “.m“~.~.- ~« a.» c ”w.. nun..- ”_u'. Am-.. .—-. 0-.....M. ._._ ‘ Did you ever want to vi college home s talk over student teaching matter with the cc L, L :3 education staff) during ;3 teacher (or other college hos student teaching? Yes NO Q“ ‘~‘- o-t"\- w).- 'v . fi '- -—-_. w.“ -. -. - A‘—.dI—- -—-. -..- —m—uw -.a. ”c Did you ever want to visit or talk over concerns with the university academic advisor during the student teaching term? Yes No If yes, please describe ..v.-‘1~-, e', c— .——..l, . .- __.,u u..-...» _.-... . ‘-. \w-”——p-.'-‘-y‘m..~rc-1*-‘pv‘.,~or~ .- -‘v. u"...- .< What were your most satisfying and dissatisfying experiences as a student teacher? Satisfying___ __. __m 7* ....“u I D chsutisfyina o _— u -o—---1~a , s u. - ..-a -.-.--.4 ".JIW >4 4.. ..-D"-Mdc~t.lb~~-DI~ . ‘v--—MM“—- Li.” _ W'— M \‘Q If you could change the student teaching experience in any way you wanted and had all the resources available to you -~ time, money, talent, energ' ,, technology, power position -- how would you set Up e home economics student teaching program? m ..‘u-‘w‘q- gap—v... -..qg... ”__p-o. n.“— {M 1‘. e .- _ ~m.-~..-<~--~'Crmv—---.-I-h--—-.~-—mlv. W~A-"-~o~——v.... . ...w - ~ u—wno—r-g— xii-- ..o - »- ¢«.p._..~—‘ w..~--~ ~—-a .."a; r--.-..—a~\.--r~.- -'-,-..»‘. - .v‘J‘Q—mxuv—«rrvmr-¢o~‘-~s .. - as .. v .. -.. 4 ..~ -_,.... - .- “L. -. ww”-..——.~———-——--- --—- '— .7...— W". _u—un—o -.—n——-—o-—...-_u— APPENDIX H TYPES OF LEARNING EXPERIENCES IDENTIFIED AND NUMBER OF UNIVERSITY COORDINATORS, HOME ECONOMICS SUPERVISING TEACHERS AND HOME ECONOMICS STUDENT TEACHERS WHO INDICATED THE EXPERIENCES WERE PROVIDED FOR ACHIEVING THE UNIQUE HOME ECONOMICS STUDENT TEACH- ING OBJECTIVES 261 Ame .ucoEuuomoo cease: noon 080: and) noduoaouuoo on usn woo-«x0 aduvoum cocoa socx .oa adv .Edumoum on» vendoamxo and canoes». cu amowam @0302» adeOuQ gonad mo wooa>ummam .a Adv .EdumOHQ gonna doozou :« nouuawofluuoa coauauusz ecu cocoa ca maamsm .m .HV .nocsa Hoonom ca «mauono onwuamwu mm: magmGOAuuHmu aaco .5 Adv .oaumumwmo Hoocon Eouw moAHQQSm menu a: ooxuflm .o AHV .muonumou moHEocooo 0&0: uwnuo H.60»«:U:a new wfluwuoumo owuflmfi> .m Adv .uchuummmU Ou vmuoaou admnOHo mm: Emuooua cocoa Hoocum .v Avv .ofluoumwmu Ca mud .m Rev .aaamsudu maco maumuoumo oouama> .m Andy .Uo>aoomu mucmflummxm meacumma 02 .H .ucoEuummoo ecu ou mmanmcoHumHou muH oNxaucm Ou Edumoum conga Hoonom a muamfl> AN. .ucmfiuummoo muHEocoum wEo: ecu Edumoum cocoa cmozumn cofluuwccou oz Adv .oaumuoumo can cocouax on» mucmosum one oo3ocm can mmoao :H mucwosum Ou noxaou uOmH>ummsm LUCDH Hoocum .Hv .mfluoumumo Eouw mmaamaom msamusm ucoficuo>om a: omxoflm Adv .mcfluoouo usond cunoa ou nauseoumu Ou use: Hocumou mcflmfl>ummom new uwnomou ucoosum Amy .moa>umm new mocmE ooumsam>m .uozommu meama> Iuwmsm cua3 owxamu .maumumuoo um wu< Amy .m~>amcm uo: flap was cmnouax can mfiuouommo woodma> honowwu ucmvsum Romy .Umofl>0ua mocmfiuwaxw mchummH 02 .H Aav .maumuowoo nu“: mflnmcowum~mu omoHu nonmfianmumm .mo«>uwu o00w Ca moucmauomxo anecdummsooo owumaou ozone nocummu ucoosum no“: commoomao “av .Eoumoua amouxmwnn xuauuwc:« ou mHQSUflwu UCQUDUW WOMEOCOUQ WEOZ Ucwm Amv .mauwuoumo ocu oucfl mumcomou ucmvzum confine Away .omofl>oum oucwfluomxo meacumoa 02 .H .4 m>auomflno Aomuzv uumnumwe acoo3um ecu >3 om>flouom moucwquomxm wo moaxe Aomuzv eumcumoe meama>uoasm mofiEocoum mEom ecu we omofl>0um mwucmaummxm Mo mmmaa Romnzv enoumcfiouoou xufimum>aca on» an owofl>oum moocwfiuomxm wo mom>e .mm>auoonno mcfinumme ucmosum manocoom oEoz waves: on» mca>oanum HOw UwUH>ouQ mumz mwocmaummxw mnu Umumoflocfl 0:3 mumzomou ucmflsum moHEocooo 0502 new muwcumwu mcflmfl>uoa3m moHEocouo 0&0: ‘mMOumcfiouooo xuamuo>flcs wo uwnfidc new omawaucmofl mmucmauoaxw meacumma wo moaxenn.a.: mqmde 2652 Any .dandawu>u nowuwcsuuommo uo nomhu can nummuouca 0» mafia: wound Imu .uwcs unanomou n mcwccmam :H .Hv .cw a: 3oum an auachEoo wo wmhu oeum Adv .uucoumm uonuo saw: Bin» can 28: 9393 a 033; Adv .uoabuncnma a ou and .maou um xooH ou wuouu a ou .uao>oa mcwmsos ucouomwwo ouameoo Ou mwuu vamwu o emaanm AH. .mowzmaumoHnousu much: adamsm Age .050: «o anewuwocoo co noxamu van .mcw Isooum .vOOu oooma one aeocouumm co vmxauu umxmomn wouDOmom A~v .uouooou Hoonou nmxoono an. .huwcdiaou :« oaoocw omuuo>a ou neocowuomxo mcacumoa oummu QC .030: scum mawun ou wand anon on case) awn» mamwuouda mouaomou uo Godonu vo3oHHu ouoz uaflmam Am. .umefiEdw wEoocw umzoa van oumoz co mafiomou Hmwowmm can Amy .umnommu mnema>uwm3m nuw3 quCSEEoo cw newHwEdm oommsomflo Amv .o0>flmoou mocowuumxo mcwcumma 02 on» :w mmwaflsdu mo mmmhu o>flumucomwumwu on» uo mmoma30cx co comma mmocmwuomxu mcflcumma moow>oum 6cm madam .NH .HH .OH .@ .m Adv .umcommu madma>umasm saw: owmmsomao new mmocowuwmxo ocflcuuma oocccam museum» ucoozum .me .mououao muoummcoo> on» oooumuooca can huflczeeoo 050: um: mxwa xuwcseeou Adv .xuflcdaeoo cw oo>fld uwcomou unmosum Amy .mmcfiumwe ucoumm no cw umm Rococo» ucoosum A~e .muaa saaemM m.awmsm ansow>wocq usonm Amoflnmmum IofiQOusmv wuwmccofiumoav m ovummmum Amv .maflmsm oo>uwmno can :uflz omxamu nonowou unmooum Avv .muonmCDOO sud: madman mo mouoomu ooxoonu Adv .muoummczom nonuo Suez nonucoo cw memo mawazm when: mmfiuu namfim umccwam «no .muoauumao mzoaum> canons» moon nonomou unmooum Adv .>uw::aeoo cfi moaaflfidw no menu» Quad zuumommu 0v nonomou uconoum omummmmsm umcoomu madmw>ummsm any .umnommu mcflma>ummsm Eouw coHumEMOMCw oo>wmumu umzonou unwosum Adv .oooa>oum oocmfluomxm mcficumma oz .NH .HH .oa Amy .uw on ou xmo wamnlmco nuwz muwmw> 0802 coon: Amy .mcHuGGE 48m ncmuuo ou nonommu acmooum ovmousoocm Adv .ucmosun a mo hogan undo m confiswmm AHV .EooummmHo may cachon mmflufl>auum mumnomou acmosuu nozonm Any .AmuoumuumflcwEUn Hoonom .muoHomcsoo oocdeam ..o.av mmmHo HMCMEmm ou oxomm oamoom wouDOmom Amy .moflufi>«uom huflcseeoo cw mummfiofiuuma on mumnooou unocsuu coon: AN. .xuwcseaoo ca moomHm maoflum> ou moms mum: mmwuu vamflm Adv .ooofi on hogan auacdaaoo u so vmuuomou Honomou unwooum comm Amy .auwnsEEoo on» omusoe flay .muwcdesoo uo mum3m Ham: ma 0:3 nonummu a Spa: nonumou unmosum vmomam “my .mconmsUmfio nonfiEmm CH mowumfl numuomumso quCSEEoo usond vmxame Adv .oooa>oum wocowummxo mcwcumma oz .muwcoEEoo .NH .HH .OH .9 .m .m o>auumfino “ 263 was ..:o«uno=v0 no. .u:o&mo~o>ov adage .ocauaon. anon: meanooou Houo>ou :« condo: vascuoxoan nowuwcwess cad .uud .auoHozoaun .wooHOMOOm 13 £330.30- ..o.> Joann .oooancau ...A.hv cacao was» new cacao Hono>oo ca unannou own any .vo>«ooou conceauomxo mcacuuofl oz no nonsoou ufl as noaofiw van nonwamwowwo ucm>mamu Eouw mmomazocx mwwufl>auum AA. .ooua ouaa-saaauu ca maneuoc van V Adv .mnuao no: :4 on: on: No mmmavumuou unusuu can kuuHDEMOM woomuau no: :0wuoouwu was» aw Emumoum Adv .AmcHnuoaov Huova>wvcw no easy wco ou couuouwo noocouuwmxo unacknoq Adv .QOHuwaucw haco can: AA. .owmou can» no oaum acuucadfiduna an uzosnu on: uonoaou oocowon Aawuou new: mflnmocwfium Adv .Qamn Hosow>wvca co>wm one: unmanned 30am .n .N .H .ma .ha .wa .vH .ma Huauoucs wou50mou Avv .mommmao meanomou cw venoum Ixuun xmoHonommm can amoHOMUOa com: Adv .mCOmmoH ouummum on uwcwamaomav uonuo aouu owns nozuumu ucovzum Ave .oouw>oum neocowummxm mcwcumma oz Adv .uwnommu madmfi>uomnm saw? menu mmsumflu uo: pan nonomwu ucwnzum AHV .mumuwmcdo> unannoumumocs :« woaowuomxo can @060 Iazocx nuuMEAH on: Honomou unmosum AH. .muwcoaaoo :ua3 uomucoo uoouwv oz Adv .mmnao cw Doggone» nosounu mafimsm mo max» on» ownaauou use acme Iowan w>fiuomn25m cums Honomou unmosum Ame .sflamsea>aoca mafimsm sud: owxuo3 umzomou ucuosum 6cm .ha .va .MH AA. .umcaamaomau Hague o» mmwnw:o«uoaou oo3ocu vac sooouama >umcwamaonwuuoucw can: AH“ .uuoumo:=o> mo ouwa auaouoccfl on» no ooucwmoum acwuouua wagonom Am“ .ooo«>oum noocofluomxo mcflcumoa oz .ouaa saaeuu Manda mcfinomwu oucfl monouooucH va .uocefimm :« mcofimmoomwn maoum ooEu0m awesome» unmosum muaeocouo 0E0: Adv .maoanoum ucovsum usond mumnomou acoooun sud: oocouomcoo Adv .uoucoo :« «Hoonou uonuo noufluw> uononou vcoosum AN. .nauanoum unonm mamoom Hoonon cu onwxanu mafia came» 0» an: nonoaou acoooum AHV .ooonuonzmwo: onu ca manomm no max» mnu mo cuckoo“ uwsummu ucwosum . muwflflflucoo .o o>auowflno .OH .ma .va .m& .m m>auomnno Aomuz. :Hmzomws ucoosum on» >2 o0>fiwumm moucmwuwmxm mo momms Aomflzv eumzomme mcflmw>ummsm mowaocoom GEO: on» us oon>oum mmocwHuwaxm Ho mmmhe Aomnzv «Houmcaouooo huwmuw>wc3 on» an noofl>oum moocofiuomxm mo momxe .om::«u:00uu.~.m mqmde 2654 Adv .Eoou Immmao ecu HOM mmcwcumoa Hmofluomum can Howmcflcdoa mo mucouuanw .HV .uacs a AN. .ouua u0u mwfluw>wuom Houmcwauoe ou voumHou mamaumume uo zuowum> m can moan one commouun Mucous» mcwmw>uomsm .v ocfluwuz con: uwnumwu accosum ounomou .v aflocfium mcficccam Huuocoo voucmmoum .v AH. AHV Adv .momcuco HedoOm can huflnoumn .uonomou acousum mnu ou omcaaamxo ma .ocflnuoHo mcwgooou no uooooum ..o.m .oufla >HHEdu usonm moose ocwunuwmo aw Mucous» unwoauu nods: umn a on: mafia aafleau uo zuwamso .n uuouou ucmuuso com: nonooou acousum .m CH nHm>wH oweocoom can Hausuasu .m zomv ANV .mawmsm _ Amav .mowwc maaedu .mucmooum ecu no mmaaasdu onu ou omuma Hams» uo momma 0:» van ou madam .maflmsm on» ou accumma wounded .N sou mcommma coccmam uonomou ucmoaum .m zmcflnowmuv oxms awesome» ucoooum .N Amy Am. .om>wmomu mocofluomxo acacumoa oz .H AHV .omow>oum oocmfluomxo mcflcumoa oz .H .omofl>ouz moocofiuoaxo mcflcumoa oz .H .omwa xHMEdm uo xuwamov one mcflcuoe on» o» mowmou mo mflnmcoHumHou on» meauaausmfl> 30mmma m monomoummd AN“ .mmoum .o m>auomflno “Hg .uo3mcm oz .m mEom cw Mounds uooflQSm so“: mudoomcH .m Adv .oome unawumuwnw> use: .m Amy .mowEocoom mac: Amy .uonumou unmosum >2 condo: AHV .oouc nomnndm canuwz Hogans uoonndn vmuoaouuoucm .m mum: mafimsm uo memanoum Hmwoomm .m mocha ca mxuoz nonouou ucoooum .m ANV .ucma tmoHo>mn oaflno no .m:«nuo~o .mUOOM Amy .mmmao ou omumHUH Adv nachon onflnuhcm mo coflucwe oauuflq .n can mwocmwummxo HmCOmuom co keno .5 .Hmc«Eom Ca mamoom mounommu no was .5 Amy .ouwa mafiemw ou Am. .mHMHuoumE oUHJOmou cue: nm3oocm Adv .meooummMHU acquosVOuu:a uuonm a How 05%» maco .w one oomum>laam3 no: umnumou ucoozum .w nonuo uwmw> o» no: Honomou unwosum .w .H. pauses .mucoosum Bonn anus: omummu Amy .ucofl uHcd hhocsma a Ca new amoH0an ANS .mmmmMau o» vmouowcwou .COHum>Auoa .mcwccmHm nu“) coMumuoanHoo a“ ucmswummxm mmuzmmmum aflaUOm can .moomc newumusvo . commoa .coflunuwcsfiaoo .uow>mnmn you a com: acauwuus: :0 van: a cu .m uQEdmcoo .Hm>ma oaeocoom nouuoccou .m does: 0» nmuoaou mo>wuoonno umc«8om .m Anv .mCflhsn umfidmcoo can .mowumcmm can huwooumn .xuoonu :Owuoououcw msoum .m3mH ucflmoxocm VOOM .muXmu guano: .uonommu Hoozom hummus: .uoxuoz AmeOm .omuac .mEoumso Hounuaso tmuoxmmmm .mEAfiu AHHS .cofluwuusc .oocmcflw .mcwmno: .moauMEmnqu emwam “my .mmocououcoo Hmsvw>woca unmocfiaawomwo can mmoH30mmu pound new con: Bonn .uwc: mcflnomou cH .v no unawmmaomwo umcwfimm cw mmcaam uaoman acmuouuan 0:» on nouuaum .. (Museum and .coaumonom nuawonltmmcwam tHoch can mmUHDOmmu vmumawu com: sown .v .vosc«ucoo .U m>fluomnno 265 Adv .uom xvoouao no: Edna Adv .uonouou Adv .uonomou ucoooum scum on» .auw:=EEoo co unouum oz .N ucoosum nufl3 mcofluomuo>coo uoouao .m Sufi: moocouowcoo ansofi>accw nmzounh .N Away Amav .Uo>wooou oucowuomxo ocficuooa oz .H Away .ooo«>oum oucowuoaxo mcficumoa 02 .H .ooow>oum oucowuomxo mcwcuuofl oz .H .mouo czouc30o :a nuanH:Xo .huwcdeaoo Cw nxauu .mucouom nufl3 moocowuoaxo .muflm«> oeon :msouzu >uaC:EEoo on» 0» Edumoum m.ucoauummoo on» ououmuoucH .m o>auoonno .Hv .oaooummoau nozuo oouflmw> uonooou ucououw .HH Adv .couflaflno EoHQOuQ Amy .moHHHEMm .wucoosum usono ouOE can ocflamuomfio monomwo 0» AH. .uo3mco oz .oa cumoa Ou m>o>usm now: nocooou ucoosum .oa nocanm ou oEoo mucouom oEom .oa ANS Amy .moHHHEdw .mucoo:um mo mooxofi ocmumuooco no: can :« manQOum oumaou Ou woodmmsumao .mucoosum o» mdacmcoouoaou zaflEdw ma“ Adv .mcommoa unacGMHQ Hosea .mosvflczuou mcaxoaa oaou vows .m tumaou >uasufiwmao no: Hozuoou ucoooum .m afl >~Hm50w>wvcw ucooaum umwmm< .o Adv .ouaa xaflfiou xuaaosv ou AHV .Eoumoum noduoosoo Howoomm aw mmflnm:0aumaou vcflzozm ommusouco AHV .mooo: xaflaou mcfiuooawou .oamoom mucouom mo oaou one and noduoosoo uoc new uonooou mcfimfi>uomsm one .m oousomou xufl:SEEou pom: nonomou ucoosum .m Hmfloomm ou vouo>oo ow unawaom oco .m Adv .ouHH .Hv .OCHzooou :H xcm0m0aflnm Adv .mcflccoam :0mmoa 6:0 xafiEdw wo muuoawo 302m 0» oEo: mono wououmouca one owHH xHanw wagon .mGOaumoflcdesoo .uo«>ocon ewes: oawco>sn Eouw cemuoa o0u20mou wow: .5 co >ufluoflum no“: noomam Honuwou ucooaum .5 Cu oumaou mo>fluoonno nonanm .n .HV .omaa AH..moouo Edasoauuoo nonuo Ham xaafiou usonm mmcflcu oouomflofiunoc: “NE .uonooou ucovsum sud: cOmmoH ou mono Estofluuso sumo ooumHom .m ooumHou mcoHummuo>coo Hchmqu cmsoune .w oo>nomno no cowmmsomflo Hmsofi>fiocH .m 3 $253 ozu Qua: uxoucou ch Axon Hmuaums Iona .mmsuov ca ooumououcH ouo3 Aag .uocomou HHV .muoummc30> mo owaa xuaouocca mafimsm ozu muHQOu xcmE oommDUmflm .m ucoosum Ou maofluoumfi mcaomou voucomoum .m :0 Hofluoumfi mcwvmou ooucomoum .m voscfiucoo .a o>wuuoflno Smuze Smuzu . Smnze .uocomoe ucoonum euonumoe mcamfi>uomsm moflEocoum oEom auoumcaouooo zuwmuo>fica on» an oo>Hooom moocofluomxm uo momze ocu >9 UoUH>0Hm moocowuomxm wo momma on» zn noofi>oum moocowuomxm uo momha .ooscflucoolu.a.= mam<9 266 Amv .uuoo xoa Soon .onouvuoz :30 uwonu ouuoam>o ou madman vouasvom .q Avv .cofiuosau>o .mucouoa suds oocowuoaxo oeon a ooow>oum .m Amv .cso Noon» :0 on unufla oawadm on» nuoomoum voumoounm .N Ava. .ooocowuomxo oson o>un uoc vac .H .mmCAGuooa Ade .meo: m.ucmosum omuumw> .m AH. .uanfl£Xo uoummm auwcnssou a one: .m Adv .meoumoua auHCDEEoo wonuo vouwmw> .5 Adv .auwcoafioo one cw >HHo5u0mcw oamoom ou ooxaoh .m Aav .xaou COAuou Icowuo ucouom ooouo now no o>mo .m Ame .Eonu 0» scum loam oocfimamxo use muacnaeou on» CH oamoom oousomou home so noaaou .v Ase .mUCwuooE 48m .zoonunda uuomoo .moucouomcoo uonooou ucouom .omzoc como no mucouom ou noxaoe .m Amy .ouoonoum oEon oounsao>o can voccoam Honooou usoonum any .couoaflzo wcw>uomn0 tmuoouwo can muonuofi Mow mucus» mcaxoe .mUOOw 3o: mewxoe .mcw3om .muo3ouu onwcooau “oeog on macaquoom 3o: who madman communooco uonooou ucovsum Away .oonw>oum oocofluomxo oEoc oz ouosao>o undo: can moocofluomxo oaon new zvV .ouamw> oEon .moocowuomxo oEo: mchcoHQ .oaamsm mo mooumoum ocflouom no» mucouom coconm Honooou ucoosum Adv .eouooum moaeocooo oeo: Hoozom :Hmamxo ou Homomm3oc how oHUAuuo ouwus ou uonomou ucoosuo oomwusoocm “NV .mofluw>wuoo Hoonom mo poo Homcomm condo: uonooou ucoooum AHV .auACSEEoo one co uoowwo oEOm on: one xuwcss tEoo ozu cw oo>wH uonomou ucoosum one «Hg .mofluflaanfimaommou Hon oocfioamxo uocooou uconsum on» .mcfluoofi .oucouom u< «Hg .mommocfimsn ecu mowuumoocfl amuoH no“: muonucou once uonomou ucoooum Amv .moocououcoo Honuoouiuzoumm .moou ucouom .omson :omo .mmCHuooE dam cw vouomwofluuom Honomou ucovauw .N .H :mHQ Ou mawmsm moowsm can mumommsm Adv .uonooou ucoosum suds oocououcou Honow>wocH Adv .cofimosoown maoum no ouo muonooou ucoosuo nowsocooo oson ouon3 occunmaomwo uncflsom Adv .mowuw>wuoo unaccoam cw oo>ao>nw madman uom o» Honooou unoosum vomouaoocm Away .ooo«>oum oocowuomxo mcflcuooa oz Adv .mououo :30» ca muwnanxo you ou uonomou ucovsum uomounoocm Adv .mmcwuooa mucouom Ono muwcseeou coccouuo uonooou ucocsum .HV .xuacdasoo ou Edumoum measomou ucoooum cououmuoucfl uononou acovsum Amy .mouoon aauoaasn mcfioafizn Hoonoo oma ou oomouoooco mm3 uonooou ucoosum Adv .mucoenmwanoumo Hmooa on many vaoww ocofi uonooou ucovsum Avv .mucoumm uoE new mmcfluooe 49m oovcouuo uonooou ucoooum .ooSCMucoo .N .H .m o>auomflno .m .m m>auuonno 1‘57! 267 Ana. .ocdoumxoon :30 nonoowm 3:00 .maamsm .coMoAflno uo>uomno .annoum oat nosumw uco>oaou oommsomaa .Hc .muaa adage“ some» do: can Amy .oo>flouou oocowuomxo unwcumoa oz maamoa ocu mcuoocou uflumwaoou on» 0» noumaou moaufi>fluoo mcM>H0mIEoHnouQ .mcflxo>oumlucmsozu uso mofiuuoo van madam Ame .mcanommu ucocsum oaan3 use oofluuoo ouoz muoohoum «ooou oocoauomxo measumoa oz Amy .muoononm oums~o>o one moumocmum :30 noon» uom Ou mflflmsm ooomusoocm Ame .Eooummmao ocu mo ooamoso Ho>oa aMCOmqu o :o 0:00 mm3 moocofluoaxo oEOc uOu mcwccmam AHV .omaa oEo: 0u oouoaou pg 30: can moHuH>Huuo mmmau wo momomuso onu maflmsm UHOB .m .N .H .v~u.aeoanoum omaa maaedu tmonooHo unwaoooeou tmuo uxoomm .mcaccoflm onououo3 .mucofiauomxo nmoao .mmcflmaouu haweou .GOAmmsomao msoum .oHocom .uxommo .ooocowuomxo mag I>H0m annoum connoam uonuoou ucooaum Amy .oo30HH0w uoc uon uonooou ucoosum ocu ou co>Hm ouo: mCOMumoomsm Amy .Uooa>oua oocoauomxo mowcuooa oz “He .sua>auom nuao ousuflumnsm so mo3 Honooou ucoosum Ame .mmcauowe «no :a oomao: can noncouuo uozomou ucoodum Ammv .ooofl>0um oocoauomxo meacuooa oz .coflumsufim HmuoH o ca .Hv qu>m£on mcwnomou Honuo>ucoc ocm Honuo> cw wouco nanomxo Howmcdcooe can owuoaaoou .m onfl>oum umsa nuonooou ucoonum .m ANS .mannoum mo scanosomflv uOH Eoou maflosm aca>flm can .uao>oa o.aam5m ou oHQmONHmmo unaccoao acmmoa .m ozone uonomou uaoosum cu game .N .mv .H .ooofl>oum oocowuomxo mcwcumoa oz .H .moaa saaewu uoo o>mz .m o>auoofino .m .m Aomv .H .ooofi>oum oocofluomxo mcwcuooa oz .H moocoauomxo 4mm mouooao>m .0 o>Hoooflno AH. .mCHCCon zoomoa new .:0aumoa::EEoo .uofl>mnon amass ou ouoaou mo>Huoonno Hocaeom .0 Adv .muocomou ucoosum moHEocooo oEon MOM uuonoum Uocmammo mm: moocoauomxo oEo: .m .oozcflucoo .m o>fiuuonno zomnzv euocomoe ucoosum onu >9 oo>Hooom moucoauoaxm no momme zomuzv «nocomoe meama>uoaom moafiocoom oEo: one >3 oooa>oum moocofluomxm Mo momma .omuzv encumcaouooo xuamuo>aca onu >9 voofl>oum moocowuomxm mo mom>9 .oon:wu:ooun.a.: mqmda 2658 Adv .nawmam on» no one no“: Hoccwu on: Adv .aosum omoo o ooummoum z~. .moson nouamw> and magnum so“: oocououcoo oaom Anwv .Uo>wooou oocowuomxo mcwcumoa oz Amy .uozmcm oz Amy .Edasofluuou oououcoo wuw>wuoo co ooccmHm Avv .coflumoooo oMHH AHHEMM unmame Adv .Hocc0ouom oocoowom coma “av .mofiaweow ozone cuuoa ou acauouuoficweom Hoonoo oo3ow>uoucH ANS .OUg On Uflmfisw 805 U ”OVEN—55000“ ANS Adv .xooum omoo M van uosomov usoonum .m .muamw> oEon :0 cofiomaoowo uncwsom Aav .uwoa> oeon u once uonooou Amy .oEon ca oouwma> uonooou ucoozum .N ucoosum one .mozum onoo o nmzouzs .mmv Away .oooa>oum oozofiuomxo mcwcuooa oz .H .ooo«>oum oocofluomxo mcwcuooa oz .muflofl> oson ouos uo oco mo co«uo>uomno on» muoumuounn Adv .muonomou uonuo oo>uomno muonomou acoooum nowaocooo oEo: Adv .moocouowcoo Hooow>aocw ca unaccoam ucoozum uo>o mowoo .me ..moocmumooao Hanoa>auca .QOwum>wuoEV unawmooomwo Hocflsom AH. .owaa aafleow cu oouoaou Hanlnmosmmw Hmamno>ouucoo :o Cmeosouwo Hucfisom lac ..m>auomfl loo nonwEom ou nouoaou o>wuoonno nnv .muonooou ucoosum Ham now: coauoe >uo>oomwo .mCH>Hom annoum oommouum Amy .zaco mwmon Annamuom Adv .mcwccoam uficd so ago .coflumouflm Eooummmao Ca uoz .m nufi3 nonuoou ucoooum now: oouaomcoo Rag .mommMHo on» nuflz maoanoum Adv .oamoom oou50mou cw vcflun mmoomao ou uonomou ucoooum commusoocm .v on uonomou ucoooum oommuooocm .ooscflucoo .N .H .H o>Huooflno .HH .e .m o>wuooflno 2(59 AH. .muonooou ucoU:Un sud: momou mcflaomcaoo Annua>wvcw oommsomwo .HH .He .nauam o3» wo hogan oooo vac uonouou ucoosum .oa Aav .mHo>oa Ham on noocouowcoo ucouom :w oooamco muonuoou ucovsum .o .mv .Hoccomuom nonuo one .cOwuoHumw:«Eoo Hoocom .muoHomcsou Hoocom cufi3 coflmmoomflo umcaeon nmsonna .m Ade ..uaano u.smumusze. .Hoonom vac oEoc acauoaou anw 305m .5 AHV .maamzm no: ocoumuoocs 0» 302 “Hy .cofiuoauam madzomou vasofluuwo zocx no xuu uo: can uocooou ucoosum .o o onxaoco uocooou ucoosum ado: .o any .mcanooou ou adamCOAumH no» .muoHomc900 oucoofism mcfloamxo AHV use mucoosum no monouou o>quH585oom “NV .uo3mcm oz .m .moflosum ommo co meaocoumuoocs women .m ocfieoxo ou uonooou ucoosum ommusoocm .m Avv .uonomou meama>uom3m sea: ooxaou can .maamsm Amv .muouumE omonu :o uonomou mo modem ca nuuoomou oflo .mama mchH>uoaom ocm .Hmmfiocflum .uoH Adv .xoo «do ocsouo ucoosum uaocwum was muoHomcsoo nua3 noxame .v nomcsou sue: oouzsmcoo uonooou ucooaum .c oco 30HH0u ou ow uonomou ucoosum .v Ame .mucoumm AHV .mucoumm >3 oomE mucoE Amy .muozuoou ucoosum 20H: mcowmmau so“: once mucoEEou oonzamc< .m 1500 ouxaoco ou oofiuu uoeooou ucoooum .m undo oocouowcoo Hosofi>flocfi :mnouce .m Ammv .mowuacsEEOU oco .moaadeou Away .moflma> oEon new .maamsm ocmumuoocs nouuoo Ou muooucou .moocouowcoo ucoosum .maflasm coax mmmao one .moflua>fluom Hoocom .mooco Amy .mucoEEoo mucouom meauoum occauomuo>coo Hmc0muom .muooucoo Inowcoo acoumm .moocouomcou Hausa luouCA .moocouowcoo mcwuuoocoo mmoao zmsoucu mafimda oOOumuoUc: .N :« Uoummaoauuom uonomou ucoooum .N :0 woodmmsomflo uncanm nwsouzs .m “my Rev A5v .oo>flooou oucoauoaxo oz .H .ooofi>oum oocoauomxo mcacuooa oz .a .Uoofl>oum oocofluomxo ucacuooa 02 .H .muflcsssoo can tmofiaflsom .maansm mo meancmumuoocs ocammouocfl mo memos a mo muumucoo mmmHo tmoocouomcoo .muama> oEon mo muasmou muoumuoucH .n o>Huoonoo Aomnzv zomuzv Aomuze «Hocoooa ucoosum .uocumoe mcamq>uoa3m mowEOcoom oEom «noumcfiouooo xuwmuo>aco on» >n oo>Hooom moucoauomxm uo moaxa ocu mo oooa>oum moucoauomxm uo momxe on» we ooofl>oum moocowuomxm mo monks .ooscaucoqu.H.m mqmnooon ooconnomxo mancnooa oz .monHQQSm Ugo ucoemnsvo ucoEunmmoo no on: one .onou .COnuooHom onu on manmsm muosnumcn no moonao any .moonSOmon cso an unooonn can .vouoamoo mo3 uomosn ucoaunomoo Amy .monooon on» umox nonooou manmn>nomam Amy .anmmonm ago: and manna anooonm uso onoz Amy .monooon HmnocoCnm umox Any .nonooou mcnmn>nomsm nun3 uomosn ooomsomno Away .oo>nooon ooconnomxo oz .monooon Honocmcnw .N .H .H any .COnumnumCOEoo woman can» nonuun mnmon anosm Hooon>no:n co ooxnoz AHV .onoo ucofimwovo :0 moaon 3o: oouSunuman nocooou uconsum .NV .mcncumno :meounx can .ucoemnaoo and mono: :osounx on xooco oomnon nocouou ucooaum ANV .musoocmn on: one owcon mo om: oumnumcoeoo on coonom oonaooon oouoonom Avv .ucoEmnsvo no on: new onoo on Hao3 oucoosum anon» won one nonomou ucovsum Away .ucoemnovo mo onoo ooumnumCOEoo one ucofimnswo onu No on: on» manmam unmsmu nonooou ucoooum Amy .ooon>0nm ooconnomxo mancnooa oz Adv .oNnEocooo on oEon Eonw mooom oEom an unmsonn axon usn monooon Honocmcnu moox no: one AN. .msuumm an acne» Imno>o oco .oannxoam on uomcon Hoocom Amv .noow oonoono one oomononsm nozooon ucoosum “my .monooon HmHUCMan umox nonooou unoooum .mu .mxuoz oomoon 3o: nonumou ucoosum oofinowcH AMHV .novn>onm ooconnomxo mancnooa oz .m .N .H .m .m .H mmoox oco mooconnomxo mancnooa now manccmHm an uomosn ucoEunomoo o mom: Any .Eoonmmoao osu an auouom co consuooq Amv .ucoemnsvo one Hosmn> nonuo one nocnooon oomunoo0n> MO 0m” CO “03060.“ “Ewmvfium muofihumCH Avav .ooon>onm ooconnomxo mencnooa oz AHV .monm HoCOnuosnumcn now muCSOEo one momou oanocomoon mo scammsomno Adv .uomosn ucoEunoQoo onu mo owooa3ocx no: ozone nonooou ucoooum nun3 oononm Amnv .ooon>onm mooconnoQXo mancnooa oz .H .q m>nuoohno .H .x m>nuomflno 2i7l .H. .xuflcsa I500 can oousou uwnoomu ucoosum .Ha Adv .mcfinommuuwu an uwzoaaow AH. .nucmosum no :ofiunsHm>o nosouna .oa .moocoumucou Hanow>wocw cw oonnsomwo .oa AH. .mmfiu«>«uom Boon Adv .meanoua unmoaun mo Immdao uo wowmuso mawmsm Law: umwe ou mcofiunsao>o can :ofium>umuno cyan) ooofl>oum >u«:=uuommo mauuwa an: mumna .m 0» ooxao mum: «honouou ucoosum .m .mv .uucmvsum goons . shame on mandoCCOaumoso .mcflaoan maou AN. .aouwocco«umosv .muwxm com: .m .wmwnmmumofinouso vows umcooou ucoosum .m ANV .mo>fluomflno umcweoo o» nouuamm .m E E .30? .ucmzou ohm: umsu mafia: on» caucus» Any .maaasa on» om>ao>cw nods: .unmsmu numm «manomuoa Afimsmnoocmoasm menu vase) madman mEanoua ucmswe .5 umnomvu ucmosum wnu pan: on» nmsouzs .n Eouu umcHEmm aw common wou20mmm .h .NV .usosuu ads: on» Ca acumocoo .mummumucw Avv .maflasm mo mfimaooum sud: Avv .mouoomu 0>Huo~56300m .nEoHnoum ouuaou zaamnuo> no: own .0 omcuwocoo uoc mm: umcommu unwosum .o we own m.um:omou ucoosum nmsouca .w .Nv .uocomou meama>uoasn Any Amy .Hnumzwcdos chmmoH mcaxde van muonoomu nonuo cum: commaowwo .m .umzouou mafimfi>uwmsm nufl3 owmmsomfio .m ocm mcficcmHm no scammsomwo Hmumcwo .m Adv .uaflmsm no coflunmflowuuoa “Hg ANV .uooauuo wondocwuuo nan oflucuUOEoo on Qua: pang unmzme .v .mucmuma umme on Human mo mson oouwmfl> .v mmusc Hoonom nuflz muwmw> «so: mcflxnz .v Avv Amv .mo>ammewcu Amy .maaasm .mCAummunmum .uumoumucw m.u:mosum usonn xaou on mouu uamw maflmsm .n we ocsoumxomn omoa>oum muomucoo mmmHU .m .xuflCdEEoo mo cadmm30mwo Hmuocmo .m «av AHV AHV .aamsm a mo xosum mmoo m oao .N .xosuw ommo m can uwzommu ucoosum .m .qu::uHommo zosum mmmo omofl>oum .m Away .mucwosum “my Amy cuaz mEmHnoum anaemumm owmmsomfio .a .ooofi>oum mocmflummxo mcficumma 02 .H .omofi>oum mocwwummxm mcficumma oz .H .uzmsmu uflcs wcu Ou mmucaou new madman mo mewHQOum wEoc ocm anaemuwm .mumououcw smomma unmoawficmflm mowwflucooa xaawnuw> .2 m>wuomnno Aowuzv cucumcflouoou aufimum>wco on» an ovow>oum mmocowumaxm wo mwm>9 Aomuzv «Monomma unmosum on» an oo>woomm mmocofluwmxm mo momze zomuzo .umnoomh mcwmfl>umaam moHEocoom meow on» an owofl>oum moocmfiuwaxm no momma .noscfiucoo-u.a.m mamas 2772 A0. .000:0:800 00 0:00 00:0000000 000: An. .0000000 000: .»:0m I300 0000000000 0:0 000 .000E0:000 080: .000000 0:0:00:00 .0:0E000m00 20000: .0000000 0:0000000 “00000 0:0 :0 0:0:000 0003 000x00m0 000:0 .00. .00x003 000000 000200 .>:0QEOU 00300 00E:0:OU .000000 :000:00x0 00::00 .000050: I000 060: 000:: 000:00 «>00::2500. 0:0 :0 000000 000:0000 000000:00 000v .00>00000 00:00000x0 0:0:0000 oz .00000000 :0:3 00000800 00 0000000 0000:000 0:0 0000eoco00 0&0: >0::00 :00: x003 00\0:0 0000:00 A0v .0@:0000& (mm 000:000< 00v .00:0000m00 0:00 000eo:oom 050: zany .00>00000 00:0000000 m:0:0000 02 any .0o: 000 0:0 0:0 0000:0000 000::EE00 00: 00 00:0000 0:00:00 00m00:00:m ANv .v .000::EE00 0:0 3000 000x0000 000: Amy .>00::EE00 :0 00000 .m 00000 0000:0000 0050000 0:00:00 A000 .m:0m§00 00m .000:: 000:00 .0:0E000m00 :0000: >0::00 .0000000 .00000 00m.0&0: 000:0>:fl .00:000 :0000: 000:08 .0m:0000e 000:0:000 080: .000000 :000:00x0 00::00 >00::fi .N I800 0:0 :0 0:000000:0m0o 0000000: .000 .0 .0000>00m 00:0000mx0 0:0:0000 oz 00v .0000:0 00: 000 0:0 £00£3 M0 >00::00ommo :0>0m 003 00:0000 0:00:00 Amy .00:00 0 00000:0&0 «mm :00: .m @000 00000 :0 0:03 00:0000 0:00:00 0 v .m:0000E 0:000 000m0n0 000 >0000n00 .N I:00000 00000 00::000 00:0000 0:00:00 .0 Ammo .000200 :0 (mm 02 .0000>00 000Q0:0 :30 :0 mo >0000n00:0m000 0:0 00 0800 006:004 .m .N .0 .N .0 .0000 00000 :0 00000 0:0 00:0000 0:00 I:00 :003 000000000000 0000:000000 .00 .000asa I800 0:0 :0 0:00:0: :0 000000 30:0 .00 000:58300 :0 02000 I000 0:0 000:0000 00050:000 080: 00:00 0005 00 0000000 0:00:00 000: .00 .000000 000:0000 00000:0 00: 00 00:0000 0:00:00 0000:00:0 A0. .mon0x003 000:0000 000::2500 0 6000 00000005 000:0000 00: :00 00:0000 0:00:00 .00 .000052 I200 0:0 :0 00000 0:000000:0m00 000:: umnomou 0:00:00 00 0000000000 A~0V .0000>00m 003 00:0000000 0:0:0000 oz :0. .000:0000 0:00:00 00 >0000n00:00000 0:0 000 00:0000 0:000>00m:0 00 x00>0000 0:0 000:0000 0:00:00 0009 “my .0000000 0:00:00 0003 00:0000 uo 0000000000:00000 00:00 0000:0000 ~09 .00000>0000 0:00 :0 0000000000: 00 00:0000 0:00:00 00m00:00:m Am0v .0000>o0m 003 00:0000000 0:0:0000 oz .h .N .0 .o «>0uomnno .0 .z 0>0uomflno 2773 A00 .00000>0000 :30 000:0 :003 00000000 00000 (:0 “mm: .00>00000 00:00000X0 oz .000.00000000000 0o: .0: .0000300000 000 00:0000 0:00:00 0:0 0:0 .0000 um: :00: 000:0 0:0 00000>0uou 0:00 I000>0 003 (:0 000000 00 000::000000 .m :00: 00 00:0000 0:00:00 00000:00:m .m an. .00:0000 AN: .00ma:0 00:0000:000:0 0:0 0:000>00Q:0 00 00000>0000 :0 .N 00:00 4:: :00: 00000: 00:0000 0:00:00 .m 000000000000 00:0000 0:00:00 .~ Ammv .0000> Am0v .0 I000 003 00:0000000 0:0:0000 oz .0 .0000>o0m 00:0000000 0:0:0000 oz .0 .:0000~0:0m0o :000008< wo 000x080800 00:0:0 0 000 00000>0000 mo m:0::00m 0:0 :003 000000: .0 0>0000nno adv .H03mCM 02 .000000 0:0000000:0: 0o: .000:0:00000 I00 :08:: mo 0000x0 0:0:00 >0:o A00 .000: 000 00:0000 0:000>00m:0 00x04 :00 .00030 0000000:0800 00:0 0:0 00000 no 0:000 :0 00808 Amy .0:0000:0000 00000 000 00008000 00:00000 000: Amy .0000000000:omm00 0:0008080: 00000:080 00 a00::00oamo 000000 00: 00v .00000 0:0x08080: :003 m: 0:00000 0:0 080: 0000 0:0 :0000 0 m:0:000:008 mo 0:00> 000000:mEm Amy .0000:0:00 0003 0:000000 >000000000 0:0 0:0000000:080Q 00V .00:0000mx0 000 >00::000000 02 .m .m .h A0v .003080 Oz .0 :0V .30: 30:0 00: 000 0:0 :0:3 .0 000000 000000000 00:0000 0:00:00 .0 “my .000030 0:0 :00: 000000 0:000: .m I080: 00: 0000:0000 00:0000 0:00:00 .m Amy .00:000w:00 00x000 0:0 00000 00000 .0 0800 :0 x003 003 00:0000 0:00:00 .0 00v .0000 080: :0 000:0000mx0 Rwy .0:080m0:08 000000:080 00:0000m 00 00000>0000 00000 .m 0:0 0:0000000 003 00:0000 0:00:00 .m 0.00:0000 0:00:00 0:000000 :0:00:B .m :00 A00v .00000 :0 000000000 0:0000x0m:o: .:0000>00000 00000 :0 00:08000000 .m 0000 0000000:0800 00:0000 0:00:00 .N 00000 :0 00:0000 0:00:00 0>00000 .m :00: .0 Any .0000>000 00:0000mx0 oz .0 .0000>00m 003 00:0000mx0 0:0:0000 oz .0 .080: 0 0:0:000:008 mo 0000x0 0000:0000 0:0 :0 00:0000800 0000000:080o .m 0>0000flno Aomuz. «00:0005 0:00:0m 0:0 >0 0030000m 000:0000mxm mo 000%9 Homnzv Aomuzv 000:0009 0:000>000:m 00080:oom 080: .0000:000oou 000000>0:D 0:0 0: 0000>00m 000:0000mxm no 00009 0:0 »: 0000>00m 000:0000mxm wo 000MB .00:c00coonn.0.= 0:000 2774 .mucwncommmu wo umnfidc moumoqwcfl mommnucoumm a“ umnESZa on .wuonEwE ucwEunmmwv uwcuo can uwnommu mew Imfi>uomsm auw3 o>wuomnno vmmmsomao Adv .Emumoum mowsocoom mac: a mo uommmm 0:0 umsn vmumsad>m Amy .mucoosum mnu cu samuumm adasowuuso wxme ou vmwua .mv .mucmvsum mo mnmw: vac mmnsuwuuc amusmmmz Avv .mmosmxuoz can mmcauooe EdafiUwuuso uwvcwuu< Adv .mCMnommu macaw uoanSm way 0» mafia >HHEdu muwamu ou muwcduuommo oHuuMH venom «my .mcofluosam>m HMGOmHmQ meow mama m>mn van COwunsam>mnmu vmm: mmum Esasowuuso m.aoonom may no >cm£ AOHV .vm>kumu mocwfiummxm acacumwfl oz COaumsHm>m cm cu mafia >Hflfidw ca .m mumcoamu Hmumcmm 0cm auflcseeoo mnu ca mmflafifidu mo muaumwumuoouuco onu mmwamac Amy .uwzummu mafiwfi> uuom5m cufiz omuumwcoo umxomw» unmvzum AHV .mammo uo: UHDOU usn .mum3m no: Hmcummu ucmvsum Adv .mmaaaemw mo umuomumso ccmumumvcs umnommu ucmosum vmnawn uuwcseeoo ozu uo musumc mca Adv .mofiumaumuomumno m~afi0w vmuuoauwu umzomwu ucwnsum >2 mcficcmHm Edasofiuusu Avg .maoozom swan Mocuo um memum scum can” nmxooH can uozomou unonaum Lu“: owuonm muw3 mmowsm Edaaoauuso «Hy .xuficsEEoo may vmuzou Hmnommu ucwndum “my .Edanowuudo sac swam wmmamn umcummu ucmosum Andy .vmnfl>oum wocmflummxm maficumma oz .N .H Adv .ca Emnu xuo3 on uwfluu can mewsooou accosum Eon“ aqua ou mono: onu n00c0wuwmxm umnommu pawns»: 0:» saw: nwmnsomwn any .co«vnsan>o Buazuwuuao no aduaoun no ceanoaouqv ousuooq .HV ..uouauu-ficwauo can .uuozommu .uucoumm so“: muomu 1:00 HmEuowcfi can uwnoaou ucwvsum Adv .mo>«uooflno Hmuow>on Ion m: umm uwnoumu ucoosum mam: .vv .oflmou man so scammsomwv unswEmm AHV .auacsssoo may mcwms :o mucouwwcou Hmsvw>flccH Adv .auwcdeeoo onu ou Hocommu ucmcsum coucmwuo Adv .ESHDUMuudo unaccomu mucumn umwulwum ou nmmc nonommu ucmvsum .HV .mamEdo co nwmon>0u anOmOHHnQ um: ou muma low 0» can meuumoum umnuo um xooa on muwzowmu ucmcsuu ummmusoocm «Hy .omxuo3 mumcumu hang mums: xuumsncfi on» 0» mfluu oaoflm xooa Amy .Edumoum moqfiocoom 0&0: mnu mumaam>m no: usn .xuwcseeoo mzu ca moflafiemu «0 emu» mag ou and Isowuuso wumamu umcommu ucmwsum no: Av. .Umvfi>oum mocmflummxo mewcunma oz .Emumoum moHEocoum 080: Hmuou 0:» mo .HV .mmflufl>fiuou nude nu“: unflmmfl HOSUMQU UCOUDum CNUCOE—dooflm AH. .muwnumou mo mmflufiawnwmcommmu Hocuo Ummmsomwa .vmscwucoo .NH .m m>fiuoonno .m .v .o m>fluomnno APPENDIX I TABLES OF COMPLETE RESPONSES TO THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN CHAPTER IV 275 TABLE I.l.--Complete list of responses to "What a student teacher should learn about most while student teaching" as indicated by university coordinators, home economics super- vising teachers, and home economics student teachers. University Home BCOnomics”Home Economics Outcomes for Coordinators Supervising Student Student Teaching N325 Teachers Teachers N=32 N=30 No.Indigatfg No.5ndicatTg No.fndiEat'g 1. To understand pu- pils' needs and relate to planning 5 8 0 9. To know how to handle pupils, work with pupils, & relate to them 7 9 15 3. To be able to take over own class and get the feeling of being a teacher 4 4 6 4. To establish a bal- ance between personal concerns for pupils & needed necessary skills 0 3 O 5. To be able to plan a unit at various levels of learning 2 3 l 6. To learn to challenge (motivate) pupils to think 4 3 3 7. To be able to present subject matter in all areas of home economics relevant to the student 9 9 O 8. To be able to coopera- tively combine ideas of supervising teacher, student teacher, and coordinator 0 9 O 9. To develop confidence in own ability as a teacher 1 9 3 276 TABLE I.l.--continued. University Home‘Economics Home Economics Outcomes for Coordinators Supervising Student Student Teaching N=25 Teachers Teachers N=32 N=30 No.lndicatrg“No.Tndicatinng5.fndicating_ 10. To know the com- munity, families, & pupils ? l 0 11. To be willing to demonstrate as a teacher 1 l O 19. To be able to set goals for students 0 l 0 13. To put theory into practice in a rea- listic way; apply the learning process 9 l 1 14. To be able to try out ideas learned in methods classes 0 O 4 15. To learn what secon— dary home economics is all about, if I like it, how is it taught, & where I'd like to teach 4 O 8 16. To learn to exercise creativity in pre- senting home econom- ics materials to pupils O O 9 17. To learn about the school, its extra- curricular offerings, & bureaucratic structure 0 O 9 18. To learn the resources available in family life 0 O l 277 TABLE I.1.--continued. University Home Economics HOme Economics Outcomes for Coordinators Supervising Student Student Teaching N=2S Teachers Teachers N=32 No.1ndicatTg No.1ndicating No.1ndicating 19. To know how to manage a home economics dept. l O O 70. To learn strengths & weaknesses as a teacher 5 O O 71. To learn the tech- niques for plan- ning and organiz- ing, and implement- ing teaching 4 O O 278 . TABLE I.2.--Complete list of responses to: "What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Michigan State University's home economics student teachers when they arrive for student teaching?" as indicated by university coordinators, home economics supervising teachers, and home economics student teachers summarized. UniverSiEy “Home Economics Home EConomICS Student Teacher Coordinator Supervising Student Strengths and Teacher Teacher Weaknesses N=?S N=32 N=30 No.IndicatiggNo.IndiCat‘g No.Indicat:g Strengths 1. Good general knowl- edge of home eco- nomics subject mat- ter, consumer edu- cation, family liv- ing, child develop- ment, home manage- ment 9 1? 10 7. Good understanding of family life 6 O O 3. Good organization of ideas, lesson planning, and methods 7 ll 8 4. Works well with stu- dents; empathy, rap— port, patience l 3 O S. Resourceful l l O 6. Eager to become in— volved and learn ? 3 6 7. Cooperative 9 l 4 8. Able to take criticism 0 2 l 9. Confident, self- assured l 3 O 10. Flexible and adaptable l 0 ll. Well—groomed l 0 l9. Tolerance for ideas of others 0 4 279 TABLE I.2.--continued. ...__— University ‘Home EconOmics‘Home Economies Student Teacher Coordinator Supervising Student Strengths and Teacher Teacher Weaknesses N=75 N=32 N=30 No.IndicatTgTNo.Indicat‘g No.1ndiEatKg 13. Understanding of teenagers 7 O 9 l4. Hard—working, conscientious 7 O 9 15. Warm personality 9 O l 16. Community under- standing 0 l l Weaknesses 1. Not prepared for teaching skills, particularly foods and clothing 15 19 4 7. Information on sub- ject matter is limited 4 4 O 3. Need more previous classroom experience 1 3 l 4. Lack of understanding of character of stu- dents; vocabulary, discipline, black students 7 7 O 5. Lack of understanding of role of student teacher in the class— room; in dress 0 4 9 . Need more work with audio-visuals O l O 7. Need more lesson plan- ning experience ? 4 3 8. Cannot apply class learning to secondary teaching level ? l O 280 TABLE I.2.--continued. "“ Univefsity ”HomE'Economics Homé'EconomiCS Student Teacher Coordinator Supervising Student Strengths and Teacher Teacher Weaknesses N=95 N=32 N=3O No.1ndicatig No.3ndicat'g No.1ndicating 9. Insecure, lack of confidence in teaching 1 l 18 10. Grading skill weaknesses O l 0 11. Permanent record , use inability O l 0 1?. Discipline problems 7 O 7 13. Lost interest in teaching home economics 0 O 9 14. Expected too much of pupils O O l 15. Lack of creative ways to present material 0 O l 16. Difficulty in learn- ing pupil names 0 O l 17. Demonstration skills are weak 1 O O 18. More experience with department planning and management 2 O O 19. Disappointed with Jr. High School placement 2 O O 70. Student teachers are too inexperienced to teach family life 1 O O 91. Shortsighted with re— sources of pupils and community 1 O O 99. No weaknesses l l O 281 TABLE I.3.--Complete list of recommendations regarding additional preparational needs of home economics student teachers prior to student teaching as indicated by university coordinators, home economics supervising teachers, and home economics student teachers. Additional Preparation University HBmE'ECOnomics Home Economics Needed by Student Coordinators Supervising Student Teacher Prior to Teachers Teachers Student Teaching N=?S N=3? N=30 No.1ndicatjg No.Indicating No.1ndiCatifig 1. More basic courses in skills, particu— larly foods and clothing 1? 15 8 . Broad basic courses in subject matter-- family life, housing 2 4 6 3. More curriculum planning and evaluating l 6 O 4. More observation of classroom situations or participation in youth groups 10 5 LA) 5. Develop file of re- sources and resource ideas 0 ? l 6. Learn how to control classes 1 2 3 7. Develop realistic working with slow learners O l O 8. More use of visual aids O l O 9. Develop knowledge of community and school where student teaching 1 l 6 10. Incorporate sensi- tivity training 0 l O 282 TABLE I.3.--continued. AEditiOnal Preparation University Home“Ecofi6mIE§ HomE'Economics Needed by Student Coordinators Supervising Student Teacher Prior to Teachers Teachers Student Teaching N=9S N=37 N=30 No.1ndicat'g No.1ndicat:g No.1ndicatimg_ ll. Hold for speech requirement 0 l 0 1?. Prepare a "dynamic leader" 0 l O t4 LA) 0 Learn more about how students learn 0 l O 14. Teach methods and student teaching simultaneously 0 l O 15. Know more about black students 0 O 3 16. Know what to expect from students with various backgrounds 7 O l 17. More information on teaching techniques 1 O 7 18. Course in patience and understanding 0 O l 19. Occupational experi— ence in vocational home economics' 1 O O 70. Improve personal ap— pearance of student teacher 1 O O 91. Develop an enthusiasm for teaching 1 O O 99. None, unless you add a fifth year 1 O O 73. None 1 7 9 283 TABLE I.4.--Complete list of recommended contributions which should be provided by home economics education staff to stu- dent teaching in.home economics as indicated by univerSity c00rdinators and home economics supervising teachers. Number ofmm'"'Number of Contribution of Home Economics University Home Economics Education Staff to Student Coordinators Teaching in Home Economics N=?S 1. Develop a publication of prob— lems common to student teaching and what to teach, objectives, provide bulletins or checklist relative to student teaching 7 9. Give student teachers more practical application (less theory) prior to student teach— ing, e.g., visiting in local high schools, developing skills and techniques in subject mat- ter, in teaching, learn about community in which they will student teach l 3. Update supervising teachers in subject matter content, new trends, and resources 1 4. Hold a workshop or conference for Home Economics Supervising Teachers (particularly new ones), Student Teachers, and Coordinators 6 5. Give the student teacher good background in methods and mate- rials to relate to various levels of high school students, e.g., visual aids and unit plans, dis- cipline and teaching subject matter, completing vocational records. 3 6. College personnel need to realize what is going on in schools, what high school students are like, what kinds of homes they come from, what pupils need to learn 9 Supervising Teachers N=39 11 10 CW 284 TABLE I.4.--continued. Number of University Coordinators N=95 Contribution of Home Economics Education Staff to Student Teaching in Home Economics 7. Contact supervising teachers when needed and generally be available as consultants 3 8. Provide more cooperation with coordinators, attend coordi- nator's conferences, provide feedback about student teach— ing, jointly select supervis- ing teachers, discuss objectives ll 9. Visit supervising teacher and student teacher during student teaching 5 10. Provide information about what student teacher does before and after student teaching 0 11. Provide supervising teachers the opportunity to visit subject matter classes at the University 0 1?. Explain what should be done or what is expected in student teaching in subject matter 1 l3. Maintain communication between college and secondary schools 1 14. Place student teachers into programs for student teaching 0 15. Coordinate home economics student teachers 0 16. Avoid criticism of teaching skills in high school 0 17. Offer more home economics extension courses 1 18. Home economics teacher educators need to visit center seminars with coordinators and supervis- ing teachers 1 Number 5? Home Economics Supervising Teachers N=3? {J TABLE I.5.--Complete list of satisfying and dissatisfying experiences of university coordinators, with student teaching in home economics. SatiSTYIEQPExperiénEEEMReIaEEJ” to Home Economics Student Teaching__ University—EoordinatorTs Response (N=25) l. Home Economics student teachers are good to work with Working with student teachers who enjoy their work and are eager to teach The competent planning abilities of home eco- nomics student teachers Reliable, cooperative, and dependable supervis- ing and student teachers The appealing results of foods and clothing products The philosophy of edu- cation that home eco- nomics expresses Home economics teachers like kids None in particular "“Uissatisfying Experiences Related to Home Economics Student Teaching University CoordinatorTs 1. Response (N=25) Frustrations of student teachers in management, demonstrating and lack- ing skills When student teachers are not successful Unawareness of student teacher of urban and socio-economic problems When student teacher is caught in a philOSOphi— cal cleavage The student teacher who is not successful Inability to offer guid— ance to the home econom— ics student teacher The viewpoint the other majors have for home economics When there are two supervising teachers None specific to home economics 286 TABLE I.6.--Complete list of satisfying and dissatisfying experiences of home economics supervising teachers With home economics student teaching. A Satisfying Experiences " ' Related to Home Economics Student Teaching Supervising Teachers' "Dissatisfying Experiences Related to Home Economics upervising_TeachersTi Student Teaching Responses (N=32) NO‘ Responses (N=321 NO‘ 1. Enjoy student teachers and getting to know them 9 1. Not enough time for student teaching 5 9. Seeing a student teacher try out new ideas and 7. Lack of effort put share responsibilities 13 forth by a student teacher 4 3. Seeing a student teacher grow and work through 3. An unsatisfying problems 7 experience 3 4. A student teacher keeps 4. Not knowing the expe- me up—to—date, alert -riences the college and helps me 5 would like to see a student teacher have 5. Promoting the home or what I should ex- economics teaching pect from her 7 field 4 5. Watch classes dis- 6. A student teacher integrate l enriches the classroom 1 6. Discipline uncontrolled l 7. Seeing qualified stu— dents ready to enter 7. Watch a student teacher the field and feel like fall apart when she a teacher 7 can't cope with the situation 1 8. Working with a pre- pared student teacher 11 8. A student teacher who is late for classes 7 9. A student teacher who volunteers services 1 9. A student teacher who does not follow 10. Being a part of a good through with ideas 1 student teaching program 1 10. A student teacher with 11. Giving a student teacher the practical experience of teaching 1 inconsistent behavior when working with the supervising teacher 1 I TABLE I.6.--continued. 287 Satiszihg'ExperienCes Related to Home Economics Student Teaching ' ' DiSsafIsfying—EXperiences g'Related to Home Economics \ “Student Teaching Supervising Teachers' Sfipervising Teachers' No. No. Responses Responses 17. None 1 11. A student teacher who does not accept suggestions 1 17. Giving a lot of time to a student teacher who doesn't get any where l 13. Not being able to teach own classes 3 14. A student teacher disrupts classes 1 15. Unrealistic education courses 1 16. None 10 288 TABLE I.7.--Complete list of satisfying and dissatisfying experiences of home economics student teachers with student teaching in home economics. Related to Home Economics Related to Home Economics Student Teaching Student Teachigg SatISfying ExperieHCes fitfibsfitisfyingExpefiences StudentTeacherBs Response Nofifgtudent Teag£§§gF‘ResponsefiNo. (N=30 1. Establishing a good rap- 1. Having students poorly port with pupils, super- motivated 6 vising teacher and staff 15 . 7. Discipline problems 4 7. Pupils showing interest in class and liking me 8 3. Not helping some of the students 3 *. Satisfactorily working with a labeled ”uncoop- 4. Department not meeting erative pupil" and needs Of students 7 reaching the unreachable 3) 5. Program not meeting 4. Seeing pupils learn 7 needs of students 1 5. Small group discussions 7 6. Not presenting material U in new & exciting ways 1 6. Learning about black 1 students 1' 7. Racism in the school 1 7. Having a cross section } 8. Keeping school records 1 (of students 1 9. Being scared to student t. Teaching a unit on my ’ teach l own 1 I10. Not long enough time to teach l '11. Trying to communicate with supervising teacher 1 l7. Bickering between fac- ulty & administration 1 l3. Trapped as a puppet by supervising teacher 1 l4. Blocking of new ideas 9 115. Too narrow student teaching experiences 7 289 TABLE I.7.--continued. Satisfyinngxperiencesn' DiSsatiEfying Experiehces Related to Home Economics Related to Home Economics Student Teaching Student Teaching Student TeaEHefTs Response No. Student TEacher's Response No. 16. Having to teach in a skill-oriented class 1 17. Lack of knowledge in housing 1 l8. Supervising teacher correcting me in front of class 1 l9. Supervising teacher calling me by my first name 1 70. None 7 290 TABLE I.8.--Complete list of descriptions of the ideal experience in home economics student teaching as indicated by university coordinators, home economics supervising teachers, and home economics student teachers. Home Economics Home Economics Ideal Desciption of Student University Supervising Student Teaching in Home Economics Coordinators Teachers Teachers (fl-ZS) (N-32) (N=30) Pre-Student Teaching Expgriences 1. Provide home economics education majors with an academic advisor in home economics education 0 0 l 2. Provide better career counseling for the teaching major candidates 0 l 0 3. Provide student teacher with more teaching and observations before student teaching--including simu- lated teaching and micro- teaching 6 6 l 4. Student teacher should visit and make plans with supervising teacher before student teaching and learn the community 0 3 1 Student Teaching Assignment and ReSponsibilities S. The specific objectives of the student teaching experience should be clearly identified 1 0 0 6. Student teach for longer than one term 8 12 4 7. Allow student teachers more freedom to teach the way and what they want to 0 2 3 8. Give student teacher more time alone with classes 0 0 l 9. Observe and/or be a teacher aid in minor teaching fields 1 O 1 10. Student teacher should teach in more than one area of home economics to all areas in the field 3 l 2 11. Student teacher should teach at least one complete unit 0 0 1 12. Provide student teacher with greater access to community contacts, school resources, media resources, viedo-tape recorders, etc. 6 10 l 13. Spend all days in the total school program, take less field trips in the community 0 1 l 14. Student teach and observe in various age levels and situ- ations 9 3 2 15. Student teach in two kinds of schools--inc1uding the urban and small rural school 0 3 0 16. Student teacher should live in the community 0 2 0 17. Have at least two home eco- nomics student teachers assigned to an area center 1 0 0 291 TABLE I.8.--continued. Ideal Description of Student University Teaching in Home Economics Coordinators (N=25) Home Economics Supervising Teachers (N-32) Home Economics Student Teachers (N=30) 18. Place all vocational majors in one center, develop occu- pational program for student teaching 1 19. Fill a student teaching center with home economics student teachers. Have a generalist coordinator. Employ the specialist as a consultant, who would also be teaching classes 1 20. Utilize an internship plan where a qualified home eco- nomics supervisor would supervise no more than five student teachers for one year 6 21. Provide a flexible experience for student teacher--move student teacher as needed 2 22. Make responsibilities and assignments more uniform among all student teachers 0 23. Greater experimentation in the preparation of teachers 1 Student Teaching in Relation to Other College Courses 24. Add a college course related to what really exists in home economics at the secondary level--innercity teaching, and the image home economics has 0 25. Teach a stimulating methods class along with student teaching 3 26. Require all College of Edu- cation faculty to spent time in the secondary class- room every two years 0 27. Delete some of the other education classes and spend more time in student teaching 0 28. Methods teacher should be concurrently teaching in the secondary classroom. 0 29. Keep Special methods a small class 0 30. Provide student teacher more information on coordinating the subject matter, and curriculum organization 0 31. Student teacher should have an adequate background to teach the basics, as well as have practical methods 1 TABLE I.8.--continued. 292 Ideal Description of Student Teaching in Home Economics University Coordinators (N=25) Home Economics Supervising Teachers (Nt32) Home Economics Student Teachers (N=30) Relationship Among Supervisory Personnel 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. Department should evaluate and recommend the schools which have the modern and up-to-date programs. Student teacher observation and evaluation should be by an experienced supervisor in home economics College supervision should be the joint responsibility of subject matter specialist and teaching specialist (the subject specialist is often described as a consultant) The subject matter special- ists should provide more training sessions for super- vising teachers and college coordinators A follow-up should be made of teachers in the field, and first time supervising teachers, by the department Provide more extension classes for teachers Coordinators need immediate access to subject matter specialists and learning specialists (feedback pro- vided to the persons in~ volved) Clinical consultants readily available in a school building Reduce the load assignment of the college coordinator Provide more individual counseling in student teaching The student teacher's teaching unit should be reviewed by the coordinator Student teachers should have two conference periods a day with supervising teacher Do not have supervising teachers, but an evaluator who would frequently be available Supervising teachers should not have student teachers two terms in a row or during spring term Supervising teacher should have teaching experience prior to having a student teacher Others 1. I recommend no change from the present program. Enjoyed student teaching No response given to the question ' W11111111.1le ' 1293 017473