THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PRINCIPAL’S ROLE IN THE STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAM IN THE LANSING AREA Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY WILLIE B. PARKER 1975 This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Significance of the Principal's Role in the Student Teaching Program in the Lansing Area. presented by Willie B. Parker has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. . Administration and Super- degree 1n____ vision of Student Teaching 5 Major proaorW / 1 /2 // 5 .- Date // // 7 -_ -3... g 0-7 639 u I.’n.|lll|l'."‘ I‘l'ivuii ABSTRACT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PRINCIPAL'S ROLE IN THE STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAM IN THE LANSING AREA BY Willie B. Parker This study was designed to serve three major purposes: 1. To assess the role.of the principal in the student teaching program in the Lansing, Michigan area as perceived by members of the selected groups randomly chosen for the study, namely: a. Principals. b. Student teachers. 0. University representatives (college coordinators, area supervisors, clinical consultants, and cluster consultants). d. Supervising teachers (c00perative teachers or base teachers). 2. To determine whether the perceived roles of the principal in the administration of the student teaching program differ among elementary school principals, junior Willie B. Parker high school or middle school principals, and secondary school principals. 3. To test some hypotheses suggested by the study of available literature and to test other hypotheses for- mulated from concerns ascertained from personal interviews with principals, university representatives, former student teachers, and supervising teachers regarding their percep- tions of the principal's role in relation to student teaching. A questionnaire was devised which examined the per- ceptions of the principal's role in relation to student teachers, principals, supervising teachers, and university representatives. The same questionnaire was administered to elementary school, junior high school, and secondary school representatives from Michigan State University; to elementary, junior high, and secondary school student teachers from Michigan State University; to elementary, junior high, and secondary school supervising teachers who worked in the Lansing area; and to elementary, junior high, and secondary school principals from the Lansing area. Responses from the questionnaire were used directly to create a description of the role of the principal in student teaching. The examination of responses found that, in general, among elementary school, junior high school, and secondary school principals and university representa— tives, there were no significant differences in their Willie B. Parker perceptions of the principal's role, but there was a signi- ficant difference in the perceptions of principal's role between principals and supervising teachers and between principals and student teachers. However, the statistical results show no significant difference between student teachers and supervising teachers, between supervising teachers and university representatives, or between univer- sity representatives and student teachers. The respondents disagreed with the first question on the questionnaire, which states, "The principal as a member of the student teaching team is considered more important than other members of the team." The study shows that there is more agreement between principals and university representatives than there is between principals and student teachers or between princi- pals and supervising teachers. Personal interviews and a review of the literature also showed that principals are unsure of the principal's role in student teaching, even though they are willing to participate as members of their respective student teaching teams. The study indicates that the following respondents tend to agree within groups as to what they perceive the principal's role to be in the student teaching team in the Lansing, Michigan area: Elementary school, junior high school, and secon- dary school principals; Willie B. Parker Elementary school, junior high school, and secon- dary school student teachers; Elementary school, junior high school, and secon- dary school supervising teachers; and Elementary school, junior high school, and secon- dary school university representatives. Sex made no significant difference as to what the (male or female) members of the student teaching team per- ceived the principal's role to be in the Lansing, Michigan area. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PRINCIPAL'S ROLE IN THE STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAM IN THE LANSING AREA BY Willie B. Parker A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1975 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer is indebted to a number of persons for their help in the completion of this dissertation. Dr. John Cragun, Chairman of the Guidance Commit- tee, was patient, helpful, and encouraging in his assistance. The members of the Guidance Committee, Dr. Kay Snyder, Dr. Paul Slocum, Dr. John Phillips, and Dr. Marvin Grand- staff, each contributed help, suggestions, and criticism which improved the focus and meaning of the study. The research adviser, principals, student teachers, supervising teachers, and university representatives who took the time to provide the information on which this study is based have the appreciation of the writer. ii LIST OF LIST OF Chapter I. II. III 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O FIGURES O O O O O I O O O 0 BACKGROUND AND PHILOSOPHY OF Introduction . . . . . . . . Importance of the Study . . Purpose of the Study . . . . Problem and Rationale . . . Hypotheses and Assumptions . Definition of Terms . . . . Limitations of the Study . . Summary of Procedures . . . Organization of the Study . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . A Basic Division of Opinion Selection and Placement . Orientation . Supervision . Evaluation . Conclusion . THE PROCEDURES UTILIZED IN THE STUDY General Information . . . . Design of the Study . . . . DevelOpment of the Instrument Data Collection Procedures . The Six Hypotheses Developed for S tudy O O O O O O O O O O the Statistical Procedures Used in the Study 0 O O C O O O O O 0 iii Page vii HP‘ mcomnboxmeswra :4 I—‘ h 15 21 23 25 27 31 33 33 34 35 39 41 42 Chapter Page IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . 45 Abbreviations Used in the Study . . . . . . 45 Statistical Input from the Questionnaire . . 46 Statistical Examination of the Six Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY . . . . . 77 Summary of the Statistical Analyses of the Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Conclusions Regarding the Role of the Principal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Implications of the Study . . . . . . . . . 82 Suggestions for Further Research . . . . . . . 83 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 A. Letter of Explanation and Questionnaire to Center Directors . . . . . . . . . . . 86 B. Letter of Explanation and Questionnaire to Educators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 C. Follow-up Letter to Educators . . . . . . . 99 D. Observations and Inferences from the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 ResPonses to Questionnaire--Principals . . 100 ReSponses to Questionnaire-- Supervising Teachers . . . . . . . . . . 101 Re5ponses to Questionnaire-- University Representatives . . . . . . . 102 Responses to Questionnaire-- Student Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 ReSponses to Questionnaire-- Total Population . . . . . . . . . j 104 E. Statistical Analyses Used in the Study . . . 105 BIBLIOGRAPHY . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 iv Table l. 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. LIST OF TABLES Sample pOpulation broken down by occupations and school levels . . . . . . Number of questionnaires returned . . . . Anova table, showing degrees by sources . Fifty percent responses from each group of the student teaching team . . . . . . Principals' reSponses to questionnaire . Supervising teachers' responses to questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University representatives' reSponses to questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . Student teachers' responses to questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of reSponses by group to questions receiving fifty percent or greater reSponse in the strongly agree category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total population reSponses to question 1 Principals' (1P) responses to question 1 from the questionnaire . . . . . . . . . Supervising teachers' (ZS) responses to question 1 from the questionnaire . . . . University representatives' (BUR) reSponses to question 1 from the questionnaire . . Student teachers' (4ST) reSponses to question 1 from the questionnaire . . . . Page 35 4O 43 47 48 50 51 52 55 59 60 61 61 62 Table 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Univariate analysis of variance for Hypothesis II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Univariate analysis of variance for the principals' and student teachers' perceptions of the principal's role . . . Principals' and student teachers' reSponses in percentages to question 2 from the questionnaire . . . . . . . . . Univariate analysis of variance for the principals' and supervising teachers' perceptions of the principal's role . . . Principals' and supervising teachers' re3ponses in percentages to question 7 from the questionnaire . . . . . . . . . Univariate analysis of variance for prin— cipals' and university representatives' perceptions of the principal's role . . . Principals' and university representa— tives' reSponses in percentages to question 6 from the questionnaire . . . . Principals' and university representa- tives' responses in percentages to question 18 from the questionnaire . . . Supervising teachers', university rep— resentatives', and student teachers' reSponses in percentages to question 36 from the questionnaire . . . . . . . . The entire student teaching team's re5ponses in percentages to question 16 from the questionnaire . . . . . . . . . vi Page 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 73 75 Figure 1. LIST OF FIGURES Page Method used to determine results of three-way analysis of variance . . . . . . . 44 Understanding level of confidence by illustration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 vii CHAPTER I BACKGROUND AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE STUDY Introduction Elementary school, junior high or middle school, and secondary school principals are concerned about their responsibilities in the student teaching program in the Lansing, Michigan area. Since the early 1900's pre-student teaching program clinical experiences were recognized as needed prerequisites for future teacher trainees. The ensuing decades witnessed the implementation of professional laboratory experiences for the entire student teaching pro- gram in the public schools. The nature of the phiIOSOphy and leadership of the school principal as a member of the student teaching team is one of the most important questions to be considered by administrators of schools of education. Johnson and Perry state in their book that, "too often the principal's influence is underestimated or ignored, especially if the relationship with the regular classroom teachers appears to be satisfactory."1 However, this 1Jim Johnson and Floyd Perry, Readings in Student Teaching_for Those Who Work with Student TeachersiTDubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Book Company, I967), p. 161. perceived concept is not a guarantee that the principal is aware of what is expected of him with regard to the student teaching program. Dr. Sheila Schwartz says that, "princi- pals are not sure of the role they are expected to play"2 in the student teaching program. The idea of the partici- pation of school principals in the student teaching program is generally accepted as a legitimate and beneficial phase of school administration, though Andrews notes "that only very recently has the importance of principal's contribu- tion been realized and that relatively little attention has been paid to it in the literature."3 In regard to the student teacher programs in the Lansing area, the principal agrees to place the student teacher witheaclassroom teacher in whom he has confidence. He greets the student teacher and college coordinator, then withdraws from the student teaching program. To the stu- dent teacher, the principal is apparently often perceived merely as an official greeter, an administrative leader of the school, a supervisor of instruction, a personnel specialist, an informational person, an evaluator, and in all of these, a vitally concerned human being, but also as a 2Sheila Schwartz, "The Principal's Role in the Student Teaching Program," The Journal of Teacher Education 13 (March 1962), 78-81. 3L. O. Andrews, Student Teaching (New York: Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1964), pp. 68-70. person who is much too busy to be bothered with student teaching. In talking with many principals, student teachers, supervising teachers and with several college coordinators, it was found that often the principal lacks full awareness of what his reSponsibilities should be, or are, within the student teaching program. It is felt that if the principal were aware of such role expectations, he would adequately perform them. The findings of this study will serve to assist the principal and members of the student teaching team to identify some of their concerns in regard to the principal's role in student teaching. Importance of the Study This study is important because in will help (1) to determine the principal's role in regard to the student teaching program in the Lansing, Michgian area as perceived by the members of the student teaching team, (2) to deter— mine if the principal's role in the student teaching program is perceived uniformly by members of the student teaching team in the Lansing area, and (3) to assist researchers in clarifying the role of the principal as a member of the student teaching team. Based upon the above stated importance and rationale of the study, a statement of the three-fold purpose of the study follows. Purpose of the Study The main purpose of this study was to investigate three basic areas that involved role perception of the principal: 1. To assess the role of the principal in the student teaching program in the Lansing, Michigan area as perceived by members of the selected groups chosen for this study, namely: a. Principals. b. Student teachers. c. University representatives (college coor- dinators, area supervisors, clinical consultants, and cluster consultants). d. Supervising teachers (cooperative teachers or base teachers). 2. To determine whether the perceived roles of the principal in the administration of the student teach- ing program differ among elementary school principals, junior high school principals, and secondary school prin- cipals. 3. To test some of the hypotheses which were suggested by the study of available literature and to test other hypotheses formulated from concerns ascertained from personal interviews with principals, university representa- tives, former student teachers, and supervising teachers regarding their perceptions of the principal's role in relation to student teaching. Problem and Rationale Today, the principal's role in regard to the stu- dent teaching program is not clearly defined. The rela— tionship between principal and student teacher usually takes the following pattern: (1) the principal agrees to place the student teacher with a classroom teacher in whom he has confidence; (2) he greets the student teacher and college supervisor; and (3) he then withdraws from the student teaching program. This withdrawal may be because he lacks time, but more often it is because the principal is not sure of the role he is expected to play. He may want to take a more active part but holds back to avoid the possibility of infringing on the territory of either the supervising teacher or the university representative. In many schools there is a direct correlation between the popularity of the principal and the degree to which he lets teachers alone.4 The danger of such reticence is that it leaves too much to chance. Student teachers do not develop into good teachers by chance. The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education spotlights the principal in stating: 4Johnson and Perry, Readings, p. 161. The need for definition is also true with re- Spect to the school principal's role in teacher education. The principal probably should take far more leadership in the improvement of instruction than he does. He could see the many possibilities for widening a student teacher's horizons in his school if he saw himself more as a tgacher educa- tor and had the knowledge to be one. The principal's role is multi-faceted. This study is concerned with the student teaching team's perception of the principal's role in the Lansing area, and these concerns led to the develOpment of the general hypotheses and assumptions which follow. Hypotheses and Assumptions Assumptions The hypotheses are based on these primary assump- tions: 1. It is assumed that the student teachers, super- vising teachers, principals, and university representatives to be involved in this study have distinct and unique roles in regard to the student teaching program while sharing in common goals. 2. It is assumed that the sample population is representative of the principals, student teachers, T v 5American Association of Colleges for Teacher Edu- cation, School-College»Relationships in Teacher Education: Report ofTa.Nationa1 Survey_of Cooperative Ventures (Wash- ‘ffigton, D.C.: The Association, 1964), p. 64. supervising teachers,and university representatives in the Lansing, Michigan area. Hypotheses The study tested the following hypotheses: Hypothesis I The principal is considered to be the most signi— ficant member of the student teaching team in the Lansing area. Hypothesis II There are significant differences in the way ele- mentary school, junior high school, and secondary school principals perceive the principal's role to be in the student teaching team in the Lansing area. Hypothesis III The principals perceive their roles to be more significant than the student teachers perceive the principal's role to be in the student teaching team in the Lansing area. Hypothesis IV The principals perceive their roles to be more significant than the supervising teachers perceive the principal's role to be in the student teaching team in the Lansing area. Hypothesis V The principals perceive their roles to be more significant than the university representatives perceive the principal's role to be in the student teaching team in the Lansing area. Hypothesis VI There are significant differences across groups in their consideration of importance of the principal's role in the student teaching team in the Lansing area. Definition of Terms The following describes the operational definition of terms used in this study: Principals are the administrators and overseers of school buildings wherein student teachers perform their student teaching responsibilities. Assistant principal is an assistant to the princi- pal who is assigned administrative responsibilities by the building principal. Elementary school principal is the overseer of a school building with students ranging from grades K-6. Middle school principal is the overseer of a school building with students ranging from grades 5-8 or 5-9. (However, in this study, middle school principals will be classified with junior high school principals.) Junior high schoplpringipal is the overseer of a school building with students ranging from grades 7-8 or 7—9. Secondary_school principal is the overseer of a school building with students ranging from grades 9-12 or 10-12. Student teacher is a college student who is engaged in an assigned student teaching experience. Supervising teacher (cooperating teacher or base teacher) is "a teacher of school pupils who also directs the work of a student teacher with these same students."6 6Johnson and Perry, Readings, p. 14. University_representative (area or college spper- visor, clinical or cluster consultant, and college coordi— pagg£)refers to "personnel or others employed by the college either part-time or full-time"7 with all or part of their assigned work load, the supervision of the acti— vities of student teachers and the relationships and condi- tions under which these students carry on their work.8 Members of the student teaching team refers to those individuals most directly involved in the student teaching program. From the public schools, these are the principals and supervising teachers; from the college or university, these are the university representatives and the student teachers. Perceived role is what members of the student teaching team think the principal's responsibilities should be. Limitations of the Study It is not the intent of this study to examine all facets of the principal's role as a school administrator, nor to study any other aspect of his role than that which pertains to his membership on the student teaching team. The study is therefore limited to examining the principal 7Ibid., p. 14. 81bid., p. 14. 10 only in his relationship with, and his perceived role in, the student teaching team. Summapy of Procedures Subjects One hundred and ninety-two (192) number-coded questionnaires were mailed or delivered to the prOposed respondents who worked in the Lansing, Michigan area, namely: (24) Principals. (72) Supervising teachers. (24) University representatives (area supervisors). (72) Student teachers. The above population for this study was randomly chosen from a list of names furnished by the Student Teach- ing Department at Michigan State University. One hundred and thirty-five of the sample population responded to the questionnaires. Twenty-one were principals and twenty-one were university representatives, while forty-eight were supervising teachers, and forty-five were student teachers. A total of 70.31 percent of the sample population participated in this study. ll Instrumentation In this study the questionnaire was used as the principal instrument for gathering data from all members of the student teaching team. It was composed of forty items or questions based on the instrument using the Likert—type scale. Two areas identified in the Review of the.Litera— ture (Chapter II) were used as the basis for a question- naire. These areas are: 1. What is the principal's role perceived to be in the student teaching program? 2. What is the principal's relationship with members of the student teaching team? The questionnaire was divided into four distinct parts. Each part asks the reSpondents what they perceive the principal's role to be as he (the principal) relates to members of the student teaching team, namely: (1) stu— dent teachers, (2) other principals, (3) supervising teachers, and (4) university representatives. (See Appendices A and B). The questions on the questionnaire are used to test the six hypotheses presented in this study. The first question, however, is different from the other thirty- nine. It deals with the importance of the principal as a member of the student teaching team and not with the 12 principal's role as perceived by members of the student teaching team. Analysis of the Data The selected data gathered were organized into related categories according to the purposes of the study. The responses from the questionnaire were tabulated for each group. A mean item score was computed for each group by averaging the item scores. To test the stated hypotheses the three-way Anova design was employed. The responses of the groups were tallied and tabulated to determine whether relationships existed among the average responses of the four groups used in the study. The Analysis of Variance was employed to test for overall significance of the questionnaire. The .05 percent level for acceptance or rejection of the null hypothesis was selected as being sufficiently rigorous for the condi- tions of the study. The statistic used to test the sixth hypothesis was the Scheffe Post hoc comparison. Organization of the Study The balance of this study is organized into four chapters. The review of literature is summarized in Chapter II. Studies examined included those concerned with (1) what is the principal's role perceived to be in 13 the student teaching program, and (2) what is the princi- pal's relationship with members of the student teaching team. Chapter III presents the design of the study and describes the procedures utilized in developing the instrument and obtaining the data. The statistical analyses used in testing the six hypotheses and in evaluating the data in relation to the problems posed are found in Chapter IV. Chapter V is the concluding chapter of the report and includes a summary of findings, conclusions drawn from the study, and implications for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The body of literature dealing with the role of the principal in the student teaching situation is both meager and disappointing in quality. Despite the fact that nearly all writers on student teaching pay consider- able attention to the importance of the principal in the process, there is very little research on such questions as what principals actually do contribute to student teach- ing or what the other participants in student teaching think they ought to contribute. This study represents an attempt to address the problem of the principal's role through empirical research, most specifically in regard to per- ceptions and expectations of all members of the student teaching team. In preparing the conceptualization and design of the present study, available literature was surveyed in order to determine the present state of knowl- edge in the problem area. This review summarizes and organizes the literature most directly relevant to the study. 14 15 A Basic Division of Opinion It is common in the literature of educational administration to distinguish between two rather different functions of administrators. One function, usually termed "administration," involves the management of the educational environment-~scheduling, communications, organization, and so on. The other function, whidh used to be termed "super- vision" but is now more commonly termed "educational lead— ership," is more directly focused on the quality and effectiveness of the actual learning environment.1 Here the principal's role includes observation and supervision of instruction, model teaching, c00perative lesson planning, and the like. There is a real and persistent division between the role of the principal that is said to be desirable in the administrative literature and descriptions of actual practice of principals. In general, the role of educational leader is given high status in the literature-- it is the role that all good administrators should strive to attain and the one to which they should devote their. main effort. On the other hand, the performance of admin- istrative tasks, sometimes of the most trivial sort, figures much larger in actual practice than does educational 1See, for example, Robert Houston, Frank H. Black- ington, III, and Horton C. Southworth, Professional Growth throughIStudent Teaching (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., I965), p. 104; and Hugo David, Handbook for Student Teachers (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Book Company, 1964), p. 18. 16 leadership. (It might be noted that a similar Split exists for teachers.) It is not surprising, then, that the dis- cussion of the principal's role in student teaching should embody this division. In prescriptions of what the principal's role should be, centrality is given to functions of the educa- tional leadership sort. Dahlem notes that the principal, "by virtue of his supervisory opportunities, is in a unique '"2 Briggs position to be a 'teacher of student teachers. suggests that the principal "should observe in the class where student teaching is being done; and he should confer with the student following the observation."3 Empirical research, to the contrary, indicates that the usual involve- ment of the principal in "educational leadership" activities is minimal. In reporting the results of a survey of super- vising teachers, The Supervising Teacher Thirty-Eighth Yearbook provides a list of those teachers' views of the principal's reSponsibilities. Of sixteen items, only four involve the supervision of instruction and then the princi— pal is seen more nearly as an observer than as a direct 2Margaret Dahlem, "A role Perception: The Cooperat- ing School Principal," Teacher Education and the Public Schools, Fortieth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching (Cedar Falls, Ia: The Association, 1961),p. 55. 3Kenneth R. Briggs, "The Role of the Principal in the Student Teaching Program," Supervisor's Quarterly, 2 (Winter 1969-70): 16. 17 participant.4 More to the point are descriptions of actual practices of principals. In a study by the Deans and Directors of Teacher Education in Michigan, most principals reported that student teaching added no more than an hour a week to their work load--scarce1y enough time to do much educational leadership.5 Brink, reporting data from forty institutions, asked if principals or the heads of academic departments exercised supervisory functions in student teaching. . . . sixteen universities answered 'no,‘ fifteen ’yes,‘ and nine qualified their answers by such terms as 'occasionally,‘ 'little,‘ or 'sometimes.’ It is apparent, however, that in the majority of cases the supervisory activities of these officials are of an incidental and voluntary character. Saxe, reporting on what happened to a group of 60 student teachers, noted that the group reported a total of 117 conferences with principals. The most reported by an individual was five conferences and thirteen had no personal contact with principals at all.7 —_ 4The Supervising Teacher Thirtyinqhth Yearbook (Cedar Falls, Ia.: Iowa State Teachers College, 1959), p. 93. 5Deans and Directors of Teacher Education in Michi- gan, The Impact of Student Teaching Prpgrams upon the CooperatingyPublic Schools in Michigan (Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Council of State College Presidents, 1970). 6William G. Brink, "The Administration of Student Teaching in Universities Which Use the Public Schools," Educational Administration and Supervision 31 (November, 1945): 399. 7Richard W. Saxe, "Student Teaching: What is the Role of the Principal?" Illinois Education 55 (November, 1966): 104—106. 18 In practice, then, it appears that the major responsibilities of the principal are administrative in nature. This review will emphasize three common, and important, administrative responsibilities of the princi- pal: the establishment of the school climate toward stu— dent teaching, the selection and placement of student teachers and supervising teachers and the orientation of the student teacher to the school setting. In addition, two educational leadership responsibilities that, though they seem to be seldom taken up by principals, figure importantly in the prescriptive literature will be dis- cussed. They are supervision of instruction and evaluation. The School Climate An important variable in the success or failure of student teaching is the general climate of the school to- ward student teaching. The principal is an important determiner of the character of the school climate, and this role has received substantial attention in the litera- ture. Haines writes: The principal is a key person in the school, and his leadership is essential to effective functioning of the student teaching program. The better informed the principal is and the more understanding he has of central purposes and goals of student teaching, the more likely it is that the administration of the program will be successful. 8Aleyne Clayton Haines, Guiding the Stpdent Teach- ing Process in Elementapy EducatiSn (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1960), p. 58. 19 10 Merrill,9 Andrews and Briggsll make the same point, arguing the principal's attitude toward and support for student teaching is one of the most important factors in determining whether student teaching will be successful. Briggs goes on to spell out some techniques that may serve to establish and maintain a positive school climate. They include convincing the teachers of the school of the benefits that can come from the student teaching program; using testimonials from previous super- vising teachers; explaining the program to all supervis- ing teachers and assisting the supervising teacher to structure his plans and reSponsibilities.12 There are also indications in the literature that the presence of a student teaching program can, itself, enhance the climate of the school, since most principals report that student teaching programs make a positive con- tribution to the school. Surveys in New York and Pennsylvania by Del Popolo and Hillson included questionnaires addressed to 9Edward C. Merrill, Sr., Professional Student Teach- ing_Program (Danville, I11.: The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1967), p. 134. loLeonard Andrews, Studept Teaching_(New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1964), p. 68. llBriggs, 9p. cit., p. 14. lZIbid. 20 administrators asking open-end questions on the benefits and shortcomings as they concerned their student teaching programs. They report that, in general, the administra- tors regarded student teaching as beneficial to the c00perating schools. They quote examples of comments made by reSpondents. One supervising principal stated: We feel that the mere presence of student teachers and college supervisors in our building is a form of in-service education. In helping prOSpective teachers, many of our regular teachers actually improve their own training and skills. Our teachers take pride in the fact that they are fulfilling a professional obligation.13 The investigators quote a superintendent as saying: We feel that these young peOple contribute many new ideas and suggestions to our schools. They help us keep in touch with teacher training and its problems. The student teachers enable us to carry on many things that we would otherwise not do. In addition, we are happy to be a part of the program of teacher training. It is some- thing we can do for the profession. Following the first year that student teachers had been placed in Mountain Grove (Missouri) High School, the principal, Ronald Compton, and his staff made an appraisal of the results. They were convinced that the presence of student teachers had stimulated regular teachers to be more professional, dynamic,and enthusiastic. Compton said: 138. A. Del Popolo and M. Hillson, "Student Teach— ing and the Role of the Public Schools," New York State Education 51 (March,l964): 14-15. 14 Ibid. 21 The school itself benefited from the student teachers' presence. Any book or journal on the state of education today decries the too little contact between college and school-~between theory and practice. If there is an answer to this prob- lem, the student teacher certainly provides it. Selection and Placement Perhaps no administrative function is as critical to the quality of the student teaching program as the selection of supervising teachers and the placement of stu- dent teachers with them. The importance of the selection and placement process and the centrality of the principal in the process is well recognized in the literature. 'Cook, Wilt, and Woofter note that "the most crucial task of the administrator is the selection and retention of a capable school faculty. . . . The public cannot afford to have student teachers working under the supervision of teachers of only average professional ability."16 "He [the principal] is in a position to identify those teachers who will make a real contribution to the student teaching program,"17 according to Dahlem. 15Lawson James Brown, "The Functions of School Prin- cipals in Student Teaching Programs" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Alabama, 1962), p. 136. 16Kermit A. Cook, May L. Wilt, and Mildred Woofter, Student Teaching ip the Secondary_School (Dubuque, Iowa: William C.TBrown Company, 1954i) p. 302 17Dahlem, Role Perception, p. 54. 22 Chase also finds the principal's involvement a factor: "It is essential that the local administrator and college representative work together in solving one of the major difficulties in a program of student teaching--that of securing high calibre resident teachers."18 Perrodin provides some indication on the criteria the principal should use in choosing the cooperating teacher: No one is in a better position than the local school principal to serve (the) recruitment func- tion. He knows which teachers are truly master teachers, which have well adjusted personalities, which have a contagious zeal for teaching, and which are equipped with the human relations skills that are needed for guiding and sharing teaching and learning experiences.1 Bennie stresses the necessity for consultation with the teachers who are being selected in order to ascertain their concerns and needs: No teacher should be recommended for the super- visory job unless he has indicated'a desire to work with a student teacher.’ In keeping with the apprOpriate democratic procedures, the principal should confer with teachers who might serve as cooperating teachers and make certain of their c00peration in the student teaching endeavor. This does much to assure the proper human rela- tionships which are important to the ultimate 18Daniel C. Chase, "Student Teaching Programs Require Effective Cooperation," California Journal of Secondary Education 31 (April, 1956): 201} 19Alex F. Perrodin, "The Principal and the Student Teacher," Educational Administration and Supervision 42 (March, 1956): 149. 23 success of the college student.20 Nelson and McDonald feel that the principal's decision in selecting a supervising teacher is usually based on four factors: a. The teaching ability of the teacher. b. The emotional stability of the teacher. c. The willingness of the teacher to cooperate in the student teaching program. d. The adequacy of the physical facilities involved. Orientation One point on which there is fairly general agree- ment in all the literature is the importance of the princi- pal in providing the student teacher's general introduction to the school. The principal is in perhaps the best position to see that the student teacher has-a comprehen— sive picture of the total school program and to insure that the student teacher is included in a wide array of school activities. Cook, Wilt, and Woofter suggest four major orientation activities: welcome of the student teacher to the school; introduction of the student teacher to staff, including non-instructional staff; introduction of the 20William A. Bennie, Cooperation for Better Student Teaching (Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company, 1966), pp. - 6. 21Leslie Nelson and Blanche McDonald, Guide to Stu- dent Teaching (Dubuque, Ia.: Wm. C. Brown Company, 1952), p 0 4i 0 24 student teacher to the general school program and the extension to the student teacher of invitations to faculty meetings.22 The introduction to program function is also stressed in the Thirty-Eighth Yearbook.23 Briggs adds to the orientation reSponsibility the need for the principal to serve as a link between the community and the student teaching program. This can be done at P.T.A. meetings, athletic events, and various other school activities. The principal should help the community to understand the student teaching program. Once a community has accepted a student teaching program, it will continue to support the program only so long as it is kept informed.2 Woodruff also cites the necessity for a community appreci- ation of the student teacher program when he says that "the principal is reSponsible for acquainting the community with the nature and importance of the teacher training pro- gram and its value to the schools and communities."25 Other writers also stress the importance of the community orientation. Dahlem notes that the principal should acquaint the student teacher with the socioeconomic background of the pupils, perhaps taking the student 22 pp. 31-320 23 Cook, Wilt, and Woofter, Spudent Teaching, Thirty-Eighth Yearbook, p. 94. 24Briggs, p. 14. 25Asahel D. Woodruff, Student Teaching_Today (Wash- ington, D.C.: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1960): p. 5. 25 teacher on a tour of the school community.26v Schorling and Batchelder note the role of the principal in mediating the relationship between the attitudes and expectations of the student teacher and those of the school community. "The superintendent and principal are also under obligation to respect the mores of the community in which they work, and the changes they would like to see put in effect are often blocked by community prejudice and tradition."27 The orientation function is, thus, a fairly far- reaching and important part of the student teaching experi- ence. It is a function that is consistently assigned to the principal and one that can significantly effect the quality of the student teaching program. Supervision In perhaps no area of the principal's responsibility is there a greater lack of clarity than in that of super- vision of instruction. The role definition extends from "28 to no direct 29 that of "teacher of student teachers participation in student teaching at all. In the 26Dahlem, "Role Perception," p. 55. 27Raleigh Schorling and Howard T. Batchelder, Stu- dent Teaching in Secondary Schools (New York, Toronto, and London: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956), p. 102. 28Dahlem, "Role Perception," p. 55. 29Brink, pp. cit., p. 398. 26 literature, something of a "middle ground" position seems to emerge, in which the principal's role emerges as an observer rather than as a directly and continuously in- volved supervisor. The Thirty-Eighth Yearbook lists expectations of supervising teachers for the principal as including the observation of classes in which student teaching is being done, the observation of the student teacher in his actual teaching and, "when feasible," a post-observation conference.30 A similar formulation is given in a guide to student teaching from New Jersey. The principal is expected to apprise the student teacher:of the school's performance expectations, to visit the class- room and observe planning and teaching, to confer with the supervising teacher and the student teacher to discuss observations and to confer with the supervising teacher and college representative to assess the student teacher's progress.31 Briggs, in developing the notion of the prin- cipal as "teacher of student teachers," notes that the principal can "give student teachers the same kind of assis- 32 tance that he customarily eXtends to the regular staff." In fact, this is most probably what most principals do. 30Thirty-Eighth Yearbook, p. 93. 31Off-Campus Student Teaching in New Jeggey Schools (Pitman, N.J.: New Jersey State Association for Student Teaching, Webb Press, 1963), pp. 26-27). 32Briggs, "Role of Principal," p. 55. 27 If they customarily work with their teachers on problems of instruction they will probably do the same with student teachers. If they do not Spend much time on supervision customarily, they will be unlikely to do so with student teachers. Burr and Harding stress the benefits that a student teacher can acquire from a principal who is willing to spend time and effort in supervision. "Your individual relationships with the principal will be similar to those you have experienced with your cooperating teacher or college supervisor. He will want to . . . observe you at work with children, to appraise with you your growth."33 Supervision, then, remains a rather murky dimension of the principal's role--more often extolled in theory than manifested in practice. It would be helpful if the litera- ture spoke more directly to the consequences of supervision by the principal in the student teaching program. It is mainly held up as a good thing to have, but the literature is silent on the question of whether it is either a good thing to have or a reasonable expectation to hold for the principal. Evaluation There is, in almost all cases, an evaluation dimen- sion to the principal's responsibilities for student 33James R. Burr and Lowry W. Harding, Student Teaching in Elementary School (New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, Inc., 1950), p. 441. 28 teaching, if for no other reaSon than the fact that the principal will be required to submit a written evaluation or letter of recommendation. Discussions of how that respon- sibility is to be discharged vary somewhat, but nearly all literature includes the importance of principals' having some observational basis on which to make evaluations. The ThirtyrEighth Yearbook recommends that the principal meet with the student teacher at the end of the experience "in order to evaluate this experience with the supervising teacher and the student teacher."34 In terms of evaluation, the principal is frequently kept outside the team charged with student teacher evalu- ation simply by the exclusion of the principal from lists of those reSponsible as indicated, for example, in an article by McGrath: To be effective, a program of evaluation in stu- dent teaching should utilize judgment and appraisal rendered by the pupils taught by the practice teacher, by the student teacher of his own work, by the classroom teacher under whose direction the student teacher taught, and by the supervisor of student teaching employed by the teacher training institution.35 Byers and Irish point up extremes in the participa- tion of the principal by describing, to the student teacher, 34Thirty-Eighth Yearbook, p. 93. 35G. D. McGrath, "Evaluation of Student Teaching," Educational Administration and Supervision_ 35 (November, 1949): 443 .9 29 their view of the relationship of the principal to the student teacher. The extent to which the school principal evalu— ates student teachers varies from school district to school district. In one metropolitan area, the school principal visits whenever the college sup- ervisor visits, and sometimes for other lessons as well. He holds group conferences with student teachers each week, and holds individual confer- ences as he feels they are needed. In other dis- tricts, the principal relies upon the impressions he receives from your manner and conduct in the school, and from reports of the supervising teacher and college supervisor.36 Curtis and Andrews describe no special role for the principal except that, if the student teacher is seen as not good, the principal may be brought in to support the negative evaluations of the classroom teacher and college supervisor.37 Dahlem paints an ideal scene, picturing the princi- pal as a "Partner in Evaluation," writing "that good situ- ations are where the principal makes numerous contacts with the student so that he can offer his own evaluation to the student teacher directly and through the student's records 'provided that he has seen enough of the student's work to make a fair appraisal.”38 36Loretta Byers and Elizabeth Irish, Success in Student Teaching (Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1961), p. 23I} 37Dwight K. Curtis and Leonard 0. Anderson, Guidin Yeur Student Teachers (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- HaIl, Inc.,fi954T} pp. 312-317. 38Dahlem, "Role Perception," p. 57. 30 Education is a process in which the learner and all those concerned with his growth should participate. The primary purpose of the student teacher is to learn how to teach. He can learn much through cooperative evaluation with his supervising teacher and college supervisor. In some instances the principal, department head, or another teacher will also work closely with him. He should wel- come Opportunities to work in c00peration with these mem- bers of the staff and to obtain their assistance in helping him grow in teaching skill. Tanruther says that, The first step in the evaluation of teaching skill is determination of the goals to be achieved. These goals are frequently stated in terms of teaching competencies. One authority groups these competencies under three major headings as follows: I. Director of Learning Adapts principles of child growth and deve10pment to planning of learning activities Plans teaching-learning situations in accord with acceptable principles of learning Demonstrates effective instructional procedures Utilizes adequate evaluation procedures Maintains an effective balance of free- dom and security in the classroom II. Counselor and Guidance Worker Utilizes effective procedures for collect- ing information about each pupil Uses diagnostic and remedial procedures effectively - Helps the pupil to understand himself Works effectively with the specialized counseling services 31 III. Mediator of the Culture Draws on a scholarly background to enrich cultural growth of pupils.39 In the application of the evaluation goals outlined by Tanruther, the principal takes a personal and direct interest in the professional growth of the student teacher. Tanruther continues, Because he views the prospective teacher as a po- tential member of his staff or for other reasons, the principal sometimes visits him at work in the classroom. Some principals hOld individual or group conferences with prospective teachers. In some instances the principal will use the college evaluation form and/or that of the school system in evaluating the work of the young teacher.40 Conclusion In summary, the literature, while stressing the importance of the principal to a sound program of student teaching, emphasizes the administrative dimensions of his contribution. His role, then, is distinctive from that of the other participants: the supervising teacher, the stu- dent teacher and the college supervisor. His two most important impacts on student teaching would seem to be in the areas of school climate and the selection of supervising teachers. These are, in addition, areas in which his 39Edgar M. Tanruther, glgnical Experienceggin Teach- ing for the Student Teacher or Intern (New York: Dodd Mead and’Company, 1969), pp. 208-209. 40Ibid., pp. 224-225. 32 contribution is unique. The other area in which he has a unique contribution to make is in orientation to the school, staff,and community. In supervision and evaluation, the principal seems generally to be seen as having a secondary place to the supervising teacher. His contribution in those areas is desirable, but not absolutely necessary. The literature does display a substantial lack of defini- tion and agreement in regard to the apprOpriate role of the principal and validates the notion that investigation of the principal's role, as undertaken in this study, is an important component in developing an overall understand- ing of the student teaching process. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES UTILIZED IN THE STUDY The primary purpose of this chapter is to describe the research design of the study, including construction of the instrument, a description of the data collection process, the six hypotheses developed for the study, and the statistical procedures employed to analyze the data. General Information The school buildings used in this study are located in the Lansing, Michigan area. School buildings were used for this study only if they had supervising teachers who worked with Michigan State University student teachers during the 1975 winter and spring terms. The principals were randomly selected for this study only if the student teachers taught in their school buildings. Where there were only three student teachers in a particular school building, the three student teachers were used. If there were four or more student teachers in any one school building, three student teachers were randomly selected at that particular school building. 33 34 The supervising teachers were randomly selected in the same manner. The perSOn'wh0se responsibilities were to Super- vise the Student teaching prOgram in‘a partiCular school” ” building receiVed the questionnaire used for this study; Design of the Study The design for this study includes the stratified random selection of 24 principals, 72 student teachers, 72 supervising teachers, and 24 university representatives who were presently working or have worked in the Lansing area during the 1975 winter and spring terms. *For each principal and each university representative selected, there were three student teachers and three supervising teachers randomly selected for-the study. The population for this study was chosen from a list of names furnished by the Student Teaching Department at Michigan State University. (See Table l.) The design.0f.this Study included the various factors built into the instrument to explore the role perceptions from the student teaching team. The Scheffe Post hoc procedure and analysis of variance allowed the manipulation and control of two or more variables simul- taneously. 35 Table 1. Sample population broken down by occupations and school levels. Junior Senior Question- Elementary High High naires Occupations Schools Schools Schoolsi Sent Out Principals N = 8 N = 8 N = 8 N = 24 Student Teachers N = 24 N = 24 - N = 24 N = 72 Supervising Teachers N = 24 N = 24 N = 24 N = 72 University Representatives N = 8 N = 8 N = 8 N = 24 Total N = 192a aNumber of questionnaires which were sent to the respondents. DeveloPment of the Instrument Two areas of concern were used as the basis for formulating a questionnaire. These areas are: 1. What is the principal's role perceived to be in the student teaching program? 2. What is the principal's relationship with members of the student teaching team? These areas invoke a special concern about the principal's role in the student teaching experience on the part of principals, student teachers, university represen- tatives, and supervising teachers. Much of the exploration and the subsequent con- struction of items on the questionnaire was based on 36 personal interviews with principals, talks with student teachers, observations of supervising teachers working With prospective teachers, and a review of the literature written by college coordinators and recognized authors knowledgeable about this tOpic. Instrumentation In this study, the questionnaire was used as the principal instrument for gathering data from all members of the student teaching teams. It was composed of forty items based on the instrument formulated by the Likert- typel scale with ideas supportive of Gross and Grambsch (University Goals and Academic Power),2 and those ideas contained in a similar instrument‘develOped by the Educa- 3 tional Testing Service (Institutional Goals Inventory). (See Appendix B.) Center Directors Help in Instrument Develppment On February 15, 1975, a questionnaire of fifty- four questions was sent to nineteen center directors 1Meredith D. Gall and Walter R. Borg, Educational Research: An Introduction (New York: David McKay Company, 1973): pp. 183-184. 2Edward Gross and Paul Grambsch, University and Academic Power (Washington, D. C.: American Counc11 on Education, 1968). 3Institutional Goals Inventory_(IGI) (Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1972T2 37 employed by Michigan State University's Student Teaching Department, East Lansing, Michigan. These center directors direct student teaching programs throughout the State of Michigan. By April 5, 1975, fifteen out of nineteen question- naires were returned (approximately 79 percent return). See Appendix A. From the fifty-four questions on the questionnaire sent to the center directors, thirty-nine were selected to be used for the questionnaire for this study.r Question 40? was formulated-from the resultsffound in the review oft literature in regard to the_principal as'a;person.. Each of the fifty-four questions sent to the center directors had four categories, namely: . Least significant . Significant More significant Most significant obbJNI-J Sample Question: Check one / 1. The principal should be familiar with the student teaching in- service classes. l 2 3 4 Each reSpondent (the center director) asked himself if this question was least significant (1), significant (2), more significant (3),or most significant (4) £2 him; then he checked the category he favored. 38 Each category was multiplied by the number of re- spondents checking that category. For example, if question 1 received 2 check marks in the least significant category (1), 2 and 1 were multiplied for a total of 2. If question 1 received 3 check marks in the significant category (2), 3 was multiplied by 2. If question 1 received 5 check marks in the more significant category (3),5 was multiplied by 3. And finally, if the question received 5 check marks in the most significant column (4), 5 and 4 were multiplied. To find the overall rating for question 1, the totals from the four categories were added. In this case, that total was 43 (2 + 6 + 15 + 20 = 43). The total rating for each of the other fifty-three questions was computed in the same way. Rankinggouestions The possible total that each question could receive in the ranking ranged from a low of 15 (15 x l) to a high of 60 (15 x 4). From the questionnaires sent to the center directors, the returns, after rating, were a low of 18 and a high of 57. For example, question 54 received a rating of 18 and question 20 received a rating of 57. The ques- tions rated from 18 to 34 were not used in the question- naire for this study. There were eleven questions that fell below the cut-off point of 35. 39 Forty-three questions were rated 35 or above. Thirty-nine of these questions were randomly selected for the questionnaire used for this study. Relating the Questionnaire to the Hypotheses The questions on the questionnaire were used to test the six hypotheses presented in this study. All the questions except the first question ask the reSpondents about their perceptions of what the principal's role should be; however, the first question deals with the importance of the principal as perceived by members of the student teaching team. Primarily, the questionaire is arranged in four main parts: 1. The principal's perception of the principal's role. 2. The student teacher's perception of the principal's 3. Tfiaesupervising teacher's perception of the princi- pal's role. 4. The university representative's perception of the principal's role. Data Collection Procedures One hundred ninety-two (192) number-coded question- naires were mailed or delivered to the pr0posed respondents in the Lansing, Michigan area, namely: . Principals. Student teachers. Supervising teachers. University representatives (area supervisors). obbJNH 40 A cover letter with a self-addressed, stamped envelope was delivered or mailed to each reSpondent. Most questionnaires were returned within a week. If the first questionnaire was not returned within two weeks, a second letter was mailed to the respondents with a similar approach as the first letter, but with an urgent request for a speedy return of the first question- naire. If the mailing procedures failed to accomplish the intended objective, telephone calls were made. Table 2. Number of questionnaires returned. Number of Questionnaires Number Percent Levels or Occupations Sent Returned Returned Principals 24 21 87.5 Supervising Teachers 72 48 66.6 University Representatives 24 21 87.5 Student Teachers 72 45 62.5 Total 70.31 41 The Six Hypotheses Developed for the Study The following hypotheses were posed for testing in this study: Hypothesis I: The principal is considered to be the most significant member of the student teaching team in the Lansing area. Hyppthesis II:, There are significant differences in the way elementary sChoOl, junior high school, and secondary school principals perceive the principal's role in the student teaching team in the Lansing area. Hypothesis III: The principals perceive their roles to be more significant than the student teachers perceive the principal's role to be in the student teach- ing team in the Lansing area. Hypothesis IV: The principals perceive their roles to be more significant than the supervising teachers perceive the principal's role to be in the student teach- ing team in the Lansing area. Hypothesis V: The principals perceive their roles to be more significant than the university representatives perceive the principal's role to be in the student teaching team in the Lansing area. ‘ Hypothesis VI: There are significant differences across groups in their consideration of the importance of 42 the principal's role in the student teaching team in the Lansing area. Statistical Procedures Usediin This Study The selected data gathered were organized into related categories according to the purposes of the study. The responses were tabulated for each group. A mean item score was computed for each group by averaging the item scores. To test the stated hypotheses, the Three-Way Anova design was employed. The responses of the groups were tallied and tabulated to determine whether relationships existed among the average reSponses of the four groups. The computed Three-Way Anova designed values were compared with tabulated values at different degrees of freedom. A sample of the formula for determining the degrees of freedom is shown below. 43 Table 3. Anova table, showing degrees by sources. Source df Ms F E(MS) Occupational Levels i-l Levels J-l Sex K-l Occupations x Level (i-l)(J-l) Occupations x Sex (i-l)(K-1) Levels x Sex (J-l)(K-l) Error (e) (i-l)(J-1)(K-1) Model: M + di + B. + Ak + (dB)ij + (aA)ik(BA)jk + eijk I" II .5 Q II occupational effects J = 3 B = Level K = 2 A = Sex effects e = error (dB), (a1), (B1) = interaction effects Assumptions for the three-way fixed design are as follows: Normality Equality of variance Independence Equal or proportional cell sizes Since the hypotheses tested predict that one score will be greater in a particular direction to a statistically significant degree, it was decided that a one-tailed test of significance was apprOpriate in testing these hypotheses 44 with a level of confidence of .05 (see Figures 1 and 2 below). a = Level of Significance Example: a S .05 means that a significant dif- ference in hypothesis results has been found. Note: a S .01 is better than a S .05. However, a = .05 means that in 95% of the cases, one would get a significant difference. 1 4 a = l - .05 = .95 or 95% Figure 1. Method used to determine reSults of three-way analysis of the variance. 1 - a = .95 d = .05 1.00 The whole design = 1.00 Example: a = .001 The level of confidence = 1-.001 = .999 or 99.9%' a 2 means there is no significant difference in findings as stated by the hypotheses. Figure 2. Understanding level of confidence by illustration. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Chapter IV presents the abbreviations used in the study and the statistical input from the questionnaire. Hypotheses I through VI are examined in relation to the statistical analyses used in the study. Abbreviations Used in the Study The following abbreviations are used in this study: (1P) Principal or principals (lPE) Elementary school principal (lPJ) Junior high school principal (1P8) Secondary school principal (28) Supervising teacher or teachers (25E) Elementary school supervising teacher (ZSJ) Junior high school supervising teacher (258) Secondary school supervising teacher (BUR) University representative or representatives (3URE Elementary school university representative (BURJ Junior high school university representative (BURS Secondary school university representative 45 ST (4) (4STE ) ) ) (4STJ (4STS (E) (J) (S) (M) (F) (NR) 46 Student teacher or teachers Elementary school student teacher Junior high school student teacher Secondary school student teacher Elementary school Junior high school Secondary school Male Female Number of responses to questions on questionnaire ‘- . I. Numerical ReSponses to Questions on Questionnaire: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Statistical Input from the Questionnaire The following tables summarized the reSponses to the questionnaire according to category of reSpondent. Identification of Fifpy_ Percent Response When fifty percent or more of any one group (prin- cipals, supervising teachers, university representatives, and student teachers) perceive any one question or item 47 on the questionnaire important, it is highly likely that the question should be considered for closer evaluation. Table 4 indicates the minimum number of responses required from each group to reach fifty percent.‘ Table 4. Fifty percent responses from each group of the student teaching team. Number of Responses Groups Population Equalling Approx. 50% Principals 21 ll Supervising Teachers 48 24 University Representatives 21 g 11 Student Teachers 45 23 Table 5 is a summary of the principals' responses to the questions on the questionnaire and indicates which questions received 50 percent or greater response. ReSponses from the entire teaching team are tabulated in Appendix D. Table 5 shows that more than 50 percent of the principals strongly agreed with questions 2, 3, 9, ll, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 27, 29, 31, and 32. The number of principals marking the agree column for questions 8, 16, 21, 22, 24, 26, and 39 was also 50 percent or greater. Note that the principals divided their responses to question 1 between 48 the strongly disagree and disagree categories. Table 5. Principals' responses to questionnaire. Strongly Strongly Question Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 l l 3 8 8 2 15 5 0 l 0 3 l3 4 2 l l 4 9 10 l 0 l 5 7 7 6 0 l 6 3 10 5 3 0 7 6 7 5 3 0 8 7 ll 2 1 0 9 12 7 2 0 0 10 10 7 2 2 0 ll 13 6 l 0 1 r 12 15 5 l 0 0 13 12 8 1 0 0 14 12 7 2 0 0 15 6 9 5 1 0 16 4 12 5 0 0 17 13 7 1 0 0 18 10 10 0 l 0 19 13 5 2 1 0 20 6 5 9 l 0 21 5 ll 4 1 0 22 5 14 2 0 0 23 6 10 3 2 0 24 7 11 1 2 0 25 2 10 8 1 0 26 4 ll 5 1 0 27 12 4 2 3 0 28 10 4 3 4 0 29 15 6 0 0 0 30 10 9 1 1 0 31 14 6 0 1 0' 32 13 6 2 0 0 33 10 7 1 3 0 34 7 10 2 2 0 35 6 7 5 3 0 36 6 5 4 5 l 37 6 10 4 l 0 38 5 10 3 3 0 39 10 11 0 0 0 40 8 10 2 l 0 49 ‘ Table 6 summarizes the supervising teachers' re- sponses to the questionnaire. Questions receiving 24 or more responses are in the fifty percent or greater category. More than fifty percent of the supervising teachers strongly agreed with question 3, which states that student teachers should be provided and become familiar with some written statement regarding building policy, and question Eng 29, which indicates that principals should secure the con- 1 sent of teachers before selecting them as supervising teachers. The number marking the agree column for questions 9, 10, ll, 12, l3, 14, 16, 17, 18, 22, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 3!” 34, 37, 39, and 40 also equalled or surpassed the fifty percent minimum. In the responses for question 1, which states that the principal is considered more important than other mem- bers of the student teaching team, all but one of the super— vising teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed and none agreed with the question. In Table 7 on page 51 the reSponses of the univer-‘ sity representatives are tabulated and 11 is the number. indicating a fifty percent reSponse. Fifty percent or more university representatives strongly agreed with question 11, which indicates that the principal should be informed of activities contemplated by student teachers involving policy or legal questions; with question 12, which states that the principal should become 50 Table 6. Supervising teachers' responses to questionnaire. Strongly Strongly Question Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 0 0 1 27 20 2 23 20 2 3 0 3 27 18 1 l l 4 21 22 4 0 l 5 10 15 16 7 0 6 2 14 15 14 33 7 7 l6 7 17 l 8 10 22 9 6 1 9 11 24 8 3 2 10 10 29 5 3 1 11 13 28 3 4 0 12 15 29 4 0 0 13 15 30 2 1 0 l4 4 29 12 3 0 15 2 l9 l9 7 l 16 3 28 15 2 0 17 11 30 6 0 l 18 13 27 5 2 l 19 15 23 8 2 0 20 8 22 13 3 2 21 5 23 14 4 2 22 7 29 10 l l 23 6 l9 l7 4 2 24 6 22 15 3 2 25 3 20 16 7 2 26 4 26 14 4 0 27 8 12 14 10 4 28 7 12 ll 15 3 29 30 15 l l l 30 9 26 9 3 1 31 15 27 3 2 l 32 7 30 7 2 2 33 9 28 4 4 3 34 5 31 8 2 2 35 5 13 13 15 2 36 l 15 17 13 2 37 5 24 13 5 1 38 5 21 14 7 1 39 11 24 ll 1 1 40 3 24 14 5 2 51 Table 7. University representatives' responses to questionnaire. Strongly Strongly Question Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 0 0 3 12 6 2 8 7 3 3 0 3 10 5 1 5 0 4 8 9 3 l 0 5 4 9 6 2 0 6 2 10 4 5 0 7 3 10 6 2 0 8 8 12 l 0 0 9 5 12 l 2 1 10 2 18 l 0 0 11 ll 9 l 0 0 12 11 10 0 0 0 13 12 9 0 0 0 14 9 7 2 3 0 15 3 ll 4 3 0 16 5 12 4 0 0 17 ll 9 0 l 0 l8 9 10 l 1 0 19 6 10 5 0 0 20 6 15 0 0 0 21 4 9 4 4 0 22 6 10 4 l 0 23 3 12 4 2 0 24 4 ll 4 2 0 25 4 13 3 1 0 26 6 12 3 0 0 27 4 9 3 3 2 28 2 9 3 4 3 29 13 6 l l 0 30 4 10 5 1 l 31 9 11 1 0 0 32 7 11 3 0 0 33 2 12 3 3 0 34 3 11 6 0 l 35 l 10 6 4 0 36 l 7 10 3 0 37 3 10 7 l 0 38 4 9 6 2 0 39 8 11 l 0 1 40 2 9 9 l 0 52 Table 8. Student teachers' reSponses to questionnaire. Strongly Strongly Question Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 1 0 0 6 20 19 2 14 22 7 2 0 3 18 20 5 2 0 4 14 27 3 1 0 5 8 5 20 9 3 6 5 18 11 ll 0 7 10 26 4 4 l 8 11 28 5 0 l 9 12 22 10 l 0 10 13 24 8 0 0 11 19 18 5 2 1 12 13 22 8 l 1 13 12 26 5 1 1 14 11 21 10 2 1 15 5 14 15 10 l 16 6 27 9 2 1 17 15 18 10 2 0 18 13 24 8 0 0 19 14 22 5 3 0 20 ' 9 16 10 8 2 21 9 16 13 6 l 22 9 21 ll 4 0 23 8 24 10 3 0 24 7 24 11 3 0 25 9 16 18 2 0 26 8 22 13 2 0 27 4 14 14 8 5 28 3 8 13 15 6 29 23 16 2 2 2 30 16 21 6 1 l 31 23 18 4 0 0 32 15 21 7 1 1 33 19 16 7 3 0 34 ll 21 ll 1 l 35 7 19 11 8 0 36 7 17 14 5 2 37 8 28 6 3 0 38 18 23 2 l l 39 21 19 3 l 1 40 13 20 9 3 0 53 personally acquainted with college coordinators; with question 13, that says the principal should become knowl- edgeable concerning the teacher education program of the college or university; with question 17, which states that the principal should confer with college coordinators at least annually regarding the administration of student teaching programs; and with question 29, which indicates that principals should secure the consent of teachers before selecting them as supervising teachers. Fifty per- cent or more agreed with questions 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 39. Regarding question 1, which says the principal is considered the most important member of the student teach- ing team, fifty percent or more of the university represen- tatives disagreed or strongly disagreed, and none agreed. Table 8 is the final table of this series, and it enumerates the student teachers' reSponses to the question- naire, with the number 23 indicating a fifty percent reSponse. Fifty percent of the student teachers strongly agreed with question 29, which indicates that principals should secure the consent of teachers before selecting them as supervising teachers, and with question 31, which states that principals should encourage supervising teachers to be alert and responsive to student teachers' needs. Fifty percent or more agreed with questions 4, 7, 8, 10, L3: 16, 18, 23, 24, 37, and 38. The majority of the 54 student teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed with question 1, which indicates that the principal is the most important member of the student teaching team. Like the supervising teachers and university representatives, none of the student teachers agreed with question 1. Table 9 charts those questions which received fifty percent or greater response in the strongly ggree cate- gory and compares the reSponses from each group with each question. These reSponses imply that the reSpondents per- ceived these questions to be more pertinent to the princi- pal's role than other questions in the questionnaire. Table 9 reveals that fifty percent or more of the principals and supervising teachers in this study strongly agreed with questions 3 and 29 of the questionnaire. Fifty percent or more of the principals and university represen- tatives strongly agreed with questions 11, 12, 13, 17, and 29, while fifty percent or more of the principals and stu- dent teachers strongly agreed with questions 29 and 31. Questions 2, 9, 14, 19, 27, and 32 recorded a fifty percent or greater reSponse in the strongly agree category only from the principals. Importantly, question 29 was the only question in the questionnaire to which fifty percent or more of all four groups of the student teaching team strongly agreed. 55 .nmeaesnon news» as mamnmoum msflnomou unopsum Doonwp 0:3 mnoumcwpuooo omoaaoo noes poucflmswom maamcomnom oeooom .NH .moflufl>wpom omonu mo #50 mcfihuumo on“ on phenom cues doeuoonap o>auouumflsfle rpm o>flm tam A.ouo .mmfluu paofimv ms0flumooq Homoa Ho mOAHom mcw>ao> use whosomou acmpSpm an poumam reducoo moHuH>Huom mo poEHomcH om .HH .mflnu passed on mmcfluooe masoonom tam .mmcfluooe huasoom campus ou mHocomou ucwpsum ouwsvom .m .ouspoooum new NUHHOQ msflpaesn mo ucoeoumum cmuufln3 Hosuo no xoonpepe messages n eon: HMHHHEMM oeooon one popfl>oum one muonomou ucopsym pony mom .m .oocownmmxo mcflsomop ucopsum on“ NO mcflcsflmon on» no momom Imam coaumucofiuo How mumsomou pcopsum nuflz moogoHomcoo o>mm .N muonomme mo>Humu muonomoe pampnum Icomoumom mcflmfl> muflmuo>flca . luomom maomflocwum coHummso Illnuunu .wuomoumo momma mamcouum on» GH oncommmu noumoum Ho ucoosom mowew mcfl>wooou chADmosq on msoum an momCOQme mo COmHHmmEoo . m WHQWH. 56 .c0flu lemon Hosomou mcfimw>nomom Op acme Iucfiommo MOM mpnmpcmum msHMMHHosw mo undemoao>oo may as ouomHOHunmm .mpooc .mnonooou unopsum ou o>amcommou one Human on on muocomou mdfima>uom5m mmmuooocm .mnogomou msflmw>uomsm mm Ewan msfluooaom Ho mcwpcoeeoomu ouomon mnonooou mo ucomcoo on» ousoom .muosomou mcfimfl> summon mo coauooaom Assam oxmz .moaufl>fluom Hoonom Hopmm tam mcflnomou.ucmpsum o>uomno on mHoonom Hams» uflmw> ou mnoumswpuooo omoHHoo ouH>sH .mEmumon acetone» ucopoum mo coauouumflsfie rpm one on pummmn sues maamoccm soap mood on mswnomop Baotoum mo mnoumcfipuooo omoaaoo cues Homsoo .HoGGOmHom Hoonom oaandm on» nufl3 unmmEoo ca memnmoum meanomou ucmcsum mo doflm |H>on Ho cosmop may cw mnoumcflpuo Ioo omoHHoo can cufl3 ouomfloflunmm .muHmHo>Hco Ho omoaaoo on» mo Emumonm coflumodco Hocomou map deadwoodoo oaomompoasocx oEooom .Nm .Hm .mm .mm .ma .ba .vH .ma 57 Summary Examination of the above tables reveals a great deal of similarity of reSponse to many of the questions. For example, the number of reSpondents in every category who strongly agreed that the principal should secure the consent of teachers before recommending or selecting them as supervising teachers (question 29) was fifty percent or greater. At least fifty percent of the principals and university representatives strongly agreed that the prin- cipal should be informed of activities contemplated by student teachers involving policy or legal questions (field trips, and so forth) and that principals should give admin- istrative direction with regard to such activities (question 11). Fifty percent or more principals strongly agreed with question 32, which states that principals should partici- pate in the development of qualifying standards for appoint- ment to supervising teacher positions. The supervising teachers and university representatives marked a fifty per- cent or greater response in the agree column for that question and the student teachers were divided between strongly agree and agree. On question 1, which states that the principal as a member of the student teaching team is considered more important than other members of the team such as supervis- ing teacher, university representative, and student teacher, all but fifteen of the total 135 reSpondents disagreed or 58 strongly disagreed with the question. Only two of the fifteen agreed, and thirteen were neutral. Consequently, Tables 5-9 demonstrate a marked similarity of response to that question. The following section lists the hypotheses of the study and applies appropriate statistical analyses to them. In some instances the results of selected question from the above tables will be used. Statistical Examination of the Six Hypotheses Hypothesis I: The_principal is considered to be the most significant member ofithe student teaching team in the Lansiug area. Question 1 on the questionnaire was a restatement of Hypothesis I and the responses to it are recorded in Table 10. Table 10 shows that there are no major differences among the sample population in their responses to Hypothe- sis I. .~ Ir 59 Table 10. Total pOpulation responses to question 1. + m o > -H U» u m : >«m e4 -H +3u o mcn was m a. -asq m m +JH -a a o Lam c1m o n a>o QLC H s or) >s4 'U() o -H and -H£L 5'6 P H D40 H H <1) r-ICD U» m H can c o o H or c m o o o u m c>m H u u s m Lam +)U\ o» o -a iha mtu o s ro m'o l 2 4 5 7. Confer with student teachers regarding the progress of their work at least once during the term. 8. Have frequent informal contacts with student teachers during the term. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 96 Require student teachers to attend faculty meetings, and schedule meetings to permit this. Arrange for student teachers to attend curriculum meetings and other in-service activities within the School system. Be informed of activities contem- plated by student teachers involv- ing policy or legal questions (field trips, etc.) and give admin- istrative direction with regard to the carrying out of these activi- ties. Become personally acquainted with college coordinators who direct student teaching programs in their buildings. Become knowledgeable concerning the teacher education program of the college or university. Participate with the college co- ordinators in the design or revi— sion of student teaching programs in company with the public school personnel. Serve as instructors or resource persons in student teaching pre- service classes. Be familiar with student teaching in-service classes. Confer with college coordinators of student teaching no less than annually with regard to the ad- ministration of student teaching programs. Inform college coordinators and supervisors concerning organiza- tional facets of the building instructional program which may affect the student teaching pro- gram (e.g., team teaching). 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 97 Invite college coordinators to visit their schools to observe student teaching and after school activi- ties. __ __ __ _ __ Seek college administrative policy changes affecting student teaching programs from the college coordina- tors and not the student teachers working in their building. I___ .___ '___ ‘___ ___ Confer with the college coordina- tors in evaluating the wOrk of supervising teachers. __ _ _ __ __ Offer suggestions to college co— ordinators relative to their work in the building. __ _ _ __ __ Participate in the design or revision of teacher education curricula. Seek to improve the administration of student teaching programs through joint study with college coordinators. ___ ‘___ ___ '___ ‘___ Participate in school district negotiations with teacher educa- tion institutions relative to the establishment of student teaching programs. Employ the services of college coordinators in explaining the student teaching program to facul- ty and community. Make final selection of supervis- ing teachers. Make final decision on assignment of student teachers to supervising teachers. Secure the consent of teachers be- fore recommending or selecting them as supervising teachers. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 98 See that the student teaching program is discussed by the super- vising teachers either in general or departmental meetings. ‘___ ___ ‘___ ‘___ [___ Encourage supervising teachers to be alert and responsive to student teachers' needs. Participate in the deve10pment of qualifying standards for appoint- ment to supervising teacher posi- tion. ___—___ Arrange for instruction to be given beginning or potential super- vising teachers concerning respon- sibilities of the position. ___ ___ .___ '___ .___ Make available to supervising teachers current professional literature from the student teach- ing field. Confer with supervising teachers in evaluating the work of student teachers. Confer individually with super- vising teachers at the end of each term to evaluate their work with student teachers. __ __ _ __ __ Explain student teaching programs to parents and to the community. Evaluate all student teachers as potential employees. Encourage well-qualified student teachers to apply for positions within the school district. ___ ‘___ ___ '___ -___ Meet regularly as a group to study. the feasibility of improvement of student teaching programs in the district. ,7 " APPENDIX C Follow-up Letter to Educators "I‘TI Appendix C Follow-up Letter to Educators Room #253, Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, Mich. 48824 May 8, 1975 Dear Educator: Some time ago you received a questionnaire for selected educators. Although we have returns from a majority of them, we have not received yours. We can appreciate how busy you are and that this is an imposition on your time; however, if there is a way in which you can manage the time to complete it in the next few days or so, it would be much appreciated. You can be assured that your reply will be held in the strict- est confidence. If, by chance, you have mislaid the questionnaire would you please SO indicate on the enclosed postcard. It is felt that this study can make a real contribution by determining the principal's role in the student teaching program through- out the Lansing area. If your rSSponse has already been mailed, please dis- regard this letter and accept our sincere thanks for assist- ing with our study. Sincerely yours, Willie B. Parker Graduate Assistant 99 APPENDIX D Observations and Inferences from the Questionnaire I" Appendix D Observations and Inferences from the Questionnaire Principals Responses to Questionnaire: 21 Principals: 7 (1PJM) 2 (1P3?) 5 (1PSM) 2 (1PEF) response 1 (1P5?) response 4 (1PEM) response* 1 2 3 4 5 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Question # rt I .r 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 1000011000000000000000110001000010010100 o000000000000000000000000000000000100000 0000000111000111000011001.110111101001011 0111100000111000111100000000000000000000 2000000000000000000000000000000000010000 200001010100001000000011.0011000010111201 1011301110000012101222111.210000111111001 0213242123233312242333234312333212213342 0331002221322221212000100022222222110011 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 20000010010o0000000000000000000011000000 00001000l0000121001200102100010100101100 00111212l1001001021012120111011011011112 0211000000221100200010000011201100110010 4011100000100000000000000000000000000000 3010011000000000011100001111011001110000 00.1.0233101111012000410003111000001012loo 0103221311212134320144323300120331333323 0643212365354631446123450255646444322354 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 1000021001000110000110101101000000120101 022220111011101211101211.0101011002100120 0000000111111100111100011.020211220002001 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0100000000000000000010000011000000120000 loo0000000000000000000001001000000100000 1.001022311101232111112332210110023102212 1343422133343212333322111222334421122232 1234567890123 1.1111 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 4.5678901 11111122 disagree 4: = Female 3 = neutral F 2 = agree M = Male strongly agree strongly disagree *1 = 5: 100 101 Responses to Questionnaire: Supervising Teachers 48 Supervising Teachers: )e FS Sn SO 20. (S e 7r Me SS Sn 20 (D. S De 1r )8 PS JD So 20. (S 8 9r )8 MS Jn SO 2D. (5 e 5r Fe Es Sn 20 (P s 48 1r .I )e M .s En SO 20. (S e 3r 1 2 3 4 5 Question 5 a... Iii... 2000000000000000000000000000000000000000 5000132010100000000010000021000000220000 0001330o00010131101201422112011100103222 0432314654455435444355244621144356344545 0344o01l13212211232211111023622321110010 6n0n00nu110nunoonunoonunuonunoOnuno0.1112nu110.un00117?ln00.1111.1 4000344110000220000120102323011111321001 0.1nu123119.3.3130nu110,ocodiq155.32.3.4134:311n03.1152«2924.4924a2 “0:64.04131.5sons641968424:5:5542426=54.2922.4156.5:35,0154.3a03,o 0363011112431000112111011122703000201120 2000010000000000000100000011000000000000 6110224110200010010000101024010020421201 10002321ll010432001352553333030212232223 0144232446754346653427234621545756344454 074.5301332035211335120111010414011002121 40110110.1.100001011...0011110011111111110001 1000011..100000100000100001011000000211200 0011410300011112000120112422111001122112 0301122123433333443323322100122332012131 0232001021111000002001010011211111100111 6000000110000000000110000011000000110000 8100024201000010000000002025000000341101 010137323131056411140339434.2520].0113572625 07977124.31666001453413420221m45242102251 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 3100122102101032012111231111111111121212 0000100010000100000111002001000000210100 012311011022220121011010012111211200202l 0110001111010000111001000100110110000000 disagree 2 = agree 3 = neutral 4 = M = Male F = Female strongly agree strongly disagree *1: 5: 8 (3URSM) 2 (3URSF) 3 (3URJF) 102 ReSponses to Questionnaire: University Representatives 2 (BURJF) 5 (3UREF) response 1 (3UREM) reSponse* l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 21 University Represen- tatives: QuestiOn i 00000000O0000000000000000000000000000000 1121111000000000000000000000000000010000 1000100000000011000001111000000001011101 010lolll12.11111112222111111201122120011]. 2000000000000000000000000000000000000000 4.000010020000110000031011011110020001001 2101222110000010012020111012020122442304 0433445S36112357233624643654334445444362 035421122277641164321317.3211424301001221 1000000010000000000000000011000000000010 2000100000000110100000100000000010100100 0010101000000001001.001010011020101121001 0212032123322021010111002211212111.112le 0111100200011201222221221100101111000010 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 2010000000000000000000000022000000000000 0000111001000001000001001100000000021000 00011101.11222210222221221100021222201102 021100ll.1.0000011000000000000201000000120 20000O0000000000000000000011010001000000 3220021000000110010010110001000010210100 010211200000021100101011.0200111011112112 0001311345232022323323335122022222122232 0232111210323212221212000221412311111111 1000000000000000000000000001000000000000 0000010000000000000000000000000000110000 0100000000100010001011100010000101000101 0011101111010101100100011100111010001000 0000000000001000010000000000000000000010 disagree 4 Female = agree 3 = neutral M = Male F 2 trongly agree trongly disagree 1 = s 5 = s * 103 ReSponses to Questionnaire: Student Teachers 45 Student 7 (4STSF) response 10(4STSM) 12(4STEF) 5 (4STJM) 8 (dsTJF) response reSponse 3 (4STEM) response* Teachers: response reSponse l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l000100100011111000110000000000001010000 31.01131000100010001211010003000020100002 3101110010022001122011103031010001120001 0333125456432344422333443532123513326531 0242311211212311232112221211644242221243 4000000000000000000000000012000000000000 5010010000101131101111310112000010201010 1400840334320351342445244531021225340111 0245.14763415714263462434532444344.34456655 0455ll3142532302321311103211655441113334 6000101000100000000000000011000000000000 2110431000000020000320000134200000211100 o000210010111211110112101112010011331001 0435034.54.333333623142344.54.410443544235335 0343112335344321545222333221235333111452 3000000000000000000000000000100000000000 l000220000010131000111001023010100220000 1011312221012211200120021021000001021011 0544023223333213355312433511243333213433 000000011120000000001210000020212110111.]. 4000100000000000000000000010000000000110 8000222010000010101111011023000001021001 O241632033120264312442558658213422433113 0759166m78779948494548757.541484456758556 0332212211433110425231011100635453120552 1000000000000000000100000023110100010000 1000000000000000000000000000000000100000 1000010000000121000011101100010121001002 0111211..11001210021211..1121110101001110000 0222112223321112121111111100112111112331 1234567890 1 Question i disagree 4: Female 3 = neutral F: agree M = Male 2: trongly agree trongly disagree *1 = s 5 = s 104 ReSponses to Questionnaire: Total POpulation 21 (1?) 48 (25) 21 (3UR) 45 (4ST) 135 Principals Sup. Teach. Univ. Rep. Stud. Teach. Respondents response* response response response 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Question # l l 1 3 8 8 0 0 l 27 20 0 0 3 12 6 0 0 6 20 19 2 15 5 0 l 0 23 20 2 3 0 8 7 3 3 0 14 22 7 2 0 3 l3 4 2 1 l 27 18 1 l l 10 5 1 5 0 18 20 5 2 0 4 9 10 l 0 l 21 22 4 0 1 8 9 3 1 0 14 27 3 1 0 5 7 7 6 0 l 10 15 16 7 0 4 9 6 2 0 8 5 20 9 3 6 3 10 5 3 0 2 14 15 14 3 2 10 4 5 0 5 18 ll 11 0 7 6 7 5 3 0 7 16 7 17 l 3 10 6 2 0 10 26 4 4 l 8 7 11 2 1 0 10 22 9 6 1 8 12 l 0 0 ll 28 5 0 1 9 12 7 2 0 0 ll 24 8 3 2 5 12 l 2 1 12 22 10 l 0 10 10 7 2 2 0 10 29 5 3 l 2 18 l 0 0 13 24 8 0 0 ll 13 6 l 0 l 13 28 3 4 0 ll 9 l 0 0 19 18 5 2 1 12 15 5 1 0 0 15 29 4 0 0 ll 10 0 0 0 13 22 8 1 1 13 12 8 l 0 0 15 30 2 l 0 12 9 0 0 0 12 26 5 1 1 14 12 7 2 0 0 4 29 12 3 0 9 7 2 3 0, ll 21 10 2 l 15 6 9 5 1 0 2 l9 l9 7 1 3 11 4 3 0 5 14 15 10 1 l6 4 12 5 0 0 3 28 15 2 0 5 12 4 0 0 6 27 9 2 1 l7 l3 7 l 0 0 ll 30 6 0 1 ll 9 0 1 0 15 18 10 2 0 18 10 10 0 l 0 13 27 S 2 1 9 10 l 1 0 13 24 8 0 0 19 13 5 2 1 0 15 23 8 2 0 6 10 S 0 0 14 22 5 3 0 20 6 5 9 1 0 8 22 13 3 2 6 15 0 0 0 9 16 10 8 2 21 5 ll 4 l 0 5 23 14 4 2 4 9 4 4 0 9 16 13 6 l 22 5 14 2 0 0 7 29 10 l 1 6 10 4 1 0 9 21 ll 4 0 23 6 10 3 2 0 6 19 17 4 2 3 12 4 2 0 8 24 10 3 0 24 7 ll 1 2 0 6 22 15 3 2 4 ll 4 2 0 7 24 ll 3 0 25 2 10 8 1 0 3 20 16 7 2 4 13 3 1 0 9 16 18 2 0 26 4 ll 5 l 0 4 26 14 4 0 6 12 3 0 0 8 22 13 2 0 27 12 4 2 3 0 8 12 14 10 4 4 9 3 3 2 4 14 14 8 5 28 10 4 3 4 0 7 12 11 15 3 2 9 3 4 3 3 8 13 15 6 29 15 6 0 0 0 30 15 l l 1 l3 6 l l 0 23 16 2 2 2 30 10 9 l l 0 9 26 9 3 1 4 10 5 l 1 16 21 6 1 1 31 14 6 0 1 0 15 27 3 2 l 9 ll 1 0 0 23 18 4 0 0 32 13 6 2 0 0 7 30 7 2 2 7 ll 3 0 0 15 21 7 1 l 33 10 7 l 3 0 9 28 4 4 3 2 12 3 4 0 19 16 7 3 0 34 7 10 2 2 0 5 31 8 2 2 3 11 6 0 1 ll 21 ll 1 l 35 6 7 5 3 0 5 13 13 15 2 l 10 6 4 0 7 19 11 8 0 36 6 5 4 S l l 15 l7 l3 2 l 7 10 3 0 7 l7 l4 5 2 37 6 10 4 l 0 5 24 13 5 l 3 10 7 l 0 8 28 6 3 0 38 S 10 3 3 0 5 21 14 7 1 4 9 6 2 0 18 23 2 1 l 39 10 ll 0 0 0 ll 24 11 l l 8 ll 1 0 l 21 19 3 1 l 40 8 10 2 l 0 3 24 14 5 2 2 9 9 1 0 13 20 9 3 0 *l = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = neutral 4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree APPENDIX E Statistical Analyses Used in the Study Appendix E Statistical Analyses Used in the Study Table E1 Input Parameters Number of Variables in Input Vectors: Number of Factors in Design: Number of Levels of Factor 1 (Occupation): Number of Levels of Factor 2 (School): Number of Levels of Factor 3 (Sex): Input from Card. Option 1 Format of Data (311, 74x, F3.0) lst OBS 57.0000 105 PF. 106 Table E2 Cell Identification and Frequencies Cell Factor-Levels Occupation School Sex N l 1 l 1 4 2 l l 2 2 3 l 2 1 7 4 1 2 2 2 5 l 3 l 5 6 1 3 2 1 7 2 1 1 3 8 2 l 2 l4 9 2 2 l 5 10 2 2 2 9 ll 2 3 l 10 12 2 3 2 7 13 3 1 l 1 l4 3 l 2 5 15 3 2 l 2 16 3 2 2 3 17 3 3 l 8 18 3 3 2 2 19 4 1 l 3 20 4 1 2 12 21 4 2 l 5 22 4 2 2 8 23 4 3 l 10 24 4 3 2 7 I35 KEY. Occupation 1 = principal 2 = supervising teacher 3 = university representative 4 = student teacher School §e§ 1 = elementary school 1 = male 2 = junior high or middle school 2 = female 3 = senior high school 107 Table E3 Observed Cell Means Role Perception Cells (Variables) 1 61.5000 2 77.5000 3 73.0000 4 84.0000 5 84.8000 6 88.0000 7 111.6667 8 86.6429 9 105.4000 10 91.6667 11 99.8000 12 83.8571 13 101.0000 14 86.6000 15 85.0000 16 86.3333 17 80.3750 18 88.0000 19 80.0000 20 90.0833 21 96.0000 22 83.2500 23 88.9000 85.5714 N .b 108 Table E4 Observed Cell Standard Deviation Role Perception Cells (Variables) l 18.26655 2 14.84924 3 14.51436 4 1.41421 5 18.78031 6 .00000 7 35.00476 8 13.17694 9 33.66452 10 . 16.03901 11 10.91177 12 7.90419 13 .00000 14 20.82787 15 2.82843 16 30.89229 17 19.17541 18 16.97056 19 24.63737 20 15.24025 21 10.12423 22 18.23458 23 13.14407 24 23.38701 Table E5 Estimation Parameters Rank of the Basis = Rank of Model for Significance Testing = 24 Rank of the Model to be Estimated is 0 Error Term to be Used is (Within Cells) 109 Table E6 Symbolic Contrast Vectors co, co, co, c0, c1, c2, c3, co, co, c1, c2, c3, c1, c2, c3, c1, cz, c3, c1, c1, c2, c2, c3, c3, c2, c3, c4, C4, CO, C0, C1, C2, CO, CO, C0, C1, C2, CO, CO, C0, C1, C1, C1, C2, C2, C2, C1, C2, C1, C2, C1, C2, C2, C3, C4, CO, CO c1 co co co co co c1 c1 “I c1 :5» Cl - c1 co co co co co L: co c1 c1 c1 c1 c1 c1 c2 c3 c4 c0 Table E7 Sample Correlational Matrix Role Perception Role Perception 1 11000000 Table E8 Statistical Findings Variable Variance Standard Deviation I ROIe Perception 3I0.8163I3 17.6300 D.F. = 111. Error Term for Analysis of Variance within Cells BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Adams, Harold P., and Dickey, Frank G. Basic Principl§§_ of Student Teaching. New York: American Book Co., 1956. Andrews, Leonard 0. Student Teaching. New York: The Center of Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1964. Bennie, William A. Engeration for Better Student Teaching. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Co., 1966. Brown, Thomas J., and Banich, Serafina Fiore. Student Teaching in an Elementary School. New YorE: Harper and Brothers, 1962. Burr, James B.; Harding, Lowry W.; and Jacobes, Leland B. Student Teaching in the Elementary School. 2nd ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1958. Byers, Loretta, and Irish, Elizabeth. Success in Student Teaching. Boston: D. C. Heath and Co.,I961. Cook, Kermit A., Wilt, May L.; and Woofter, Y. Mildred. Student Teaching in the Secondary School. Dubuque, Ia.: William C. Brown Co., 1954. Crow, Lester D., and Crow, Alice. The Student Teacher in EHe Secondary School. New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1956. Curtis, Dwight K., and Andrews, Leonard O. Guiding Your Student Teacher. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice- Hail, Inc., 1954. Dahlem, Margaret. "A Role Perception: The COOperating School Principal." In Teacher Education and the Public Schools; EHe Fortieth Yearbook ofithe association fOr Student Teaching. Cedar Falls, Ia.: The Association, 1961. David, Hugo. Handbook for Student Teachers. Dubuque, Ia.: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1964. 110 111 Deans and Directors of Teacher Education in Michigan. The French, Gage, N. Impact of Student Teaching Programngpon the Cooperat- ing Public Schools. Lansing, Mich.: Mich1gan Coun- cil of State College Presidents, 1970. James. "The Principal's Role in Professional Labora- tory Experiences." New Developments, Research, and Experimentation in ProfessiOnal Laboratory Exper1ences. BuIletin 22. Cedar Falls, Ia.: The Association for Student Teaching, 1964. L., ed. Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNalIy and Co., 1963. Gall, Meredith D., and Borg, Walter R. Educational Research: An Introduction. New York: Dav1d McKay Co., Inc., 1973. Garrett, Henry E.. Statistics in Psychology and Education. Gross, A Guide Haines, New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1958. Edward, and Grambsch, Paul. Universiiy Goals and Aca- demic Power. Washington, D.C.: AmeriEan Council on Education, 1968. to Professional Excellence in Clinical Experiences in Teacher Education. Washington, D.C.: National Affiliate of the National Education Association. Aleyne Clayton. Guiding the Student TTeaching_Process in Elementary Education. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1960. Hetenyi, Laszlo. "The Politics of School-College Coopera- tion in Student Teaching." In Partnership in Teacher Education. Edited by E. Brooks et al. Washington, D.C.: A Joint Publication of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and the Association for Student Teaching, 1967. Hicks, William V., and Jameson, Marshall C. The Elementaiy School Principal at Work. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957. Hicks, William V., and Walker, Clare C. Full Time Student Teachin . East Lansing, Mich.: Tie Michigan State Un1ver51ty Press, 1957. Hoffman, Earl. Anxious Da 3. Danville, Ill.: The Interstate Printers Southern Pu lishers, Inc., 1971. It"... 112 Houston, Robert; Blackington, Frank H., III; and Southworth, Horton C. Professional Growth through Student Teach- 1 g. Columbus: _Eharles E. Merrill Books, 136., 1965. Huggett, Albert J. "A Cooperative Manual for Student Teach- ing." East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, 1946. Institutional Goals Inventory (IGI). Princeton, N.J.: Educa- tional Testing Service, 1972. Jenkins, William A., ed. The Nature of Knowledge: Imp1ica- tions in the Education of Teachers. Milwaukee: Edward A. O. Uhrig Foundation, 1961. Johnson, Jim, and Perry, Floyd. Readings in Student Teaching. Dubuque, Ia.: Wm. C. Brown Co., 1967. Joint Committee on State Responsibility for Student Teaching. A New Order in Student Teaching: FixingiResponsibili- ties for Student Teachipg. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, 1967. Lindsey, Margaret, and Gruhn, William T. Student Teachin ip the ElementarypSchool. New York: The RonaId Press Co., 1957. Masoner, Paul H. A Design for Teacher Education. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1963. McGeoch, Dorothy M. Directed Experiences in Teacher Educa- tion: A Story of Three Programs. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers Coliege, Columbia Univer- sity, 1953. McGuire, Vincent; Myers, Robert B; and Durrance, Charles L. Your Student Teaching in the Secondary School. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1959. Merrill, Edward C., Sr. Professional StudentTeachingPro- ram. Danville, I11.: The Interstate Printers and Pu lishers, Inc., 1967. Myers, George R., and Walsh, William J. Student Teaching and Internship in Today's Secondary School. Colum- bus, O.: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1964. National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards. Who's in Charge Here? Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1966. 113 Neal, Charles D. The Student Teacher at Work. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Co., 1959. Nelson, Leslie, and McDonald, Blanche. Guide to Student Teaching. Dubuque, Ia.: William C. Brown Co., Off-Campus Student Teaching_in New Jersey Schools. Pitman, N.J.: New Jersey State Association for Student Teaching, Webb Press, 1963. Schorling, Raleigh, and Batchelder, Howard T. Student Teaching in Secondary Schools. New York, Toronto, and London: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1956. 1.; Smith, E. Brooks, et al., eds. A Guide to Professional Excellence 1n Clinical Experiences in Teacher Educa- tion. Washington, D.C.: The Association for Student Teachers, 1970. , et al., eds. Partnership in Teacher Education. Washington, D.C.: A Joint Publication of the Ameri- can Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and The Association for Student Teaching, 1967. iT'- Stratemeyer, Florence B., and Lindsey, Margaret. Workin with Student Teachers. New York: Bureau of Publi- cations, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1958. Tanruther, Edgar M. Clinical Experiences in Teaching for the Student Teacher or Intern. New York: Dodd Mead and Co.,41969. The Supervising Teacher Thirtnyighth Yearbook. Cedar Falls: Iowa State Teachers College,91959. Wiggins, Sam P. The Student Teacher in Action. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1957. Wiles, Kimball. Supervision for Better Schools. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959. Wilson, Logan. Forward to Whose Goals for Higher Education? Edited by Charles G. Dobbins and Calvin Lee. Wash- ington, D.C.: American Council of Education, 1968. Woodruff, Asahel D. Student TeachingToday. Washington, D.C.: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1960. 114 Articles and Periodicals Ashmore, Henry L. "Establishing an Off-Campus Student Briggs, Teaching Program." The Journal of Teacher Educa— tion 2 (December 1941): 295-298. Kenneth R. "The Role of the Principal in the Stu- dent Teaching Program." Sdpervisor's Quarterly 2 (Winter 1969-70): 14. Brink, William G. "The Administration of Student Teaching in Universities Which Use the Public Schools." Educational Administration and Supgrvision 31 (October 1945): 396-400. Chase, Daniel. "Student Teaching Programs Require Effective Cooperation." California Journal of Secondary Education 31 (April 1956): 200-201. Chute, O. M. "A Cooperative Out-of-Town Program of Student Teaching at the High School Level." Educational Administration and Supervision 30 (March 1944): 307-312. Compton, Ronald. "On the Scene Teaching for Students." School and CommunipnyO (May 1964): 6. Cox, Dan. "Why Should Public Schools Accept Student Teach- Curtis, ers?" Educational Administration and Supervision 45 (September 1959): 575-279. Dwight K. "Off-Campus Student Teaching." Educational J \ Ti Administration and Supervision 38 (December 1952): 58-62 0 . "Ways in Which Supervisors Help Student Teachers." Educational Research Bulletin 38 (March 1958): 57-60. Del POpolo, S. A., and Hillson, M. "Student Teaching and Ducker, the Role of the Public Schools." New York State Education 51 (March 1964): 14-15. Sam. "The Elementary School Principal and the Stu- dent Teacher." Educational Administration and Sgper- vision 41 (December 1955): 4679474} Evsen, Myrtle. "The Role of the Cooperating School." The Journal of Teacher Education 18 (Winter 1967): 410- 415. 115 Foster, Lucille. "Student Teaching-—The Value to All Pro- gram Participants." California Journal of Elemen- tary Education 29 (Mayi1961): 241-248. Hicks, E. Perry. "Changing the Role of the COOperating Teacher." The Journdlof Teacher Education 20 (Summer 1969): 153-157. Horton, Ben H., Jr. "Student Teaching Can Be a Worthwhile Experience." Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals 45 (October 1961). Lingren, Vernon C. "Help Needed and Received by Student I Teachers." Journal of Student Teaching 10 (March 2 1959). . "Three Proposals for Improving Student Teaching." Educatidpal Administration and Supervision 43 (Nov- ember 1957): 385-389. McGrath, G.D. "Evaluation of Student Teaching." Educational Administration and Supervision 35 (November 1949): 442-446. Mercer, W. A. "Teacher Education Laboratory Experiences: Off-Campus Student Teaching." Improving College and University Teaching 11 (Spring 1963): 110-111. Payne, C. J. "Student Teachers Team All Phases of Educa- tion." Wisconsin Journal of Education 96 (Septem- ber 1963): 21. Perrodin, Alex F. "The Principal and the Student Teacher." Educational Administration and Sdpervision 42 (March 1936): 149-152. Saxe, Richard W. "Student Teaching: What is the Role of the Principal?" Illinois Education 55 (November 1966): 104-106. Schwartz, Sheila. "The Principal's Role in the Student Teaching Program." The Journal of Teacher Educa- tion 13 (March 1962): 78-81. Smith, E. Brooks. "Needed: A New Order in Student Teaching That Brings Joint Accountability for Professional Development." The Journal of Teacher Education 20 (Spring 1969): 27-36. 116 Soles, Stanley. "Teacher Role Expectations and the Internal Organization of Secondary Schools." Journal of Edu- cational Research 57 (January 1964): 227-238. Stewig, John Warren. "What Should College Supervisors Do?" The Journal of Teacher Education 21 (Summer 1970): 251-257} Taylor, G. K., and Fields, J. W. "Problems Confronting the College Coordinator in an Off-Campus Student Teach- ing Program." Peabody Journal of Education 41 (March 1964): 308-311. Reports American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. COOperative Structures in School-College Relation- ships for Teacher Education. Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1965. . School-College Relationships in Teacher Education: Report of a National Survey of COOperative Ventures. Washington, D.C.: The Association, 1964. Association of Classroom Teachers. Report of the C1assroom Teachers National Study Conference on the Role of) the Classroom Teacherjin the StudenE TeachingPro- ram. Washington, D.C.: National Education Associ- at1on, 1970. Association for Student Teaching. ancern for the Indivi- dual iddStudent Teaching. Forty-SecondiYearbook. Cedar Falls,‘Ia.: The Association for Student Teaching, 1963. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Deve10pment. Toward BQEEEI Teaching._The 1949 Yearbook. Wash- ington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1949. Unpublished Works Brown, Lawson James. "The Functions of School Principals in Student Teaching Programs." Ed.D. disseration, University of Alabama, 1962. Clem, Paul Null. "A Study of the Michigan State University Program." Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1958. tum" 117 Fitch, Thomas C. "Role Expectations for Intern Consultants: Views of Intern Teachers and Intern Consultants in The Michigan State University Elementary Intern Program." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1969. Hoexter, Robert Henry. "A Definition and Examination of the Role of School Principals in Certain Aspects of Student Teaching," Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Kennedy, Robert B. "The Role of the High School Principal in the Administration of a Teacher Education Pro- H gram." Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, .3 1953. ” Vanderlip, William Finley. "Role Attributes and Expecta- tions of the Building Principal in the Internship Program." Ed.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1965. Hllllllllllllfl 42764 3 1293