RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOME PRE—TEACHING CHARACTERISTICS AND SUBSEQUENT PERFORMANCE OF TEACHERS OF VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE Thesis for the Degree of Ed. D. MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE George Willard Sledge 1954 This is to certify that the l l ‘ '. thesis entitled RELATIONSHIP BliTlv'EEN BOISE FEE-TEACHING- CHARACTT‘IRISTICS AND SUBSE‘SLIENT PERFOFJLANCE OF TEACHERS OF VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE .‘ I presented by - George Willard Sledge has been accepted rewards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed.D. degree in Education Date May 11: 1951+ 0-169 l 5.. I ' n‘“ \"= .. e Q v 11 N\U s \N u \\d RELATIONSHIP BE‘WP'EN SOME HIE-TEACHING CHARACTERISTICS AND SUBSEQUENT PERFORMANCE OF TEACHERS OF VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE by GEORGE WIIIARD SLEDGE A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION School of Education l95h THESIS {hm-5K I | AL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his grateful appreciation for the valuable assistance and guidance rendered by the many persons cooperating in this study. He is particularly indebted to Dr. Harold M. Byram, whose guidance and generous help directed the entire work to its completions. He is indebted to Dr. H. Paul Sweaty, Dr. H. W. Sundwall, Dr. C. R. Hegee and Dr. C. V. Millard for their counsel and advice throughout the study. To Dr. W. T). Baten, the author is indebted for helpful assistance in directing the statistical analyses of data. To the teacher educators, state supervisors and school administrators, the author is deeply in- debted for their generous assistance in supplying data for the study. The author is grateful to his wife, Dorothy D. Sledge, for constant assistance in preparing the study and lending encourage- ment and understanding throughout the study. cue W;4r‘)s‘)() ' '. P4P; t .EIATIONSHIP BE'I‘I‘IEEN SOLE HE-TEACHING CHARACTERISTICS AND SUBSEQUEI‘IT PERFORMANCE OF TEACHERS OF VOCATIONAL AGRICUITURE by @IORGE WIILARD SLEDGE AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION School of Education 1951» C \ Sledge, George Willard, "Relationship Between Some Pre-Teaching Characteristics and Subsequent Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture." Thesis, Ed.D. 195A. Michigan State College, East lensing, Michigan. .321 pp. Purpose: To devise a performance rating scale for measuring performance of teachers of vocational agriculture; to discover predteaching characteristics related to measured-teacher success; to discover if present pre-teaching data were sufficient for guidance and limited selection of prOSpective teachers; to develop suggestions for improvement of pre-teaching information related to the guidance services of counseling and selection of prOSpective teachers; and to develop suggestions for methods of continuous study'in.this area. ggfiggzi: A performance rating scale, composed of 107 items, was developed with the aid of a "jury of experts", which consisted of six teacher educators, five state supervisors and four school administrators in Michigan. A trial test was conducted, using the instrument evaluated and weighted by the 15 jurors. Each rater checked each item;on the scale as either being descriptive or not descriptive of each teacher's performance or as having no basis for a decision. Two revisions of the scale were made. Ratings of teacher performance for 88 teachers were secured from three sources: teacher educators, state supervisors, and school 3.'A-" I 0 an.._. "v- . ll n Om.-- _l .‘ll;" nae - . U... . "“3: u. l l‘ '-.~ Jte .. ‘ can. ~ ' ‘c. g‘ . ‘at-H‘it F .. L *- “I 'E“? 'u. . “at- v ’0. ‘ s: -. . - -§.. g. r A.“ Vi. ‘.-. LN - -_‘- ’ ~«"‘ . e' . ’ \ 2 y. ‘ '§a_-. ‘ A: 'Q -1 U‘ ‘ ~ ‘\ V V s.- b M " ‘:-._ "‘.\.. ‘fi 2-,. u_:- .- v" e Sledge, George Willard administrators. Performance scores for each teacher were correlated between raters to determine teachers to be studied. Performance scores on which two or more raters agreed were studied in relation- ship to preateaching characteristics. Pre—teaching data, including measures of scholastic ability and achievement, professional course work, interest scores and several aSpects of qualifications in farming background and experiences, were secured from student pro- files and the college record office. Reports of visits by teacher educators and state supervisors were studied in preparation for making five case studies of teachers whom raters did not agree as to their performance. Prediction of teacher performance on the basis of 21 student-profile factors was made by two selected educators. F’ndings gpg,interpretations: Two or more raters agreed on the performance of 70.h percent (62 of 88 teachers) of the teachers on whom ratings were secured. The expected reliability of the instrument ranged from .562 to .671. The 62 teachers studied had statistically higher student-teaching marks than persons trained who either had not entered teaching or who left teaching shortly after entering it. On the basis of several pre— teaching characteristics, the group studied was a "superior" one. A skewed distribution of performance scores resulted from the ratings made. Average perfonmance scores were not related statistically to any of the 21 pre-teaching factors nor to student- Sledge, George Willard teaching performance. The following areas of performance of teachers were related positively to certain pre-teaching charac- teristics: "working with People in Community", "Conducting Pro— grans with All-Day Students", "Conducting Programs with Young and/or Adult Farmers", "Teaching Farm mechanics", and "Utilizing Acceptable lkthods of Teaching." No significant relationships were established between FFA membership, years of high—school agri- culture, "Reading Comprehension" scores, Education 305, Education 207, "Basic English", and student-teaching marks, and the subsequent per- formance of teachers. Three areas of performance were negatively related to certain pre-teaching characteristics: "Working with People in Community", "Maintaining Professional Standards and Relationships" and "Providing On-Farm Instruction." The case studies revealed an apparent, positive relationship between pre-teaching data and subsequent performance. Several reasons why raters did not consistently agree on some teachers' performances were also revealed. Some raters rated teachers on general impression rather than for Specific aspects of performance called for on the rating scale. Two selected educators were unable to successfully predict the performance of the 62 teadhers studied on the basis of student profile data alone. I The following recommendations were made: (I) revise the performance rating scale for use as a self—evaluative instrument; pa“ ‘U Sledge, George Willard (2) utilize current student-profile data for future studies, rather than for selecting or predicting purposes; (3) collect additional preateaching data, i.e., extra-curricular activities, social adaptability, and work experiences with organized groups; (4) develop an instrument to measure social competencies of teachers; (5) con- duct a study on the pre-teaching data 0f.§ll persons trained as teachers and their subsequent performance in a longitudinal study utilizing the case-study procedure and possibly including the use of forced-choice rating instruments to measure certain aspects of teacher performance. I // Signed : A I‘ H 0 1’1. ByTBJT/ll/ Chairman Guidance @gmmittee :‘1 Chapter I. II. TABLE OF CONTENTS IIVTRODUCTIO DI O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O StatementOfPrOblemeeeeoeoeeeoee mmseSOfStUdyoeooeeeeeeeeeee NeedforStUdyeoeeeeeeeeoeeeee scopeOfStUdYOQOOOOOeeeeoeooo IdlflitationSOfStudy.....o....... Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . REVIEJ OF IITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . Studies and writings Relating to Factors Included on the Student Profile . . . . . . Studies and Definitions of Teaching Efficiency and Ability and What Constitutes Teaching Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . Studies Involving Problems and Methods of Measuring Teacher Performance . . . . . . . Studies Regarding General Nature of Relation- ships of Performance to Pre-teaching Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Review of Literature and Related Materials-c.0000...eooeeee 29 36 1+3 53 7O ‘ I v-On‘ Cha er III. PLANNING AND CONDUCTING THE STUDY . . . . . . . Determining Methods of Evaluating Teacher Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developing the Performance Rating Scale . . . The Trial Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scoring the Performance Rating Scale . Trial Test Findings . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Trial Test . . . . . . . . . Conclusions Regarding the Trial Test . . Procedure Followed in Conducting the Primary Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assumptions Made in the Study . . . . . . . . IV. 7 ENTATION OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Testing Performance Scores of Teachers of vocational Agriculture to Determine Agreement Between Raters and to Select Teachers to be Studied . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship of PreJTeaching Characteristics on Student Profile to Average Performance Scores of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . Distribution of Profile Factors . . . . Determination of Superiority of Group . . iv 76 79 86 92 99 100 102 106 108 108 109 138 M0 1A7 Chapter fEfiE. Relationship of Pre-Teaching Factors to Average Performance . . . . . . . . . 151 Comparison of "Top" and "Bottom" Groups of Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Relationship of Certain Pre-Teaching Scholastic-Ability Scores to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . . . . . . 164 Relationship of Certain Measures of Scholastic Achievement to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 Relationship of Achievement in Professional Course Work to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . 171 Relationship of Certain Measured Interests to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . . . . . . 171+ Relationship of Certain Qualifications in Farming to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . . 181 Chapter Page Relationship of Instructors' Ratings to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . . . . . . 193 Relationship of Student Teaching to Per- formance in the Field in Comparison to the Relationship of Pre-Teaching Charac- teristics to Student-Teaching Performance . 196 A Case—Study Analysis of Five Teachers on Whom.Raters Could Not Agree Consistently as to Their Teaching Performance . . . . . 205 Case Number One . ._. . . . . . . . . 206 Case Number Two . . . . . . . . . . . 210 Case Number Three . . . . . . . . . . 214 Case Number Four . . . . . . . . . . 218 Case Number Five . . . . . . . . . . 222 General Summary of the Five Cases . . 226 Prediction of Teacher Performance on the Basis of Student—Profile Data for 62 Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . 228 V. SUMMARY..................... 235 Procedures, Rating Instrument, and Related Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Findings Of RelationShipS e e e e e e e e o 238 vi Chager VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMEI‘JDATIONS . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RecomendationSeeeeeeeooeooooo AmIfiDICIV—«E‘S . C O . O . C O O O O C O O O O C C C O C O 0 vii 0. l. T’. u in. . 9v. “Q. N ml. IIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Number of Items Discarded and Retained by' Subsections on the Original Performance Rating Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 II. Trial Test Summary for Subsectional Scores on Teacher Performance Rating Scale on Ten Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 III. Derived Total Scores on Teachers of Agriculture Performance Using the Teacher Performance Scale in the Trial Test . . . . 97 IV. Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficients for Teacher Performance Scores Based Upon Subsectional Scores on the Vocational Agriculture Teacher Performance Rating Scale as Rated by Teacher Educators, State Supervisors, and School Administrators . . . . 98 V. Total Number of Teachers of Vocational Agri- culture Trained in Michigan Between 1948-49 and December, 1952 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 VI. Analysis of Variance of Average Total Performance Scores of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture by Three Sources of Ratings . . . . . . . . . 110 viii 1212.12. see VII. Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficients for Teacher Performance Scores Based Upon Sub- sectional Scores of 88 Teachers on the Vocational Agriculture Teacher Performance Rating Scale as.Rated by Teacher Educators, State Supervisors, and School Administrators . 114 VIII. Averaged Scores on Teacher Performance Rating Scale for Teachers Receiving Scores Which Correlated at the Five-Percent Level of Significance Between Two or More Raters . . 119 IX. Performance Scores on Subsection A (working with People in Community) of 62 Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in a Grouped Frequency' Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 X. Performance Scores on Subsection B (Maintains Professional Standards and Relationships) of 62 Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in a Grouped Frequency Distribution . . . . . . . 125 XI. PerfOrmance Scores on Subsection C (Planning and Conducting General Activities) of 62 Teachers of Vocational.Agricu1ture in a Grouped Frequency DiStribUtion e e e o o e o e e o e o 126 .OII‘ so.-. '5. m t A 7“» l \e x Table III. XIII. XIV. XVI. XVII. Performance Scores on Subsection D (Main- tains Administrative Relationships) of 62 Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in a Grouped Frequency Distribution . . . . . . 127 Performance Scores on Subsection E (Utilizing Acceptable Methods of Teaching) of 62 Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in a Grouped Frequency Distribution . . . . . . . 128 Performance Scores on Subsection F (Conducting Programs with Aleray Students) of 62 .Teachers of vocational Agriculture in a Grouped Frequency Distribution . . . . . . . 129 Performance Scores on Subsection G (Conducting Programs with Young Farmers and/or Adult Farmers) of 5A Teachers of Vocational Agri- culture in a Grouped Frequency Distribution . 130 Performance Scores on Subsection H (Providing On-Farm Instruction) of 62 Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in a Grouped Frequency Distribution . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Performance Scores on Subsection I (Supervising and Developing Farming Programs of 62 Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in a Grouped Frequency Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 X Table XVIII. XIX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. Performance Scores on Subsection J (Teaching Farm Mechanics) of A9 Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in a Grouped Frequency Distri- bution . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . Performance Scores on Subsection K (Conducting and Advising Future Farmers of America) of 62 Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in a Grouped Frequency Distribution . . . . . . . . Total Average Performance Scores of 62 Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in a Grouped Frequency Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the Ranges, Rbdians and Arithmetic Means of Scores on Subsectional Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . . . Relationship of Average Performance Scores of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture to Each PreJTeaching Characteristic on the Student Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Eight Top and Eight Bottom Teachers in Performance on Certain Averaged Pre-Teaching Characteristics on the Student Profile................... 133 134 135 139 158 162 Table XXIV. Number and Percent of Top and Bottom Groups of Teachers Scoring Above and Below Average on Certain Pre-Teaching Characteristics on the Student Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . XXV. Relationship of ACE Intelligence Test Scores to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . . . . . . XXVI. Relationship of Reading Comprehension Test Scores to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . XXVII. Relationship of Scholastic Achievement (Honor- Point Ratio Third Year in College) to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . . . . . . XXVIII. Relationship of Achievement in Education 305 to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . . . . . . XXIX. Relationship of Achievement in PBychology 201 to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . XXX. Relationship of "Interest of a Teacher of Vocational Agriculture" to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agri- culture O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O xii 163 166 167 170 173 174 178 Table XXXI. XXXII. XXXIII. XXXIV. XXXVI. XXXVII. Relationship of "Interests of a Farmer (Strong)" to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . Relationship of Amount of Farm Experience (Years) to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . Relationship of Coverage (Scope and Variety) of Farm Experience to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agri- culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship of Rank Achievement in the Future Farmers of America to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agri- culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship of Number of Years Enrolled in High-School Agriculture to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship of Years of h-H Club Membership to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . Relationship of "Average Mark in 100-200 Agricultural Courses" to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii 179 182 185 186 188 190 192 Table .4...- mm. Relationship of Instructors' Rating to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . 195 mm. Relationship of Student-Teaching Marks to Selected Areas of Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . 200 XL. Relationships of Some Pie-Teaching Characteristics to Student-Teaching Performance of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . 201 XLI. Relationship of Mark in Education 305 of 61 Teachers of Vocational Agriculture and Their Subsequent Student-Teaching Marks . . . . . . 203 XLII. Relationship of "Instructors' Rating, Composite" and Student-Teaching Performance of 61 Teachers of Vocational Agriculture . . . . . 20A XLIII. Performance Scores of Case Number One . . . . . . 208 XLIV. Performance Scores of Case Number Two . . . . . . 212 XLV. Performance Scores of Case Number Three . . . . . 216 XIVI. Performance Scores of Case Number Four . . . . . 220 XLVII. Performance Scores of Case Number Five . . . . . 223 11322.3 Page XLVIII. Relationship of Performance Level to Prediction of Performance on Basis of Student—Profile Data for 62 Teachers of Vocational Agriculture byPredictor"A"............... 231 XIIX. Relationship of Performance Level to Predicted Performance on Basis of Student-Profile Data for 62 Teachers of Vocational Agriculture by PI‘ediCtor "Bfloooooooooooooooo 233 lll:'|lllll'l‘llll[ CHATTER I INTRODUCTION Statement girProblem Since the passage of the National Vocational Education Act in l9l7,<1) one of the problems confronting institutions preparing teachers of vocational agriculture has been that of assessing potentialities for growth of prospective teachers during training to determine relationships of such growth to success in teaching. Teacher educators have generally agreed that some human characteris- tics and competencies must be possessed by prospective teachers in a reasonable degree for them to teach in an acceptable manner. These characteristics have included such factors as mental and physical health, intellectual ability, enthusiasm for teaching, personal interests, traits, drives, social maturity, emotional stability, reasonable degree of farm experience, and success in student teaching. A review of educational literature revealed that present methods employed for selection and guidance of prOSpective teachers are inadequate. There has also been indication that some pros- pective teachers possessing traits and characteristics that prevented 1Public Law No. 3A7, 6Ath Congress. Approved February 23, 1917. rm - ‘ "£80512. 1‘ g:- O ”I... “ts: ti . Hg 3“... . 5“; 0 s. 3‘ AH ea‘ the best adjustment on the job have been allowed - and perhaps sometimes unconsciously encouraged - to enter the teaching pro- fession. This adjustment factor may have been the reason why some teachers are more successful, due to being able to adapt themselves well; whereas, other teachers, lacking the ability to adjust due to some personality or social characteristic are less successful in teaching. In other instances, inherent differences in the types of communities have created a wide variety of adjust- ments required for any individual. Whether the individual has certain measurable traits and characteristics which might indicate either good or poor adjustment and consequently good or poor teach- ing performance is a vital question. This appears as one of the great problems facing teacher-educators today. With this in mind, the task of studying the relationship between pre-teaching characteristics of prospective teachers of vocational agriculture recorded in the Department of Agricultural Education, Michigan State College, and their subsequent performance in teaching voca- tional agriculture was undertaken. Such a study involved not only careful study of students' pare-teaching characteristics, but also a follow-up of students who became teachers in an attempt to secure information regarding their teaching performance. mam Mere specifically, the purposes of this study may be stated as follows: 1. To dGViSB a performance rating scale for use in measuring performance of teachers of vocational agriculture. 2. To discover pre—teaching, measurable characteristics of prospective teachers related to measured-teacher success. 3. To discover if present pre-teaching data were sufficient for guidance and limited selection of prospective teachers. A. To develop suggestions for improvement of preateaching information related to the guidance services of counseling and selection of prospective successful teachers in Michigan. 5. To develop suggestions for methods of continuous study in this area. Need :31; Study Some of the questions related to this study indicating its need are: (1) Can teacher-educating institutions predict teaching success?, (2) What knowledges, skills, attitudes, interests, and standards are related to success?, (3) Are there relationships between measurable traits and.measured-teaching success?, (A) On what bases should a teacher be classed as a successful teacher?, and (5) HOW'might teacher-educating institutions improve their ‘ ~c SB a"~~r ~Av¥n_ . " w "‘A I, . 4073. ‘u ‘ :na-b. .'_ ‘ . .- "u---Ia.4‘ 6L.. .. :h'h-“ It... ‘ . I..~.V ._- LJ’"“-~ 3 ‘ - M' ‘ o. a .- "c *0... "C Ken ,5 “-d a. A u) I l ‘H.. \I‘“ _ ’J 5 . 3‘ a V I c ‘v.‘ \- ~. I selection and guidance programs from.an analysis of pre-teaching data. These questions help clarify the need for this study. By studying the annual reports of the state supervisor of vocational education in agriculture in Michigan, it was discovered that apprdximately a 10 percent turnover of teachers of vocational agriculture occurs annually3(2) This percentage turnover did not include teachers required for new departments added. Apparently, there are some reasons for this turnover. Some of these reasons might be detected in this study. In 1947-48, there were 156 adult classes, 13 young-farmer classes, and 196 all-day programs in Operation in Michigan. In 1949-50, there were 163, 53, and 206, reapectively; These numbers increased to 232, 81, and 217, respectively, in 1951-52. In 1952-53, there were 275, 78, and 222, respectively. This increase in numr ber of classes and programs has also resulted in an increased number of persons receiving instruction. The total number of persons enrolled in vocational education in agriculture was 17,416 in l9h7-48 and increased to 20,313 in 1952-53. While these trends are favorable, there have been periodic decreases in enrollment and (3) classes from one year to another. 2"Annual Reports: Agricultural Education." (1950, 1951, 1952, 1953 - From.the Office of the State Supervisor of Vocational Educa- tion in Agriculture.) Lansing, Michigan. (Typed) 3Inc. cit. ‘Aafi h. “0 'V-nnr’ .: T. _ F5?- L“? E ‘R'A . ‘ '1‘ Al .) ‘Il‘ihi Q 1 II‘ In hi. .6. ' V a ,‘A ’, H.415. it the 53', if EiI-ie 1mm“ 3‘ I‘. v.‘.. a M. ‘!Q ‘ \‘yp‘ a; "L, In 1949-50, enrollment in all-day classes increased 12 percent, yet there were 12 percent and six percent decreases in young-farmer and adult-farmer enrollments, respectively. In 1950-51, there was an 18 percent increase in young-farmer enroll- ment. In 1952-53 , there was a 19 percent decrease in adult—farmer enrollment and a one percent decrease in young farmers. However, at the same time, the total programs in Michigan increased seven and six-tenths percent in number of programs and decreased seven percent in enrollmentsfih) Are these fluctuations in enrollments and classes result- ing partially from the performance of teachers with varying degrees of competencies? Assuming that qualifications and performance of teachers, as well as thestandards for facilities and enrollments, affect whether departments are retained on a reimbursable basis or not, some evidence is available to support the contention that programs are dropped due to poor performance of teachers and programs being below minimum standards. In 1950, six departments which had previously been dropped were re-established and two new departments were opened. In 1951, one department was closed and nine new departments were opened. In 1952, three departments were closed and six new ones were opened. In 1953, three more departments were “122.. an. were ir- there is levels 0 {emanate (5) If departments closed and eight new departments were Opened. were drOpped because of poor standards or poor teacher performance, there is an apparent need to inform.trainees about standards and levels of performance they must maintain. Whether levels of per- formance may be determined by an analytical study of pre-teaching data and subsequent teacher performance is questioned. However, this dilemma further suggests the need for this study; The placement of teachers is somewhat indicative of the acceptance of graduates into teaching employment. In 1950, 5A persons qualified for teaching vocational agriculture in Michigan. Thirtyhnine were placed as teachers of vocational agriculture. Nine began instructional work in institutional-cn-farm training for veterans. Four went into related agricultural work and two were not placed immediately} This was true even though there was an insufficient number of teachers to serve the needs of expansion in the state program.(6) In 1951, 67 persons were trained; to were placed as teachers of vocational agriculture; 12 were employed as veteran teachers; seven went into related agricultural work; two were not placed; and six went into military service. In 1952, 50 persons were trained; 23 were placed as -4.‘. Q‘- “ 2...; a» -« K ".: r 4' "kale. I A I ‘ Q Ike, ‘2. Q“ ‘au .“ re U teachers of vocational agriculture; nine were employed as veteran teachers; three went into related agricultural work; two were not placed; two went into military service; and 11 began graduate study. In 1953, A8 persons qualified; 22 were placed as teachers of vocational agriculture; three went into related agricultural work; five were not placed immediately; 13 went into military service; three began graduate study; and four were employed to teach nonavocational agriculture classes. The need for teachers is evident, yet annually a large number of persons trained go into other employment.(7) Is this partially resulting from some persons trained not being acceptable for employment? If this is so, the need for knOWing the pro—teaching characteristics which might prove to be undesirable is evident. Nelson gathered opinions of Michigan students of vocational agriculture regarding their guidance needs and the school program in general. He found that 3A.3 percent of 686 students said that — compared to other courses - the agricultural course was "the best in the school;" 38.4 percent said it was "better than most"; 2A.2 percent said it was "above average"; two percent said it ‘was "not as good as most"; and one percent said it was "the poorest course in the school."(8) Fifty-seven percent indicated that 7193. cit . 8Kenneth G. Nelson, "Attitudes of Michigan Students of Voca- tional Agriculture Toward Guidance in the Schools." Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan. 1953. p. 10. (From the personal files of K. G. Nelson). z. a. xv . e 4 .. .. 4 1 I ... e V a . v.e :u. .. w m a 3. ‘~ s . " mu» :* ~15 hes . r .p. \Fu .b. ‘t u a.‘ Q s L. ..‘ I. . I. l.~ .. u. .0- !r. a. A. «an no un¢ e.- W F. u . .O- .I .hx ‘ at 6 Ah. ‘k cad or. ‘ Br 9 Us q 6 u 0‘ D . ‘ a \‘ bu N ‘ IA, .. .nu . . \. m u .. 4.... .n.‘ .Ah I or N . .6 n '.a s. la. .n- ‘I Q In.\ ’ Q ‘~ I‘. . A 3 . . .J L... p, a. .. in if. a! 6 Q I t O . . O ._ . they had ideas as to how to get started in farming; A3 percent either did not have ideas or were in doubt as how to get started in farming. Fifty-seven percent, also, said that their parents knew enough about the vocational agriculture program to help them plan their work; and L3 percent were either in doubt or did not think that their parents knew enough about the program to help them.(9) These findings are significant to the extent that they might reflect the performance of teachers and the characteristics of the more and less successful teachers. These pupil opinions indicate that some teachers are not providing the best course in school, or perhaps as good a program.as might be desired. Can more successful teaching result from a study of preateaching data and performance of teachers with varying degrees of efficiency? The possibility of more effective guidance of "expected" success- ful trainees might result if such relationships were known. Since the concept of what constitutes teaching success is rather nebulous, it appears that many teacher-educating institutions have engaged in selecting and guiding teachers on.unproven, yet reSpectable and acceptable, assumptions of what constitutes teach- ing competency; If a teacher educator is to adequately perform his duties, it is apparent that he must know the qualities of the Ibid., p. 11. 9”: yew. ‘ ‘ U a. :‘H' I l 0 I) ‘- e ‘0 H. .s. .. f. '. A! v *e ' .,_:. " .'§ " ‘ .- ‘\,-l‘. "good teacher" to educate proSpective teachers professionally for the job ahead. If competencies and characteristics that make up teaching success could be identified, it would be highly desirable and necessary to know what they are. To evaluate the effectiveness of teacher-educating curricula and programs, teacher educators must know what compe- tencies are needed in their trainees and how they are acquired. It seems essential that they be known if any selection program is to be put into action or if prediction of success is to be made. There are other evidences of the need for this study. The data on pre-teaching characteristics in the Department of Agricultural.Education had never been analyzed to discover their relationship to performance in teaching vocational agriculture. These pre-teaching data possessed many potentialities in the use of guidance and selection, since they served as "a mirror which reflects the student to himself (and others) in light of measure- ments of an objective nature which have been undertaken."(lo) Byram.indicated possible and needed research studies involving four or five-year followeups of students who were currently teaching.(ll) 10H. M; Byram, Mimeographed Article. "Selection and Guidance of PrOSpective Teachers of Vocational Agriculture - Over-all Aspects of the Problem." Michigan State College, East lensing, Michigan. (Insert by the investigator.) 10 Numerous persons in the field of agricultural education have seen the need for study involving pre~teaching traits and their relationships to the performance of teachers of vocational agriculture. Garner, in presenting some of the implications of his study, pointed out an apparent weakness of teachers of vocational agriculture in human relationships in conducting supervised farm- ing programs. Even though teacher performance in this study is concerned with all aSpects of performance including that of conduct- ing supervised farming programs, it was felt that Garner's findings and implications were representative of Specific area needs. He states: "It may be possible that the failure of teachers to make regular contacts with students and parents, and to solicit their cooperation in worthy projects such as the holding of parent meetings could be traced to certain inadequacies which the teachers recognize in their abilities to work effec- tively with other people. It would appear that this study has revealed clues of additional needs which are required by" teachers of vocational agriculture in the area of human relationships." (12) These inadequacies which Garner discovered should either be corrected in the pre-teaching period or a selection of teaching candidates should be made to eliminate persons entering teaching 1‘Z'Raymond A. Garner, "Practices of Teachers of Varying Pro- ficiency in Conducting Programs of Supervised Farming in Vocational Agriculture in Michigan." Thesis, Ph.D. Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan. 1951. p. 332. 3"! my ‘n . u- b.....‘ ‘ I I Kve ,“ . ‘-.‘~ ‘ ‘. "a. en“ t» ,r.‘. A ‘ P -' -.. _ v ‘ . - ‘\\v ‘1, '-4 9 P: ‘v: - .._ . z ‘ o 6 fi‘ "« "g‘r K. .‘_ b't.‘ 11 who are unable to cope with the responsibilities involving human relationships in teaching vocational agriculture. From a slightly different standpoint, Super pointed out that some of the things a person does well are the result of inherited aptitudes and behavior tendencies in a favorable environ- ment which brings him satisfaction and approval from self and others. From successes which a person develops, he crystallizes an image of how he wants himself to be.(13) Super states: "Similarly, holding and adjusting to a job is for the typical beginning Worker a process of finding out, first, whether that job permits him to play the kind of role he wants to play; secondly, whether the role the job makes him play is compatible with his self-concept (Nhether the unforeseen elements in it can be assimilated into the self or modified to suit the self); and, finally, it is a process of testing his self-concept against reality, of finding out whether he can actually live up to his cherished picture of himself." (1h) An important implication that Super brought out was that in order to do the most effective job of guidance, a person must have a good understanding of the personal adjustment which he is trying to further. This requires information on the person being counseled and the occupation being considered.(ls) The necessity 13Donald E. Super, "Vocational Adjustment: Implementing a Self-Concept." Occupations - The Vocational Guidance Journal. 30:88-92. November, 1951. H‘Ibifin p. 890 ”we. sit a, .. : "‘i" .v. ' ‘ on u- ‘~ ‘ fl l.¢-I‘Q v_’s ran. \‘ -:e| nun-J.“ ‘ I"‘n§ .\ 51.-., 4 Le . ‘ .‘Q*. a I 'v... ": ... ‘. o‘ .‘v “I 'V . ‘A.:O. __’. .v- '0... ‘1 u o.” ‘l, l" I I n u. x 'k- 12 for understanding persons and factors of success in teaching voca- tional agriculture supports the need for this study. Numerous studies point out the dilemma in predicting teacher success; however, one cannot dismiss the problem as one that cannot be solved. Barr, who has worked diligently on this problem, points out that the identification and definition of teaching compe- tencies is as yet by no means satisfactory.(16) Evidence compiled by the National Standards Committee for Vocational Education in Agriculture(17) supports the contention that the quality of vocational programs is closely related to the qualifications and performance of teachers of vocational agriculture. Establishment of relationships between pre-teaching characteristics and performance of teachers might aid in developing better quality programs by providing valid counseling information for trainees. To summarize the evidence of the need for this study, teacher turnover in Michigan is a problem.that should be reduced. Performance of teachers, no doubt, affects the rate of turnover. 16 A. S. Barr, "measurement and Prediction of Teaching Efficiency: A Summary of Investigations." Journal'g£_3xnerimental Education. 16:203-282. June, 1948. 1 7Federal Security Agency, U. S. Office of Education, 51; Evaluation'g§_local Programs g§,Vocational Education‘ig Arriculture. Vocational Division Bulletin No. 2h0. Agricultural Series No. 53. Washington, D. C. 1949. 75 PP- N34: ‘lr . 00 unit .5. ‘ n lune...“ -Nviu . in". L‘g . a..- my“ . 'n“ .\’ .. 3‘ VI “AT-u 1‘ | .a.e . mi , ’ ‘3‘ s .w 'n'. ~ . ‘hci U‘ 1.: .p .‘a “4:8 a_ §..‘ \’ 4. ‘1 3 . _ .1 Trends in developing complete programs of vocational agriculture indicate some progress; however, it seems that even more is highly desirable. Fluctuations in enrollments and classes partially indicate that teachers might be a factor in these phenomena. The fact that departments are drOpped from reimbursement indicates that the standards of the departments are low or the effect of the program in the communities is questionable. Some persons trained are not placed as teachers of vocational agriculture even though there is almost constant need. Students of vocational agriculture indicate that approximately three percent of the courses in agriculture in Michigan are not as good as other courses, or are the poorest courses in the schools. Several leaders in education have presented opinions which indicate the need for studying relationships of pre-teaching data and perfor- mance in teaching. Do these findings imply that performance of teachers of vocational agriculture affects the outcome of the vocational agriculture program? If so, is performance related in any way to pre-teaching characteristics of prospective teachers? It is believed that there are relationships which should be known if effective guidance of trainees is to occur. Therefore, there is a need for this study. Scopelgf Study Since this problem.wms so extensive and had widespread implications in teacher-education work, it was necessary to delineate the area in which research would be conducted. The study was concerned primarily with the relationship between some pre-teaching measurable characteristics and subsequent performance in teaching vocational agriculture, with the following stipula- tions: 1. The study includes 88 teachers of vocational agri- culture in Michigan for whom profiles had been prepared at Michigan State College in the Department of Vocational Education between school year l9L8—h9 and December, 1952, and who were enplqyed as teachers of vocational agriculture at the time data were collected. 2. The study excludes teaching candidates who, upon graduation, did not go into teaching, even though profiles for them were available, since the study was concerned with relationship of some pre-teaching characteristics and of evidences of success- ful teaching performance of teachers currently employed. 3. No tests for performance or increase in factual knowledge or attitudes in vocational agriculture were administered to students currently enrolled in classes of vocational agriculture taught by teachers being studied as a means of evaluating teacher performance, since this was an area that would have consumed the time and efforts of an individual research project within itself. o ..', . 3‘ 'EAv.L. Q “av-u...- P "lfii‘... a n ‘V-... ‘ 0.;. y u C A Q. I. Q..- G v‘ v... ‘ | H'»-. Q T‘s... fit. I - R,- b be: o. “‘:‘ §. ~. Q 5. ‘nM ‘u u 15 a. No self-evaluative instrument was completed by any teacher of vocational agriculture as a measure of his teaching performance. This eliminated the possibility of a subjective judgment from.teachers regarding their performance. Limitations‘gf Study It was anticipated that this study would have certain inherent limitations. Perhaps one of the major limitations was found in the performance rating scale developed. The fact that the scale did not adequately discriminate between persons scoring high in performance presented a limitation in the method of analyzing data. The rating instrument for teacher performance, prepared and evaluated by'a jury of experts composed of six teacher educators, five state supervisors, and four administrators, was administered only once to the respective raters to receive derived scores of teacher performance. No test of reliability of the evaluative forms was conducted other than that which occurred by making a trial test and the actual rating itself. Another limitation was that sane performance scores of teachers of agriculture between raters did not correlate at the five-percent level of significance. Possible explanations for this fact may depend upon other limitations. These perhaps include: Una. _r :- L.:.. _,' ‘IF A too: m' 0.9;. l“! :n x: V K: a ’R‘l ' “\u ". Rt ‘Q ‘Q v.“'.§ II.._ a an. .1 .: “th. ; ‘ D &".'l«e; a “v c 5‘ . l ‘ ‘ .‘O‘h " “ 16 inadequate observation of some teachers being rated; personal biases of the raters; rating a teacher more on general opinion than on Specific items of performance as called for; a halo effect in Operation; raters consistently rating teachers either high or low on performance; and inexperience in using the particular rating scale for rating job performance. Since only performance was being evaluated, some raters may’ have rated teachers unconsciously on personality traits and attitudes when checking different aspects of performance. This may have greatly influenced some performance scores. To the extent that this was true, another limitation was in effect. This study included 88 teachers of vocational agriculture in Michigan. Any interpretations of findings and recommendations are necessarily based on findings on this group. Whereas it was anticipated that any findings would have applications other than in Michigan, the fact that only Michigan teachers were included may limit such applications. It is recognized that a single profile factor cannot be studied in complete isolation from.other factors. Factors are in flux, dependent upon and interrelated with one another. However, Since the distribution of performance scores were such that perfor- mance as related to profile factors could not be readily studied by' the statistics of partial, linear and multiple correlation, a definite limitation is apparent in the analyses and usefulness of data. Had performance scores more nearly approached a normal -o . ~~-o‘ .o I‘voohu-- :"' -_V_ M b. ~I r‘.“ ‘ ‘0 \ .A K: .9 m“ 'U'."‘ ‘:‘:' 1“; “V .~V.‘ F‘ ‘ LV- ‘ . V». _\g. ‘A 3 . “5' ‘ A a...“ ‘9‘. ‘ F. "n o" ‘- ‘ fit... A) 17 distribution, partial elimination of this limitation could have been accomplished. Definiti on of Terms In order that terms which may have diverse meanings to individuals not be misunderstood, certain terms have been defined and presented in the framework within which they are used. 1. Pre-teaching characteristics: measurable characteristics recorded on a student profile. Examples of such characteristics are American Council on Education test score results, reading com- prehension test score results, composite staff evaluation of student, term marks on education courses, and mechanical index ratings. Such records were compiled for trainees at Michigan State College and were therefore termed pre—teaching characteristics. 2. Student profil : a canposite representation of certain individual student scores and standards achieved on measurable characteristics compiled during the training period at Michigan State College preceding employment as a teacher of vocational agri- (18) . culture. 3. Measured-teaching success: success in teaching as indicated by administrators, state vocational supervisors and teacher- educators on forms provided them. This is a standard insofar as it 18Appendix G. I. a l . ‘! ‘uE-v' ou-o..,..,,, b I All ‘ n \‘K ‘ E II: £4. 1‘ ‘e. ‘.""‘I no . r ~ 1 nE.." i. I I ‘I--._.‘ .u 1“ n - ~oy‘ .5 I n \‘m n _ _ ”fin. )- c In... . ‘VVI‘. {Ru " v. a fi ‘ N. N“ ,r..‘ ‘.|" ‘. “a in '7‘) I -.“‘ a (A- . W... ‘. fi 2" M' A.) 'Q I ‘v- N :5 _. ‘ 's. A s.‘ 5 '. \ 18 represents opinions of state supervisors, teacher educators, and school administrators who administered school programs in which the teacher studied were a part. 1.. Teachers 9_f_ vocational agriculture: men who had been trained for positions as teachers of agriculture for employment in reimbursable programs of vocational education in agriculture. Such persons were employed when data were collected. They were anployed by local boards of education and were responsible to the local school administrators and boards of education for conducting the programs of vocational agriculture at the secondary school level. 5. M administrator: a person designated as the school representative charged with the administration of a secondary school progran in which vocational agriculture was a part. The term as used in this study designates either school superintendents or school principals. 6. m supervisor: a supervisor of vocational education in agriculture employed by the State Board of Control for Vocational Education in Michigan. Qualifications and duties of such represen- tative staff supervisors can be found in a detailed publication by (19) Swanson of the United States Office of Education and in the ”Herbert B. Swanson, "_'I_‘l’1_e_ State _a_n_d_ Egg Preservice Preparation 2;: Teachers 2; Vocational Education ZFederally Aided Programs.) Vocational Division Bulletin No. 219, General Series No. 6, Federal Security Agency, U. S. Office of Education, Washington, D.C. 191.1. 138 p. " I I “ A!” u“- L-‘..'. .._ ~ H n H A In ‘\ Q n‘ H-919 :. ., . . ‘ :~;---.. c, ‘v'.'.-. .1 | 3f‘:r~>-. 5.4 ._ "-o-. , .- \n ‘A' 4“. Q! .:P "Q: n . ;'. ‘ 5A “ f.- 1. a .‘ av. I ‘ n .._-‘. OK; v-- U“- .\-.' , "‘ ’\' a\ h x ‘ Q 19 Michigan State Plan for Vocational Education.(20) 7. Teacher educators: persons employed.by Michigan State College and charged with the responsibility to provide for specific professional training of teachers of vocational agriculture. The activities of teacher educators and of the process of training of teachers are set forth in a federal publication.(21) Qualifications of teacher—educators are also given by Swanson. (22) 8. Vocational Agriculture Teacher Performance Rating ‘ggglg: a rating scale prepared in cooperation with a jury composed of school administrators, state supervisors, and teacher educators.(23) The rating scale served as the primary criterion of teacher perfor- nmnce. It consists of items evaluated and weighted for their relative 20Michigan State Plan for Vocational Education. Bulletin No. 201. The State Board of Control for Vocational Education. Lansing, Michigan. 1947. 66 pp. 2l'Federal Security Agency, U. S. Office of Education, Administration'gf VocatiOnal Education. Vocational Education Bulletin No. 1, General Series No. 1, Revised 1948. p. 24. ZZSwanson,‘gp.‘gi§., p. 132. 23 Appendix C. ..... martin develop \ 1‘ t‘ u :1 an, a , . AeaCL‘EI‘ 4H,. t b “H on I. S.“ “h “*8 m LN]: ('9 . d I 20 importance as judged by the jury of experts. The procedure for developnent of the scale is presented in Chapter III. 9. Performance £2252: a score computed.mathematically from the numerically weighted items on the Vocational Agriculture Teacher Performance Rating Scale. The procedure used to weight items and to compute the performance score is presented in Chapter III. The performance score is intended as a measure of teaching competency as judged by teacher educators, state supervisors and school administrators. 10. 59; Intelligence tggt‘gggggg: an intelligence test score on the American Council‘gg Education Psychological Examination. The examination is adninistered to students entering Michigan State College for the first time on the undergraduate level. It is a group test of scholastic ability, standardized on entering college fresh- man. ACE scores are given in terms of deciles. Nonns are based upon Michigan State College freshman. ll. Readigg Comprehension Lest m: scores on this examination are used in the Basic College to identify students that should be referred to the Reading Improvement Service. Scores are given in terms of deciles. Norms are based upon.Michigan State College freshman. This examination is one of a battery of examinations given to entering freshmen at Michigan State College. It is a measure of reading comprehension from "The Michigan State College Reading Test." 21 12. IMechanical igdgg: a measure of mechanical interest and ability established through cooperation of the Department of Agricultural Education and the Department of Agricultural Engineer- ing. Scores are derived from a checklist of traits observed by an instructor in agricultural engineering and are recorded by deciles. It has not been standardized.(2#) 13. ‘figggggfigigg‘figgig: ratio between honor points and credits earned. Honor—point ratios for the first, second, and third years in college are recorded on the student profile. Honor- point ratios are computed on the basis of a mark in courses of an "A" equal to four points, "B" equal to 3 points, "C" equal to 2 points, "D" equal to one point, and "F" equal to zero points. Approximately'AE credits of course work are included in the honor- point ratio for the first year; 90 for the second year; and 1A5 for the third year. 1A. ‘Eing§§§ig§: five of seven Basic College courses Mere required of all undergraduate students. They included: Written and Spoken English, Biological Science, Physical Science, Social Science, Effective Living, History of Civilization, and Idterature and Fine Arts. The score provided the five basics itlthis study is computed on the same basis as honor-point ratio. For example, a mark of "A" in a course in social science carries - Z‘Appendix L. ’QN‘ .’ A. 0%.. Ln,“ H .;"Jo 'I ‘M' ¢ V‘. v... w,“ 22 four honor-points of credit. 15. Basic English: the scores listed for this factor represent an average honor-point ratio of courses in Basic English enrolled in the Basic College at Michigan State College. This factor was included because of deficiencies of teachers in this area. 16. Education 202: this course has a prerequisite of sophomore standing and is known as "Principles of Education." It is: 17. "An introductory course for all who wish to prepare for high school teaching. It is a resume of the educational philosophy of the public school system with specific emphasis on that of Michigan. Attention is given to the work of the classroom teacher and to available means for evaluating teaching in the light of the philosophy developed. In connection with the course, opportunity is given the student to counsel with the instruc- tor regarding his fitness and qualifications for teaching. The course serves also as a basis for’more specialized courses which follow." (25) Education 202: the course name is "Educational Psychology" and has prerequisites of Education 202 and Psychology 201. It is: "A study of those principles of psychology related to the problems of education. Habits, Inenory, motives, individual differences, 25Michi an State College Catalog 1256-1258. Volume 42,' 3 Mi Number 1 , chigan State College, East Lansing. March, 19A8. p. 255. ['7' O: o :L.“".v Q 5 Q. a. ,M ‘ \ ‘U ~. :. .._- O— 23 and the laws of learning will be given special attention." (26) 18. Education 292: the course name is "Introduction to Agricultural Education. " It is described as: ".....designed to develop an understanding of the objectives and basic elements of a complete program of vocational education in agriculture and to prepare students for student-teaching experiences and study of ' methods of teaching vocational agriculture." (27) 19. Psychology 293;: the course name is "General Psychology. " It is: "An introduction to the scientific study and interpretation of human behavior. Considera- tion of such topics as lemming, motivation, emotion, intelligence, perception, personality, and inter-personal relationships. Basic psychological principles with the practical application of these principles to everyday living." (28) 20. Interests _o_f_ 3 teacher, 2 farmer, and teachigg satis- faction: interest scores are derived from the "Vocational Interest (29) Blank for Men (Revised) Form M." There are three scales used to derive the interests as listed. Scores on "Teaching 26292- 23..- 271mm, p. 256. 281bid., p. 421. 29E. K. Strong, Jr., "Vocational Interest Blank for Men (Revised) Form H." Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 193 8. 2h Satisfaction" are based upon a scale developed by Nelson.(30) All interest scores are listed in broad groupings designated by' "A", "B", and "C". An interest rating of "A" means that a per- son has the interests of the group on which the particular scale is based. A rating of "B" means that a person probably has the interests of the group, and a rating of "C" means that the person does not have such interests. Raw scores on the three scales can be converted to percentile and standard scores by referring to the interest report form.(31) Strong's blank was originally published in 1927 and revised in 1938. 21. Instructors"gggigg,(composite): this student profile factor has five degrees of quality: superior, excellent, acceptable, doubtful, and unsatisfactory. The rating is an averaged or com— posite score of the trainee in terms of judgment of the over-all potential qualities of the man preceding student teaching by teacher educators familiar with the trainee. 22. M gang. Coverage 2;; MExnerience: the amount of farm eXperience is recorded in terms of’years of eXperience beyond the age of 15 years. Coverage of farm experience pertains 30K. G. Nelson, "The Interests of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture as Related to Vocational Satisfaction." Thesis, Ph.D. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1952. 329 pp. BlAppendiI K o ’- go 3' Oiiw . amm- J':A‘ w. I A O L. I (I) .- .- 9... t g, I I I. I 25 to the scope and variety of experiences, and a mark for this factor is derived by an outlined procedure developed in the Department of Agricultural Education for this purpose.(32) 23. Eytugg’Fanners 2:.America‘flggk: this factor applies to the degree attained in the Future Fanners of America organiza- tion. The ascending degree advancements are: Greenhand Farmer, Chapter Fanner, State Farmer, and American Farmer. 24. Average'gggg'ig "100-200" agricultural courses: the average mark in series 100 and 200 technical agricultural courses is computed as the honor-point ratio. Courses are represented from.such areas as: agricultural engineering, agricultural economics, soils, animal husbandry, poultry, et cetera. 25. Student-teaching‘mgggg: each prospective teacher received two letter marks for his student-teaching experience. The courses to which these marks are credited are Education hO6a and 406b, each carrying four quarter hours of credit. The title of each course is "Student Teaching in Agriculture." Student teaching is evaluated cooperatively'by the teacher educator, supervising teachers and the student teacher. 26. Statistically significant: when this phrase is used, it means that the statistics are significant at the five-percent level unless stated otherwise. Significance at the five-percent 32 . Appendix.I. .“ 3:: “-Qu... 1'. “I - ‘4‘- u ' um- ' a Vs.‘ 26 level means that the association found or the differences established between factors would be expected 95 out of 100 chances with a normal distribution. A selected review of educational research was made. me purpose for the review was to discover techniques other investigators had used in studying teacher performance. Other purposes were as important. Pertinent findings and conclusions of the research and literature reviewed are presented in Chapter II. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF IITERATURE The purpose of this chapter is to present a review of selected literature and related writings to this study. Considera- tion is given to investigations most directly related to this study. ‘When studies were reviewed, only those portions pertain- ing to this study were closely studied. In all cases, only those parts of research or materials which have a connection to this study are reported. Included in this review are some background materials of items included on the student profile, along with related research data. Some findings regarding what constitutes teaching efficiency, the characteristics of successful teachers, and problems regarding the measuring of performance are presented. The terms - nteaching effectiveness, efficiency, and ability" - are used throughout the review, since the term."perfor- mance"'was not used in the literature. While the terms of perfor- mance and effectiveness, et cetera, are not necessarily synonymous, they do possess somewhat the same connotations and are used inter— changeably. The annotated bibliographies of studies conducted in agri- cultural education proved to be very helpful in discovering the nonathesis, master's-degree and doctoral-degree studies and disser- tations. These annotated bibliographies are reported in separate publications entitled Summaries 2£_Studies ig}Agricultural Educa- (1) (2) (3) (1+) (5) (6) (7) (8) tion. In some cases, more recent studies related to the present one were requested from other institutions but were not received ISummarie5*9;.Studiesyi§,Agricultural Education, U. 8. Office of Education, Vocational Education Bulletin No. 180, Agricultural Series No. 18. United States Government Printing Office, washington, D.C. June, 1935. 196 pp. 2811mmaries 9;; Studies _i_r_1_ Agricultural Education, Supplement No. 1, Interstate Printers and Publishers, Danville, Illinois. September, 1943. 199 pp. 331mmaries 2.1:. Studies in Agricultural Education, Supplement No. 2, U. 3. Office of Education, Vocational Division Bulletin Not 237, Agricultural Series No. 57. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1948. 120 pp. “Summaries 2;,Studies in_AgEicultural.Education, Supplement No. 3, U. S. Office of Education, Vocational Division Bulletin No. 2&2, Agricultural Series No. 59, Office of Education. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1950. 61 pp. sSummaries Lf Studies in Agricultural.Education, Supplement Nb. 4, vocational Division Bulletin No. 246: Agricultural Series No. 61, Office of Education. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 1951. 48 pp. 6Summaries Lf Studies in Agricultural Education, Supplement No. 5, vocational Division Bulletin No. 248, Agricultural Series No. 62, Office of Education. United States Government Printing Office, washington, D. C. 1952. 62 pp. 7 Summaries Lf Studies in Agricultural Education, Supplement No. 6, Vocational Division Bulletin No. 251, Agricultural Series No. 63, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 1953. 100 pp. 8 Summaries Lf Studies in.Ag;icultural Education, Supplement No. 7, Vocational Division Bulletin No. 253. Agricultural Series No. 6h, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. United States Government Printing Office, hashington, D .0. 1953.75 pp. S 1:. C! it‘. 0 I713! .31 a d‘.d n‘ “c. .v‘ 7‘ a 3:1. . \ Se, Hy“ since copies were not yet available. In preparing this review, the studies have been grouped into four major areas followed by’a brief summary. This grouping was made to facilitate study of major areas and to present data in a logical sequence. In the first section, there are reported those investigations and related materials on items included on the student profile. The second section includes studies on definitions of teaching efficiency, some philosophical statements related, and what constitutes teaching efficiency. Some consideration is given to what descriptive statements characterize the so~called "good" and "poor" teacher. The third section in the review is composed of studies involving the problems and methols of measuring teaching perfor- mance. Consideration is given to techniques of measurement and the analytical methods employed in studying performance data. Finally, the fourth section of the review considers those studies which are general in nature and which contain findings of relationships of teaching performance to pre-teaching characteristics. The fourth section is followed by-a brief summary of the entire selected review of literature and related materials. Studies and writings Relating tg;Factors Included 99. the Student Profile Few of the factors on the student profile have been the Ccfingrfi \ g. n " . ow, . ...‘!& find. fora: Ru...“ .- o ‘- 9p:a‘¢;— 'v-w... . P" 333.11% 3111 cc: a .‘h‘ “eh ‘.. the C3: = «h. .0: t» ".71 a v concern of research. For examgz-le, of the 21 factors being studied, only two have received any degree of attention. Primarily as a result of this fact, definitions and explanations were presented for a majority of the factors in "Definition of Terms" in Chapter I. As to the purpose and usefulness of student profiles, Ryans essentially proposed that profiles be made for each prospective teacher. He presented an example of how to prepare qualification profiles by statistical means, using standard deviation, averages, (9) ,., and conversions of original scores to common ratings. I he examples of completed profile charts he presented were not unlike the ones on which the present study was based. A considerable amount of research has been conducted on The, American Council gr; Educatiog Psychological Examination. Super commented that the items on this examination are probably less affected by knowledge than for most group tests. "As these tests and items have been selected and modified from earlier tests and tried out ever a period of nearly twenty years on large numbers of subjects, with adequate funds for necessary research, they constitute an unusually valid and reliable instrwnent.”(lo) Evidence of the reliablity of the ACE Psychological Examina- tion was presented by Super. He said: "The reliability of the A.C.E. F 9David G. Ryans, "Statistical Procedures in the Selection of Teachers." Journal 9;. Educational Research. 40:695-705. May, 191.7. 10Donald E. Super, Appraising Vocational Fitness m Means 9_f_ Ps cholovical Tests. Harper and Brothers, New York. 1910. p. 115. er,\-, 0 ,. 1 : 0 ~ A 1‘ Ln: 0 f. v I" 3- o w‘: . h 1. ‘- (*wrlhtwd my p:r*r..ss:-cn from AIL? 2:01.“; If" 1'31”.“l p.311: , by n‘~ j V“ ‘ 4- ' ~9 w ‘ ls: .. a.» r» n... .. _. i"..- 1.. » Jvan 1. sure-r, liner 1 alone—:3, ”v.- ..xk. _-,.__,,,,~ .. r. y" L .. 2y D. .- re tests has been consistently high. One study by the test authors reported odd-even reliabilities of .95 for the total score, and of .87 and .95 for the Q and L scores respectively, for the 1938 11) college edition." As to the validity of the A.C.E., Super reported that: "There are practically no validation studies of this test using strictly vocational criteria, although several studies have shown that its total scores are related to success in some types Of professional training. . . Seagrove(12) found that well-adjusted student-teachers, and maladjusted student-teachers of average or low intelligence in one college, tended to remain in training, whereas the bright but maladjusted students dropped out - perhaps because they recognized the misfit and saw other more appro- priate Opportunities. Ratings of success in practice teaching did not for elate significantly with A.C.E. scores. Rolfe 13 found no relation- ship (1“8 .10) between A.C.E. scores and the teaching success of 52 Wisconsin one- and two-room (1L) teachers, the criterion being tested pupil progress." Regarding the validity-of the A.C.E. in relationship to the measurement of teaching efficiency, Barr stated: "Of the measures employed in the investigation, intelligence as measured by The American Council Peychological.Egamination--and interest in teaching as measured by Ieaggr's Scale :2; nIbid., p. 117. let‘V. Seagrove, "Prognostic Tests and Teaching Success." Journal gEducational Research. 38:685-690. 191.5. 13J. F. Rolfe, "The Measurement of Teaching Ability:Study Number Two." Journa1.9§,EXperimental.Education. 1h:52-7h. 1945. 145311101313 93. cit., p. 122. ‘ \ «‘crl; 1‘- v \.:\.— V- 0.0“. . Pu i‘ ‘5 (:.€.~ - JM“? ,Vcl“ ‘ Id: 32 measuring attitudes toward teachers and teaching profession appear to possess somewhat higher validities than other tests employed in the investigation." (15) No statistical evidence was given, however, to support his con- clusion. It was pointed out by Clark that the 105 teachers in his study, grouped according to deciles on The American Council 23 Education Psmhologcal Test for College Freshman, remained in and left the field of teaching in differing percentages. There was some indication that there was a negative selection factor of teachers remaining in the teaching of vocational agriculture. Clark stated: nThe percentages of those ranked in the first three deciles was 3h.0 and hh.5 for those who left and those who remained, respectively. For those who left, 40.h per cent ranked in deciles four to seven and 33.3 per cent of those who remained ranked in these deciles. Of those who left, 25.6 per cent ranked in deciles eight to ten, and 22.2 per cent of’those who remained ranked in these three deciles. None of the differences of percentage was significant." (16) Another factor on which considerable study has been conducted is the "Vocational Interest Blank for Men (Revised) Form MAUI?) 15A. s. Barr, "The Wisconsin Study of Teaching Ability." Journal 9-_f. Educational Research. 33:681.. May, 191.0. 16Raymond M. Clark, "Factors Associated With Decisions of Michigan Teachers to Remain in or to leave the Field of Teaching Vocational Agriculture.” Thesis, Ed.D. Michigan State College, E3815 181181113. 1950. pp. 63‘6“. 17E. K. Strong, Jr., "Vocational Interest Blank for Men (Rgésed) Form M." Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 18 th . a h ‘3‘ ~‘ _ P- V veg". ' I c?! C. Host .1 1 c .5. 2.. c A.» fix. MO “H A... .1 I“? 85% 32 measuring attitudes toward teachers Egg. teaching profession appear to possess somewhat higher validities than other tests employed in the investigation." (15) No statistical evidence was given, however, to support his con-l CluSiOn c It was pointed out by Clark that the 105 teachers in his study, grouped according to deciles on The American Council 95; Education Payphological.gggtufgg,College Freshman, remained in and left the field of teaching in differing percentages. There was some indication that there was a negative selection factor of teachers remaining in the teaching of vocational agriculture. Clark stated: "The percentages of those ranked in the first three deciles was 3h.0 and h4.5 for those who left and those who remained, respectively. For those who left, h0.h per cent ranked in deciles four to seven and 33.3 per cent of those who remained ranked in these deciles. Of those who left, 25.6 per cent ranked in deciles eight to ten, and 22.2 per cent of’those who remained ranked in these three deciles. None of the differences of percentage was significant." (16) Another factor on.which considerable study'has been conducted is the "Vbcational Interest Blank for men (Revised) Form M."(17) 15A. S. Barr, "The Wisconsin Study of Teaching Ability." Journal 9!; Educational Research. 33:681.. May, 191.0. 16Raymond M; Clark, "Factors Associated With Decisions of Michigan Teachers to Remain in or to Leave the Field of Teaching Vocational Agriculture." Thesis, Ed.D. Michigan State College, East Lansing. 1950. pp. 63-61.. 17E. K. Strong, Jr., "Vocational Interest Blank for Men (Igtegésed) Form M." Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. . . $ . 111'." ‘3 r, a :‘ H 1 ‘ a A . In). I 33 The form was originally published in 1927 and revised in 1938. Froehlick and Darley indicated that: "In scoring the inventory, each item.has weights assigned to its response positions. The weight may be either negative or positive; its direction and size depend upon how that item differentiates men-in-particular occupa- 18 tions from men-in-general."( ) As to the meaning of scores obtained by the use of Strong's inventory of interests, Froehlick and Darley said: "The final scores thus obtained are converted into letter grades of A, Bf, B, B-, Cf and C. The meaning of these grades is summarized by* Strong in these words: 'An A rating means the individual's interests agree very well with the interests of men in the occupation; a C rating means that there is no such agreement; whereas scores in the B range indicate the degree of approximation to A or C ratings'... Scores should never be viewed as conclusive. They should be considered as merely suggestive, taking into account all other information bearing upon one's vocational choice." (19) A considerable amount of research has been devoted to the reliability and validity of Strong's interest inventory. Harsh and Schrickel reported that scores on 21 occupations correlated .75 on the average with repeat measures five years later for 285 (20) college men. 1801ifford P. Froehlick and John G. Darley, Studying Students - Epigance methods 9;,Individual Analysis. The Geographical Publishing Company, DeKalb, Illinois. 1952. p. 286. 19Ibid., p. 288. 20C. M. Harsh and H. G. Schrickel, Personality Development and Assessment. Ronald Press Co., New'YOrk. 1950. pp. 315-337. mate-i :' Interes sefi*°‘= vavb.‘ believe a vvvvv are 5: next." ‘2' 5+ befie investigated the relationship between self-esti- mated interests and those interests as measured by the Strong Interest Blank. Only one coefficient of correlation (stenographer- secretary and teacher of social sciences) exceeded .50. Moffie believed that the inconsistencies between estimated and measured interests were probably due to lack of maturity of the 80 students with a mean age of 18.7 years which he studied.(21) In his summary on the likes, dislikes, and vocational interests of men, Berdie stated that the extent to which items are liked on the Interest Blank for men is positively correlated With school achievement and other personality test scores purport- ing to describe social adjustment and morale. "These correlations are stable but are too small to be of any use in predicting adjust- (22) ment." Sarbin and Anderson concluded that the interest patterns of 76 adult men on Strong's blank between 1937 toll9AO indicated that 82 percent of these men who were dissatisfied with their job or their occupation had interest patterns which were not congruent with their modal occupations.(23) 210. J. befie, "The Validity of SelfeEstimated Interests." Journal'g§,Applied Psychology. 26:606-13. October, 1942. 22Ralph F. Berdie, "Likes, Dislikes, and Vocational Interests." m1 2?. Malia-l 28101191952. 27:188. February. 1943. 23T. R. Sarbin and H; C. Anderson, "A Preliminary Study of the Relation of Measured Interest Patterns and Occupational Dis- satisfaction." Educational‘agd Psychological Measurement. 2:23-26. 19h2. \ Q \J.‘ Nelson found that by comparison of scores of 72 "more" successful Minnesota teachers With 25 "less" successful Minnesota teachers that the difference in scores was not significant at the five-percent leve1.(24) Other studies regarding Strong's inventory have been reviewed in T_h_e_ 1111.13. gm; Measurements Yearbook, which contains short reviews of research conducted in the area of measurement.(25) Strong, also, has gone at length to describe and eXplain the value of his inventories as well as to present pertinent research on the validity of his blanks.(26) His manual on the blank for men gives directions for the use and interpretation of interest scores.(27) Some study has been.made of achievement in college and teaching efficiency. The same is true of student teaching. How- ever, as these studies have been conducted in relationship to teach- ing ability or performance, as they will be reviewed under studies of preateaching characteristics as related to subsequent performance. 2L’Kenneth G. Nelson, "The Interests of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture as Related to Vocational Satisfaction." Thesis, Ph.D. University of Minnesota. 1952. p. 66. 25Oscar K. Buros, Ed., The Third Mental Measurements Year- book. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 1047 pp. 26Edward K. Strong, Jr., Vocational Interests gfflfign‘ggi Nemen. Stanford University Press, Stanford University, California. 1943. 717 pp. ‘ 27Edward K. Strong, Jr., Manual for Vocational Interest Blankqur Men. Stanford University'Press, Stanford University, California. January, 1951. 16 pp. e ' : “a .. . t‘ \v '1: .. “lb 3 'I Q? ’3‘- u..,._ x. ‘ C E? ‘9 '1‘ O ’n, A “if: . -. tv :1 v. s ‘P 0". u. a." -1 I Studies and Definitions of’Teaching Efficiency and M Ability and‘g£,What Constitutes Teaching_Efficiencx Almost all investigators who have studied teaching efficiency have found it necessary to define their interpreta- tions of teaching effectiveness. The need for defining teach- (28) Barr (29) (30) ing effectiveness was pointed out by Ryans, Magee, the National Education Association of the United States,(31) and others. For this reason, this section of the review of literature was established to consider definitions and criteria of teaching effectiveness first. Then some attention is to-be devoted to the aspects of a good teacher in general. Finally, consideration is to be given to what constitutes the "good" versus the "poor" teacher in the field of vocational agriculture. The National Education Association group working on measures of teacher competencies, in its report, presented a biblio- graphy of research regarding the subject. The group defined a good 28David G. Ryans, "The Criteria of Teaching Effectiveness." Journal‘gngducational Research. 42:690-99. May, 1949. 29A. S. Barr, "The Evaluation and Prediction of Teaching Efficiency." Journal.2£.Educational Research. 40:717-20. May, 1947. 3oRobert M. Magee, "Selection of Candidates for Teacher Educa- tion." The Journal g£_Teacher Education. 3:168-172. September, 1952. 31National Education Association of the United States, "Measures of Teacher Competences:Report of Special Group D, The lfiami Beach Conference, June 24-27, 1953." 1201 Sixteenth Street, Northwest, Washington 6, D.C. October, 1953. 12 pp. I"? te Q \ "1's: ‘ 5‘?£& 01‘ gr, \ uter 05 ev teacher as: "-- ~ one who produces good results in meet- ing the central, persistent needs of our life. It follows then that the good teacher consis- tent with these needs, possesses a wisdom born of intelligence and education, and is master of the professional understandings and skills which his responsibilities demand. -— -The good teacher no longer can be simply a Skilled class- room practitioner. He must be this and much more. This expanded concept demands that the teacher serve effectively as a counselor and guide to individual students, as an interpreter and mediator of the culture, as a contributing member of the school community, as a liaison between the school and commmity which supports it, and as a growing member of an important profession." 32) Assuming that the characterization of a teacher is Similar to the definition of a teacher, Barr described the teacher as(33) (l) A director of learning, (2) A friend and counselor of school pupils, (3) A member of a school staff, (4) A member of a group of professional.workers, and (5) A member of a community. He fur- ther pointed out that the efficient teacher is a product of a chain of events starting with early childhood. He described the pre- requisites to teaching efficiency as either fixed or variable de- ‘terminers. 0f the variable factors he said that some are due to native endowment, nutrition, bodily care, and others to education (34) and environment. 32Ibid., p. 4. 333m, 9E. £20, 12‘. 717. 3thid., p. 718. | n A teac AA ,C. Ryans stated the necessity of knowing what to judge in teaching effectiveness. As to when teaching is effective, he said: "It may be said, then, that teaching is effec- tive to the extent that the teacher is able to provide ways and means that are favorable to- the development of understandings, work habits, desirable attitudes, and adequate personal adguit- ment on the part of the pupils or students." 5 Regarding the possible criteria of teaching effectiveness, Ryans stated that: stated: "There are two general empirical approaches to the criterion problem.in teaching. The first is through observation of the teacher, and the second, through observation of the product of the teacher's efforts, the pupils. The direct obser- vation of the teacher culminates in judgments, or ratings, of the teacher's influence on the students. Observation of the product of the teacher, which must take into account the status of the pupils both prior to and following exposure to the teacher, results in indices of pgnil chaps . The possible criteria of teaching effectiveness, then, are (1) ratings g£.teacher abilit and (2) measurements gfrpupil chaggg." 3 Barr, likewise, commented on these approaches when he "In.the second approach to the evaluation of teach- ing efficiency, attention is focused upon the teacher's performance, ordinarily'divorced from results. Currently, however, the trend in evalua- ting performance is toward the consideration of each teacher and pupil act in relation to educa- tional purposes, educational principles, and the limiting and facilitating aspects of each learning- teaching situation." (37) 3SRyans, 93. cit., p. 692. 361.99.- sit. 378m, 92. 22.10, p. 718. teacne *‘A‘ . vauljk t D- rd any ‘4 m o *9 D'- '7‘ ’1 [>40 (I) n - J J/ A large number of persons has projected aspects or factors which they believe should be present in an individual if that per- son is to be a successful teacher. Witty presented several personality traits of effective teachers that were analyzed from 12,000 letters of pupils in grades nine to twelve. In general, the same type descriptive statements were included as those mentioned by Symonds. Some of the principle traits mentioned were: c00perative, democratic attitude, kindliness and consideration for the individual, wide interests, fairness and impartiality, good 8 disposition, and a consistent behavior.(3 ) It was implicated by Canfield that administrators want a teacher who knows the intimacies and details of the job. His major thoughts were expressed in the statement that: "All that is required of a good teacher is to be patient, have a sense of humor, an even tempered disposition, a full realization of community responsibility, a friendly gregarious attitude, knowledge of his teaching field and above all, a sincere desire to overcome the hazards of the profession - the mires of con- vention and laziness - getting into a rut!" (39) Since this study was concerned with performance of teachers of vocational agriculture, attention was given to what constitutes 38Paul Witty, "An Analysis of the personality Traits of the Effective Teacher." Journal gf5Educational.Research. h0:662-67l. 390har1es R. Canfield, "A School Administrator's Estimate of a Good Teacher." The Aggicultural Education Magazine. 25:221. April, 1953. u 4A.. of"... n. and d if llllllu’i., Lilli! (It‘ll-fl ..\. ... a: x. a the "good" versus the "poor" teacher in this field. Harden presented an extensive list of criteria of success in teaching vocational agriculture. The traits he indicated as desirable for a good teacher of vocational agriculture were: "1. 2. 3. h. 5. 7. 8. 9. General academic ability (intelligence) Proper attitude toward rural life (interest in farming) Interest in teaching Farm.experience Social proficiency and interest Duration of interest in teaching Emotional stability (balanced personality) a. Satisfactory social and economic experience b. Satisfying community and family life Physical fitness (physical energy and vitality) Skill.in.expression." (LO) Floyd characterized the minimum qualifications of a good teacher of vocational agriculture as being: "1. 2. 3. A. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. 12. holeigh Farm reared or its equivalent No major physical handicaps Satisfactory attitude (positive sense of humor) Above average in ability and performance of academic assignments and requirements Rank in upper three-fourths of class in agricultural offerings Interested in.making a career as a teacher of agriculture Exhibited initiative and was aggressive in work assignments (work related to agricultural practices) Takes suggestions gratefully and catches on with minimum of instruction and assistance Sober in social habits Has satisfactory ability to become adjustable and adaptable to situations Desirous of growing professionally Trustworthy‘ Harden, "A Clinical Technique for the Selection and Guidance of Agricultural Education Trainees." The Aggicultural WW. 15:106. December, 191.2. ..... "V }-J 13. Unlimited energy and desire to get the job done it. Satisfactorily completed all requirements for graduation in the prescribed course 15. Shows evidence of being willing to work with associates 16. Shows evidence of desiring to render full and worthwhile service to the yeople he is to help by exemplary teaching and living." (41) Floyd did not present any research on which his thoughts were based, yet they can be viewed important to the extent that this reflected the vieWpoint of a teacher educator in agricultural educa- tion. Perhaps a somewhat broader characterization of a superior versus the inferior teacher has been summarized by the National Standards Committee for Vocational Education in Agriculture. The "superior" teacher was described by: "1. Graduation from a recognized institution for the training of teachers of vocational agri- culture 2. Farmereared 3. Farm experience as a mature individual over at least 1 calendar year A. Some managerial exrerience in farming 5. Technical training before and after graduation coextensive with the important farming enter- prises of his community‘ 6. Complete professional training, including par- ticipation training and professional improve- ment activities since graduation." (A2) bl Arthur Floyd, "The Good Teacher of Agriculture." The Agricultural Education Magazine. 18:228. June, 19A6. AZFederal Security Agency, Ag’Evaluation.g£,local Programs of Vocational Education in Agriculture. Vocational Division Bulletin No. 2A0, Agriculfp-al Series Ho. 58. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 19A9. pp. 52-53. '1 {U2 In characterizing the "very inferior" teacher, the follow- ing quotation was made: "He was farm-reared, but left the farm before maturity and had no year-round experience on a farm. He had no managerial experience in farming. His technical training was incomplete and he had obtained very little since graduation. Likewise, his professional training was incom- plete and further professional training was lacking." (43) Donovan, in addition to commenting on the study by the National Standards Committee for Vocational Education in Agriculture, pointed out that the personality of a good teacher is especially important in getting along with students, parents, teachers ani 1+1.) supervisors. Angelle indicated that a teacher needs more than technical and professional knowledge to be a success. He said: "He must have qualifications which will fit him for leadership in promoting and providing instruction to all the farm people in his com- munity. In order to meet these rules he must be a dynamic individual, capable of meeting changing conditions; he must be dependable, Open-minded, resourceful and sincere; he must be healthy and unafraid of hard work." (45) LBIbid., p. 52. z‘I‘Harold Donovan, "What makes a First-rate Teacher?" The Agricultural Education magazine. 25:223, 227. April, 1953. ASRoyP. Angelle, "Necessary Qualifications for a Teacher in Vocational Agriculture." The Agricultural Education Magazine. 25:228. April, 1953. «Ru ob n r. Stgdies lgvolving Egoblems and Methods 9§_Measuring Teacher Performance A continuous problem faced by a large number of investi- gators has been how to measure teacher efficiency or performance. Several techniques have been.tried without much success. Some of the difficulties have come from the establishment of criteria of success, from biases of raters and others from numerous incon- sistencies of the efficiency of the one rated, as well as the rater. It was concluded by Powell that: "....no one measure should be taken as adequate evidence on which to base a diagnosis, or on.which to determine the outcome of therapy which has been under- taken. It appears that three or more different sources are 1+6) generally needed to give an adequate picture of one's adjustment." (L7) The same conclusions were reported by Sells and Ellis. From this, one would gather that a single rating of personality or performance would be highly questioned. The number of ratings or evaluations to be made seemed,therefore, to be a problem in measur- ing teacher performance. A6Margaret G. Powell, "Comparisons of Self-Rating, Peer Ratings, and Expert's Rating of Personality Adjustment." Educational find. Pszcholoflcal Measurement. 8:231“ Summer, 1948. h73. B. Sells and R. W. Ellis, "Observational Procedures Used in Research; Rating Technics." Review gfiEducational Research. 21:1}37. December, 1951. _{, to u at a; 4.. ,I.‘ .u , . ull: .w-..’ iris ‘1'. I . . ' fl... There are problems in measurement of teacher performance which heretofore have been given practically no consideration. For example, Baths commented that a teacher cannot be appraised well if he is doing what he prefers not to do or is not allowed to do as he thinks is the best way of doing the job. He essentially was saying that there are numerous restraints on teaching and the individual quite likely may*be the victim of some restraints. Other dangers pointed out concerning appraisal of teaching efficiency were: (I) misunderstood motives, (2) unattainable standards of efficiency, and (3) making judgments on the basis of inadequate evidence. Raths concluded that: "The data must represent a fair sampling of the teacher's activities: in the classrooms, in extra- curricular activities, in faculty and committee meetings, and in community-participation."(h8) Durea and Norman, after studying the interests and attitudes of 140 subjects btheighting and not weighting items, pointed out that there is yet some differences in opinion as to whether weighted or unweighted items are best in differentiating between groups. They were inclined to believe that little was gained by weighting (A9) items. hglouis Raths, "Dangers of Appraising Teaching Efficiencyx" Ihg,SchggllExegg§ive. 67:56. April, 19A8. th. A. Durea and R. D. Norman, "The Significance of Weighted and Unweighted Items in Differentiating Between Groups." Igg,gournal‘g£.3eneral Pszchology. 38:217-27. April, 1948. .—.,_ . -——<- A m.-____-_ ---—l a ~‘Mm-a: to-.- I 19‘ .l 114‘ sa.‘ _ ‘5‘. v..». ‘ I Y; n J‘- \‘ 7| In one of the studies reported by Barr, the principal criterion of teaching efficiency was a composite of measures of pupil growth and achievement. The study was concerned with the determination of changes produced in pupils as a result of teach- ing, both effective and ineffective teaching. Twenty measures were applied to the teachers to receive ratings on them; most of these measures were found to be standardized instruments which have been published. As the study was in progress only tentative conclusions were drawn. These were concerned primarily with the validity of some of the instruments being used.(50) Gotham reported on prdblems encountered, as well as tech- niques used, in a study of personality and teaching efficiency. His criteria of teaching efficiency were: (1) criterion of pupil change in information, interests, attitudes, beliefs and abilities, (2) a battery of 13 tests administered to each teacher, (3) a com- posite of teacher ratings (five rating scales were employed for rating each teacher), and (A) a composite of the three foregoing criteria. Each teacher was rated by the superintendent, supervisor, and the field research worker. It was concluded that: "One of the significant findings of this in- vestigation is the lack of agreement found among the several criteria of teaching efficiency. The correlation for these were as follows: (3) Between pupil change and tests of qualities commonly associated with teaching success (.13) 50A. S. Barr, "The Wisconsin Study of Teaching Ability." Journal 2;,Educational.Research. 33:671-84. ‘May, 1940. (b) Between pupil change and 1ersonality' tests and scales (.2?) (c) Between the measures of personality and qua ities commonly as socia ted with teaching efficien ncy‘(.32) (d) Between a com1osite of the Nichigw Torgerson Ratirg 7 scales and fu1il Chan (.40 .. hile the latter coefficients of corre large enou h to be statistical_.y s~gni cri. erion of pu1il change aprarently m something different from that measured by teacher ratings and tests of qualitiesc Ouuonly as so i ated with teaching efficiency;" (51) Gardner dis ecu ssed recent work on attitude scales and said that information giving just rank order among individuals failed to reveal the amount of growth of an mdiviiual in a rarticular trait. In OIder to p-rovile com1arisons of differences in performance of individuals in a particular trait, he suggested the use of interval , . . (553) scales, nav1ng ecual units throughout the range of the scale. One me tlod of det terrining the elements of merit contributing to success in teaching used by Shannon was that of personal inter- views. He held per sonal interviews with lot ey x1e riencei and reputable public-school supervisors. Data were collected on 430 of the best teachers and'2 552 of the worst teachers who had worked under the 1R. E. 30tham,’ 'I-erson ality and Teaching Sfficiency.’ Jelrne 1.23.3?“crirsrtal Elucsfixn. 1A: 165. December, 1945. 52“ a. F. Gaziner, "Com.ents on Selectei Scaling Technicues With a Description of a T"-w Type of Scale." Journal 0 C‘ir:icsl W 6:38-43. Jarucry, 1950. V“W. “‘1' 1'9“ ‘~‘- n sham; ‘8»- is. ‘|vo II I I (.‘1 J4. supervisors. "What constituted a successful teacher, or an un- successful one, was left for the individual interviewees to decide. (53) Doubtlessly there was a wide variation in their standards." He further stated that: "To a considerable extent supervisors rate teachers on the basis of general impression, unable to cite instances or illustrations supporting their convictions. This does not necessarily mean, however, that their convictions are erroneous."(54) He indicated that elements of failure in weak teachers were more distinguishable than the elements of success in strong teachers.(55) A new approach to evaluating teacher effectiveness was reported by Hedlund. He said that 2A colleges and universities in New Yerk:were cooperating in the study; Some 225 scores were gathered on 1,483 applicants preparing to become secondary school teachers. A group of 79 beginning teachers were studied intensively by students, supervisors and eXpert observers. Each of these groups indicated the effectiveness of the teacher and described teacher behaviors which were considered ineffective. From;these over-all ratings, these teachers were divided into two criterion groups: 53Johnfi. Shannon, "Elements of Excellence in Teaching." Educational Administration and Supgrvision. 27:169. march, 19L1. 5“Ib1d., p. 176. 55.1.0.2. 222.. u . . N 1 . .. . 0 , x , n . U \ . A . 1 .nuu. . q f. L, Inwu. T. T» 5 x u v... r.. "k . 42' s. x T» H J: . e a. Q» h ‘P. no a .c .h. I A ‘1"? (17 H: .— ’— effective teachers and inei ffective teachers. Cf 5? tea. her these two grou1s, £600 descrijtions of effective and ineffective behaviors were reported. These descri1tions were then tabulated under 63 specific behavior categories. Forty-six of these 63 catefories differentiated between effective and ineffective teachers. On the basis of these 46 categories, three instruments for evaluating beginning teachers were constructed. After profile analysis and study of teaching effective eness, as meaS“re 1, it has been found that the 431' ems may hen 7e possible use in 1redicting teachim (56) effectiveness. The technique used by iclaughlin was the case~method pro- cedure which considers an individual case in terms of its own settings, environments, and conditions. A total of 98 "successful" and 16 "non-succe ess -ul" teachers was studied. Each teacher had ta ght at least two years. "3 mssfui' teachers were those receivin3 at least two reports from supervisory officials stating that they were SUIerOP ina hi wit) on the whole, with a third report inlicating very good or excellent ability. "Von—successful" teachers were L , I those on .mzom at least two surervisony reports had indicated as doing unsatisfactory Jerk. Hclau hlin per alU interviewed all subjects and secured data from nine different sources. Each case study was organiz ed around the following méch areas; (1) Femiiv 6 ’ yon—.1 . h 3 f" e a v 1"Ii~ .- ' .- 5 Paul a. leiluni, "'Loom.eriti .e Stxiid7 to .IV “rt if"ec21re— VWPSH ‘5‘ ,c‘ ‘ m—m fi-r1 p" “-nfi1na - . s in Secon.u“3 czlool is chi n7. " Jetrha; -i "-sz.:: luc tion. Q h:230-234. Septemoer, -93,. re‘: I —~. ‘-‘- CI‘ (2) Play and Activity interests, (3) Reading interests, (A) Social interests, (5) Religious interests, (6) Education, Training, Scholastic achievements, (7) Vocational Data, (8) Personal and Professional Traits, and (9) Summary. He prepared profile charts shOWing the differences found between successful and non-success- ful teachers.(57) The organization, as well as the techniques used in the study, of McLaughlin's dissertation was found to be different from others reviewed. Cook and Leeds, in attempting to measure personality factors related to success in teaching, established two criterion groups of teachers. An attempt was made to find factors which would dis- criminate between.the two groups, one having desired personality characteristics to.a high degree and the other to a low degree. Principals of schools designated teachers that pupils liked veny much and those disliked. A total of 200 teachers was studied. A teacher-pupil inventory was constructed to determine the teacher's ~ attitudes towards pupils. A brief "Principals' Rating Scale" was also constructed for getting data on teachers for the traits: disciplinary ability, personnel versus subject-matter point of View, attitude toward children, understanding of pupil behavior yroblams, personality adjustment, and attitude of pupils toward the teacher. Regarding relationship of ratings and teaching rersonality, Cook 57:. O. NbLaughlin, "A Case Study of Teachers Judged Success- ful and Non«Successful." Thesis, Ed.D. Ieland Stanford Junior University, Stanford, California. 1930. 215 pp. ‘ 1 M hal- A .- ..~ .C. l" “v. a... 1 III ‘ll‘ll'. V V. u~¥ I. F‘ n.‘ Kn; u,‘ b.|n and Ieeds stated: "fupils' ratings of teachers at the inter- mediate-grade levels are reliable and valid. There is a significant relationship between their ratings and those of the principal and of an expert. Pupils' ratings of teachers correlate with principalst ratings, .39, and With an experts' ratings, .33. The experts' and the principals' ratings correlate .48. The 'teaching personality' can be measured with as high a validity as an academic aptitude, the correlation with three criteria combined being .60." (58) The method used by Ullman to determine teaching success was that of securing ratings of teaching ability from.the teacher's superintendent, principal, or supervisor. "An adaptation of the Michigan Education Association 'Teacher Rating Card' was used."(59) It was retorted by Rogers that over one-half of the teachers studied by The Educational.Research Service of the National Educational Association were given efficiency ratings. The typical way of appraising efficiency was by using a compara— tive scale with several levels of efficiency on which the teacher (60) was checked. 58W. W. Cook and C. H. Ieeds, "Measuring The Teaching Personality." Educational and Isychological.lhasurement. 7:409. l9h7. 59Roy Roland Ullman, "The Prognostic Value of Certain Factors Related to Teaching Success." Thesis, Ph.D. University of Michigan. The A. L. Gerber Co., Ashland, Ohio. 1931. p. 28. 60Virgil M; Rogers, "Appraising Teaching Efficiency for the Betterment of Schools." The School Executive. 67:54. April, l9h8. ‘x 91:0,? ‘0 ‘M‘; . k‘ I. "44 Tansil studied cumulative records of students at the State Teachers College at Towson, Maryland as a technique of predict- ing success in teaching by comparing the ratings of graduates based on records with supervisors' ratings of these graduates. The correlation between the two ratings was .27. It was found that there was higher agreement between the prediction of teaching success based on records and effectiveness in teaching when recent graduates were studied within their own group and not compared with other teachers in service.(6l) 'With a group of teachers of vocational agriculture, Seymour developed a rating sheet for evaluating work of teachers of agri- culture. Each activity selected for rating was assigned a weight value With about half of the items based on in-school work with allpday'students and the other half on out-of-school groups. The activities on which teachers were evaluated were based on district supervisor's observation and reports from the teacher on monthly and annual report forms. The nature of activities evaluated for all-day classes included: (1) housekeeping, (2) condition and comp pleteness of files, (3) accumulation of days reports were late in reaching supervisor's office, (4) average number productive enter- prises planned per all-day student, (5) average number of productive enterprises completed per all-day student, (6) percent of all pro- ductive enterprises of all-day students completed, (7) number of 6lRebecca Catherine Tansil, "The Contributions of Cumulative Fersonnel Records to a Teacher-Education Program." Teachers College Record. Al:159-160. Nevember, 1939. to a'“ Future Farmer meetings held first 10 months of fiscal year, and (8) number of visits to projects of all-day students for first 10 months of fiscal year. Some of the activities evaluated in out-of-echool programs were: (1) number of evening-school meet- ings held first 10 months of fiscal year, (2) number attending evening-school.meetings first 10 months of fiscal year, (3) num~ ber visits to evening-school.men first 10 months of fiscal year, (A) number services rendered to farmers first 10 months of fiscal year, (5) tota1.mi1es traveled on official duties first 10 months of fiscal.year, and (6) outstanding services rendered to the community3(62) Thirty teacher measures were studied for statistical validity by Rolfe. He said: "Rating scales when used by'ex- perienced and competent suyervisors for the purpose of evaluating teacher efficiency give a positive correlation (r = .36 to r -».A3)."(63) Brown used a different criterion of teaching success than other investigators reviewed. He used the rating of a department as the rating of the instructor in charge of each particular depart- ment. The rating score cards contained 16 sections, with a total 62'0. J. Seymour, "Evaluating the werk of Teachers of Agri- culture." The Aggicultural Education Magazine. 18:15. July, 1945. 63J. F. Rolfe, "The Measurement of Teaching Abilitya" Journal gf’Expgrimental Education. 1A:73. September, 1945. r) ‘MV [[1 g) Q.) ~_—o 5 f. ,‘g .1 t"? /J possible score of 102. Enrollment had the highest possible weight of any of the 16 sections as 22 possible points were allowed. Brown administered "The Personality Inventory" by Robert G. Bern- reuter and the "Vocational Interest Blank for Men" by Edward K. Strong, Jr. to teachers in the field and compared scores on them to the scores given the teachers through rating of their depart- (61+) ments. A rating scale was also developed by Anderson. The scale was composed of 30 selected traits which he said were predictive of a man's worth as a teacher of vocational agriculture. Each of the 30 traits was accomyanied by three descriptions varying in degree of attainment of the trait. The person.marking the scale 6 had only to check the degree of attainment of each trait.( 5) Studies Regarding General Nature 31:. Relationshigg 91; Performance to Ere-teaching Characteristics Several studies have been concerned directly or indirectly With the analyses of relationships of pre-teaching traits to per- 6l‘James Frank Brown, "The Relationship of Personality Traits and Vocational Interests to Success in Teaching Vocational Agri- culture." Thesis, M.S. 191.0, The Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Blacksburg, Virginia. 88 pp. 65 C. S. Anderson, "A Rating Scale to Determine a Man's Worth as a Teacher of Vocational Agriculture." The Agricultural Education NagaZine. 10:23h-5. June: 1938' .-——.._ vmw N ‘ *— .. '“Hw I .~a‘ ‘uvv‘t CC” 0" It. r :V formance either in student teaching or teaching on the job. Such studies were reviewed and reported here. Ullman studied the relationship of 11 items of "personal equipment and preparation" to final teaching success. Such items included general intelligence, knowledge of principles of teaching, interest in teaching, academic marks, professional marks, major subject marks and practice teaching success. Of a group of L7 prospective teachers studied, Ullman found that: (1) teaching interests correlated .20 with practice teaching, (2) teaching interests correlated -.05 with teaching success, (3) academic marks correlated .33 with teaching success, (A) professional marks correlated .40 with teaching success, (5) major subject marks correlated .28 with.teaching success, and (6) practice teaching correlated .41 With teaching success as measured in the study. 66) After Ullman had formulated regression equations for predicting teaching success on the basis of 11 items studied, he presented the relative order of the 11 variables in importance for purposes of prediction as follows: (1) practice teaching, (2) pro- fessional marks, (3) academic marks, (A) major subject marks, (5) socio-economic status, (6) social intelligence test scores, (7) Brown psychological test scores, (8) Odell test scores, (9) self-ratings, (10) Weber test scores, and (11) teaching interests,(67) 66U1'lma'n, Q-E' £232..) p. 51‘. 67:014. , p. 67. U1 -an's study is an example of the difficulty encountcrci J . flf‘ 79 O p I A a O Y‘ ‘ 1 O O n 1 ' -‘; " ' ?f'" s “ ‘ a' ' . " _ h ' —' ' .“ - SELUijd . | .‘S - ilLA.—Al(_)s I'ta; :3 4;..4L e‘ML u'v' .IU_ a J. .ctr t (1.“: “ .‘ffi‘ya ~n 5“ J 3Afi}-: .n (IQUP’. Jfic vC L41 ‘ e 81’: -Q‘l‘L. 18' C; r. J‘.-£OD 01g U'v :.‘t\v;a.-:..~,;, U‘ -"-’ve/ 8-) . .1 fie male a at idy on the re ationship of certain factors to county agent su ce‘s, in thich 1H8 COlnvy agents were studieL. Us a v A ‘ c1, ‘ \ H " n ‘VV F' was unable to com.l.te the djr i;1 eefizety 48 to lac}; 0L finds. His assumttiom were trat the basic characteristics for success in ertension work v.8re found priur to graduation from college and that ness. Ioderate correlations were found between areighte; scores on background and tra M11113, vocati nal interest, attituic, I (09) and personalitv and agent eL fe cLiveness. Other work would be necessary to explain many of the uLJX"”il 3d variations of this The major pur'wos of 7ae itt's study, involving recoris of I o o " ' 'Y . .l 206 elementary education majors at forthwestern on ersicy, was to D. [—J 0 U} 0 over relationships between personnel data and prediction of Success of student teach rs. In this study, ratings were made b' use of a rating scale. Even though littl.e statistical data were SW;}lied, Ieavitt did present the following flnlinjs recirilng the C) etioushin of {ersonnel data to student-teaching succors: J . “1. 1+. 5. 7. 9. 10. Regardless of their amount of participa- tion in extracurricular activities, students stood an equal chance of making an 'A' or a 'C' in student teaching. ?-- The data compiled in this investigation showed no relationship between travel aXperiences and success in student teaching. --- Students with the greatest amount of work exyerience received slightly higher marks in student teaching than did those with little or no work eXperience. This difference of about 5 to 10 per cent was not large enough to be considered significant. Twice as many students having extensive experiences with children were considered to belong in the two highest groups in student teaching as were those considered to belong in the two lowest groups. A positive relationship was found between the interview rating and student teaching success. An examination of the ages~-indicated that, with the exception of the students receiving '0' in student teaching, the percentage of students of all ages receiving the same letter mark in student teaching was progortionalLy the same. However, the students under 21 years of age were considered more successful in student teaching than those students over 2l.years old. -~-In general, students with good grade averages were no more or no less successful in student teaching than were those who received poor grades. Students completing four or more methods courses prior to student teaching did not receive better marks in student teaching than did those who had taken only one or two methods courses. A greater number of students receiving the highest marks in methods courses received the highest marks in student teaching than received the lowest marks in student teaching.-- Mbst of the students who received high marks in Speech courses received high marks in student teaching. 11. It was definitely noticeable that students who ranked about the 60 percentile on The 1 American Council 23}Education Isypnological Examination were more successful in student teaching than were those who ranked below the 60 percentile.." (70) leavitt concluded that success in student teaching could not be accurately predicted on the basis of any items or combina— tions of items as studied. whereas Leavitt studied success in student teaching, Shannon studied teachers who had graduated from college and who had con- tinued in the field of education. All subjects studied had taught for at least five years. The most successful graduates of the college in education between 1898 to 1934 were selected first, then the teaching failures and finally the average teachers. Teach- ing failures were graduates who were unable to obtain and hold educational positions. It was discovered that successful teachers were noticeably ahead of average teachers and distinctly ahead of the failing group in scholarship. The successful teachers were found to be superior in intelligence when compared to teaching failures. Successful teachers had participated in more extra curri- culum activities than teaching failures. All of these findings (71) mentioned were statistically significant. 7OJerome Edward Leavitt, "Personnel Data and Prediction of Success of Student Teachers." 2Q2,Journallg£.Teacher Education. h2195-6. September, 1953. (The word "about" in item No. 11 is the one used by' the author, but the investigator believes that it should read "above.") 71JohnR. Shannon, "A Comparison of Highly Successful Teachers, Failing Teachers, and Average Teachers at the Time of Their Gradua- tion from Indiana State Teachers College." ducational Administra- tion‘ggg,8uoervision. 26zh3-51. January, 1940. 'w“.—- cu h 1‘ “‘q.. ‘ “Ina 'V.... ‘ I C" v ~. A 1.9 ’- m U ‘ ‘Vn &‘\ -t.— V R,” - v”... “f- I" It was pointed out by Brookover that the learning process entails a social process. With this in mind, he studied the relationship of social factors to teaching efficienqy. His criterion of teaching efficiency was that of mean gains in pupil information in history. He also obtained administrators' and pupils' subjective ratings of the teachers' ability. Some of the conclusions reached were: (1) there was no significant relation- ship between appearance and effectiveness among teachers less than 28 years of age, (2) age and marital status were related to teach- ing ability, with married men superior to single men and the age group 27 to 38 years being most effective in mean pupil gains in information, (3) teachers who lived in the neighborhood of the school were superior to those who did not, (A) extracurricular activities of the teacher in the community were not associated with teaching ability, and (5) that employers' ratings of teachers were not related to gains in information by pupils.(72) Two-hundred pupils were studied by La Duke, who used three teacher rating scales for the purpose of getting supervisory rat- ings of teachers. He found that: "Intelligence of teachers as measured by the total score and part scores on Th2 American Council Esychological Examination is signi- ficantly related to teaching efficiency as measured here (.61) -The teacher's attitude toward her profession or toward her fellow teachers as herein measured showed little 72Wilbur B. Brookover, "The Relation of Social Factors to Teaching Ability." Journal 2§,Experimental Education. 13:191-205. June, 19h5. ... re‘:tionshin to her effiCiCncv (.30,-—-—— Re tin s of te eac.ing efficiency by superin- tezients and su fervising teachers do not agree with the crite :‘ion of pupil gain." (73) . -— . ~v~ . a '-‘A ‘\".N- . «A. - “'K V? 1 I In h inVestigatien O; LLB relationship between selected rm 0) teacher traits and des; able changes produced by teachers in their ' - 5‘ . V, . . . >05tker used .hree rating SCdlBS Tor the purpose of w W1 .8 ii }4 U) U )fi tting511;:rvisery ratin's of the 28 teachers included in the study. He found th at inide li gence of teachers was more closely associated to teaching ability than any other factor considered. ‘Y‘i He also discovered that the relationship of scores on the SUfQPViSnfiy rating scales used in the study and the cr_“ teria of teaching Mi liLf (7h) was low, and statisticalty insignificant. In an exte: sive T€Vi€vf of inves. ti :-tions regarding the measurement and prediction of teaching efficiency, Barr presented a summary of 209 scales used in ratir g teachers. He reported that (75 75). Mead and Holle3, mstucying LO student teachers found that practice teachine success correlated .2h with general scholarship u A, .39 with schcl miip in the trails e’s majoz, and .57 with we eral 730. V. La Duke, "The dgnrflal Qf Exter'uental 7}: sea szent of Teaching Ability." CH. 14:100. Sep‘tembel, 19A5o A'\ l . 7L1eon E. Rostker, "The Iieasurement and Prediction of Teach— ing Ability." School anz Society. 51:3 ~32. 75A. R. lead and C. E. Holley, "Forecastin‘ Success in Practice Teaching." curral of Educational Isycholagy. 72h95-97. October, 1916. (76) methods course marks. Barr also reported that Seagrove dis- covered a correlation of .08 between the Strong Vocational Interest Blank: MFF and teaching success as derived from ratings by 77) administrators.( (78) . Barr also reported that Stuit compared the scholastic grades of 100 teachers rated by superintendents as most successful and 100 rated as least successful. Stuit found that only 11 percent of the successful teachers had grades below 80 and 19 percent were above 90, whereas, one-third of the least successful teachers were below 80 and 13 percent above 90 on scholarship. Scholastic success (79) correlated .31 to success in teaching. Barr commented that other investigators had found some association between practice teaching (80) marks and success in the field. 76Mk'v. Seagrove, "Prediction of In-Service Success in Teach- ing." Joggnal‘gg’gggcational.Research. 39:658-63. May, 1946. 77 A. S. Barr, "The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching Efficiency: A Summary of Investigations." Journal 2;.Exjerimental Education. 16:229, 2A2. June, l9h8. 78 Dewey B. Stuit, "Scholarship as a Factor in Teaching Success." School and Society. h6:382-8h. September 18, 1937. 79Ibid., p. 187. 80A. S. Barr, "Recruitment for Teacher Training and Prediction of Teaching Success." Review gchducational Research. 10:185-90. June, 1940. .ue- '0’? ya... 'Vv A... '- An, U. 1'. ’N Pierson and Stone studied the interest patterns of county agricultural agents and job success. The assumption was made that with high degree of correlation between measured interest patterns and job success it would be possible to predict perfor- mance of prOSpective county agents with greater accuracy. Strong's Vocational Interest Blank was used. It was found that agents, in comparison to Strong's criteria groups, were highest in "technical" occupations of farmer and vocational agriculture teacher and "social welfare" occupations. The agents were rated by'a panel of extension administrators as to their over-all effectiveness on the job. It was found that "more effective" agents had higher social welfare types of occupational interests and lower technical interest (Specific occupations of farming) than those who were not rated as high. The "more satisfied" group had a slightly higler interest in teaching than the "less satisfied" agents. To test if actual prediction could occur, coded Strong scales were reviewed on the basis of associations found between the groups classified by the panel and were classed as potentially having good perfor- mance and then these predictions were compared to the actual rat- ing assigned by'the panel of administrators. Test by the Chi square of this attempted prediction method based on interest patterns of agents as measured by the Strong test was significantly greater than chance in each case.(81) (82) 81Row1and R. Pierson and John T. Stone, Mimeographed article). "The Interest Patterns of County Agricultural Agents and A-H’Club Agents - A Tredictor of Success." Michigan State College, Bast lensing. I“: Lt. Some of the in;o;'tent COHCldSlCflS of l'clau F'in's stu .L‘ ' appeared 'u' ltnyo in:3-u L31. .e sa may or and (3;:- i oualific Csti as: scholars 4:3 r“; '5 C (+ .lgfir; , dress, etc., cannot there are so many exceptions ck validity. This if5C’tions for teachizg a titudc:s and a7: -ilities ; :chs any one of certain .05, will fail ‘n the work. " (83) t O(. H ”"1 vb "L’ U)» O :1 :3 e40 - e4 are p: 5‘ . C*‘ H‘ (,1 He further stated that: "Cf 33 non-successiul teachers inc fl ‘ .0 _ o nude 1 in this +he outstanring cause of fcil e I1! \ he cormtunity." :4, study, a. - 7’ zl'e, as cited by suger isors, in 7a; of th cases wes an ina ility to r? 7:e nrccs""1y soci? l ezljust- ments within the school. with the pa wr-nts, or t 1.1. sis for sclectirf ani rating teachers L.) >0 I~IcLaughlin sut‘mitte‘} '3 b on the premise thet cert'in functional attitudes and eoi:ities are I) nowland R. fierson, "Vocational IHtBP€LtS of Agricult “a? Zitens ion "orkers as Related to Selected ASjects of Lock Aljurtment." Ih.D., Thesis. l'ichijan State College, East lensing, lieriéan, 1951., pp. 229‘231 ._...‘.. T .u..~-.-l~1 necessary for a person to become a successful teacher. Uis entire basis for selecting and rating teachers seemed hi;hly subjective and apparently based purely uron imylications from the c ses (95) studied. Velson's findin s that less successful teachers had a wiier variability in teacher satisfaction scores and that the scale iii not differentiate between "more" and "less" successful groups of teachers of vocational agriculture in mean scores was consistent with the results of Ullman and Phillips who also found that teacher (56) ratings did not correlate with interest inventory scores. Nelson's study was concernei with a teaching satisfaction scale developed for Strong's "Vocational Interest Blank for Ken". It was noted by Clark that teachers who remained in the field had more credits in professional courses and technical agri- culture courses than teachers who left the field. Regarding success in student teaching as associated with leaving or remaining in the field of vocational av iculture he summarized his finiinrs as 3 u follows: "Student teaching marks for teachers who left ranved lower than for those who remained. Of the teachers who left, 37.2 per cent received student teaching marks of 'AA' or 86 helson, on. cit., p. 66. ‘iB', while A6.2 rer cent of those the remained received such marks. Also of those who left, 17.9 for cent received student teaching marks of 'BC' or 'CC' as comjared with ll.5 rer cent for those who remained. None of the teachers who remained received student teaching marks as low as 'CC', while 12.8 per cent of those who left receivei ‘CC‘ in student teaching." (87) A study to determine criteria for selection of {rosgective students in agricultural education was conducted by Floyd. We secured evaluations from state sujervisors and head teacher educators in agricultural education of factors contribut'ng to success in teaching vocational agriculture. It was found that "good character" ranked as the most important rersonal factor contributing to success. "Varied farm exnerience" was the most inrortant trait listed for farm exrerience. Data were secured from 362 successful teachers of vocational agriculture from a selected group of 502 submitted by supervisors and head teacher educators from 4h states. Floyd found a close relationship between a rather high grade—roint rank in high school achievement and later success in teaching vocational agri- culture. He also discovered a majority of successful teachers had several years of farm experience before going to college. The range of years of farm exyerience was found to one to 39 years. Aprroximately 60 percent of the 362 teachers had been active in one or more organizations interested in agricultural de'elorment during C‘ ”7Clark, on. cit., p. 133. ‘- (7‘ V1 their elementary and high school training. There were 67, or 18.57 percent, active in 4-H Clubs; 22.82 percent active in Boy Scouts; h.97 percent active in the Future Farmers of America; 29.83 percent active in the high-school judging team; and 11.71 percent were not members of any organization during high school.(88) He indicated his belief that a student who considers teaching voca- tional agriculture at an early age should probably be considered a more favorable student than one who decides at a later period in life. While Floyd's study was contributive to the growing volume of information regarding pre-teaching records and success in teach- ing, he made little use of available statistical techniques in the analyses of data collected. However, in his review of studies, he presented a very informative and concise summary of studies on the prediction of teaching success. A study conducted by'Efferson.was closely related to Floyd's and was apparently fashioned closely after it. His findings and conclusions were very similar also. He used suyervisory ratings of 118 Iouisiana teachers in his analysis of pre-teaching records and activities. He found that supervisory ratings of teachers who had been.members of the Future Farmers of America were higher than rat— 88John C. Floyd, "Ere-Training Records and Activities of Successful Teachers of Vocational Agriculture." Thesis, Ed.D. University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri. 1939. p. 90. away ‘p~c A v a. a .. y» Si". ....0 —»\ ..~~—~v’¢ Qfi p‘“. ‘. A- uric—A Ra .. . ..\r‘ . ‘A;~ -v~ -av-. (c ings of teachers who had not been members. J \O v The importance given to {re-teaching traits in recommend- ing beginning instructors of vocational agriculture by teacher , a o _0 V (90) 9 r } ‘1 educators was reported by knight. he fOund that teacner educators placed most emyhasis on "practice teaching rating" in recommending a new teacher to a prOSpective employer. Second in imfortance was "character"; ani third in importance was "attitude towarvs teach- n1 (IA) 0 O O 0 " His study was concerned With policies and procedures of ing . placement of teachers of vocational agriculture and was based upon the responses of 252 superintendents from.lissouri, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska. The purrose of the review of this study was based on the premise that if the analogy could be established that information desired by superintendents employing teachers should be similar to information collected before and during the training of teachers, it would be wise to discover the nature of such informa- tion used in placement activities. It was discovered that super- intendents desired an extensive list of information concerning 8()Carlos Arthur Efferson, "Ere-Training Records and Activities of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in louisiana as Related to Teaching Success." Thesis, M.S. louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, louisiana. 19h0. 84 PF. 903. E. Knight, "The Placement of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture." Thesis, Ed.D. University of Nissouri, Columbia, Missouri. 1938. 212 pp. 911bi'i ., p. 65 . ('3' prospective employees. In rank order, the 10 most desired items were: (1) character, (2) personality, (3) attitude towards teach- ing, (A) attitude towards rural life, (5) list of college credits, (6) Opinion of teacher trainers, (7) social qualities, (8) candi- date's farm experience, (9) record of college grades, and (10) opinions of practice teachers.(92) A study by Coombs was primarily concerned with a follow- up evaluation of the directed teaching program as conducted by the agricultural education department at Cornell. The evaluation of performance of first-year teachers of vocational agriculture ‘was accomplished by the use of an instrument constructed in a series of workshops held in the North Atlantic Region in 19h7-h9. Coombs found that only 30 of 211 recommended training experiences for student teachers have a close relationship to first year teach- ing performance.(93) There was a moderate relationship between performance and 100 training experiences. The only analysis made of data accumulated was simple summaries of numbers receiving different degrees of training and performance. While the data may not have been easily adaptive to statistical study, the absence 92Ibid., p. 115. 93Joseph Glenn Coombs, "An Analysis of the Relationship Between Directed Experiences Obtained in Training and First Year Teaching Performance For Teachers of Vocational Agriculture and an Examination of the Procedure USed." Thesis, Fh.D. Cornell University, New Ybrk. 1951. p. 341. (I) 4-. ...v "a . v. e: of statistical analyses constituted a weakness to the study. The validity of conclusions might be questioned also since the fin:- ings were based upon only 27 teachers. Anderson compiled records of 176 teachers of vocational agriculture who had graduated from the Pennsylvania State College from 1933 to m2. He used the length of teaching exlerience as ‘ one meas‘re of a teacner's success. He also commented that more than one year is required for a teacher to become es We Mi hed in his work. It was found that A8 percent of the teachers had stuii3d vocational agriculture in high school for an average of 2.6 years Data also revealed that 30. 3 percent of the teachers had been members of the Future Farmers of America while attending high school. Anal on stated that there was evidence that farm exlerier ce was closely associated not only with choosing to become a teacher of vocationala griculture, but with success and performance when measured in len; th of teac lmi ex wrie.1ce.(9h) The need for reliable ways of wredicuinb teac china success (95) and the difficulties enconx tered we: e brought out by Sutherlani. or ‘+ n 7 ’ ’ C. S. Anderson, "Tre-empuovmen Records and Activities of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture." Mul etin LS,. The ;cnnsylvania State Coll 3e, School of Agriculture, A”FlCu_t1T(1 Ex eerent Station, tate College,lennsy1veria. lovember, 19$6. p. 10. men l 2 ., -;.°. v. "1.: .- 1 ‘AAV {1:12.534 ' ‘ ;'.- '_,Y‘_=:) . J; c . _ . . ’55 S. Sutherland, "Can he ire :ct Teacniné Success u l 3 at l? .- -hw _Infli He presented Some interesting information regarding the s l vocational arriculture teachers in California. Each of these C.) teachers had been trained under the cadgt system and had seen teaching from one to four years. he state and regional sufer- visors rated four of this number as "outstanding" and 11 as "shove average." The supervisors used a rating scale in evaluating these teachers - the same scale used for the purpose of pro—ratine reimbursement. Eight of the Bl teachers were discovered to have more farm exrerience than the others. In regard to the success of these eight teachers, Sutherland stated: "Now, before we give you the reellts of our findings, would you exnect to find your successful teachers in this group? Can we predict success on the basis of farm experience? The answer should be 'yes' but our results say 'no.‘ Only three of these eight developed into above average teachers, while twice that many - six of the eight -with the poorest farm experience records, have turned out to be superior teachers. In addition to this, two of the most successful teachers in this better- than—average group were not farm reared and had barely the minimum farm exyerience required of teacher-training candidates." (96) An attempt then was made to determine if a good scholastic record was valuable in determining success in teaching vocational agriculture. Sutherland reported: "From the transcripts of these 31 teachers, we determined their grade point average in their upper division work - courses taken during their 96 Ibid., p. 35. c 1.. v“ k) junior and senior years in college. he allowed three pOints for each 'A' grade; two points for each '8' grade; one roint for each 'C' grade; no roints for each '0' grade, etc., and by dividing the number of points earned by the number of credits completed, we obtained grade point averages for each. From our analysis, we found these facts: 1. Eight of the teachers were in the 'honors' group with grade point averages from 2.00 to 2.72. Six of these eight were above average teachers. 2. Seven just 'got by' with averages from 1.0 to l.'. Three of these were above average teachers. 3. The grade point average for the 15 superior teachers was 1.86; for the other 16 teachers 1.57." (97) Sutherland gave some attention to the study of college extra-curricular activities participated in by these 31 teachers. His conclusion was that superior teachers generally participate in more extra-curricular activities than do average or poor teachers. Regarding this, he said: "The data presented are too meager to even suggest a final conclusion. However, the facts presented point in the direction that a student's record in extra-curricular activities is the most significant factor we have available on Which to predict his success as a teacher." (98) Summa f .eview f Titerasure O o and Related Materials 1. Several investigators have studied the reliability and validity of The American Council on Education lsychological Trar‘ - ~ I‘ _u'-’.é‘...'_nd- 97122. 22.2. 98Ibid., p. 38. “fix .‘-.. .n— — -m.-.-usy $3: The reliability of this atamination has proved to be con- sistenth high. 2. Considerable investigation has been conducted on the Wocational Interest Blank for Men‘I by E. K. Strong, Jr. The reliability of the instrument was found to be relatively high. Self-estimated interests correlated very low to measured interests. Sons work has been done on testing the instrument as a predicting device between successful and less successful teachers and county agricultural agents. 3. Several definitions of a good teacher have been pro- posed. The consensus was that a teacher is no longer just a skilled classroom practitioner, but also a director of learning, counselor, guide, contributing member of a school commity, a provider of favorable ways and means to develoment of proper understandings, attitudes, et cetera. A. Practically all investigators recognized two possible criteria of teaching effectiveness, ability, or performance. One of these was evaluation of the teacher. The other criterion was observation and evaluation of the product of the teacher - the pupil, regarding the gains in student information or changes in certain aspects of personality or understandings. A majority of investi- gators used the fomer criterion in evaluating teacher effectiveness. 5. Several lists of desirable personality traits of a good teacher were presented. Some of the traits were: being patient, I having the knowledge of subject matter field, friendly, et cetera. 6. Bone attention was devoted to what constituted the “good” versus the "poor” teacher of vocational agriculture . It was generally agreed that teachers of vocational agriculture should have: good character, adequate farm background and experiences, good attitude toward rural life, technical and professional train- ing and graduation from a recognized institution for training teachers of vocational agriculture, emotional stability, interest in teaching, average to better ability, social adaptability an! dependability, and be a hard worker. 7. There have been numerous problems encountered in the .asurement and evaluation of teaching performance. Some of the met frequent problems noted were: (a) the question of the number of ratings or other evaluations to be made on each individual teacher, (b) what criteria to use and standards of efficiency for comparison, (c) amount of observation necessary for valid ratings, (d) whether weighted or unweigxted items were to be used - it was found that little was gained by weighting its-s, (e) difficulty in measuring personality and social influence in teaching, (f) lack of agreemnt among several criteria of teaching efficiency, (g) pupil change and teacher ratings, as two possible criteria, seend to neasure something different, and (h) questionable reliabilities and validities of ratings. W tests for 1 seal titi Btu: 81‘0“ tea tea fa m rat NL‘ 8. It was found that several methods have been used to evaluate teacher performance. These methods included the follow!- ing (a) pupil growth and achievement as indicated by scores on tests and pupdl observation, (b) use of standardized instrtments for ratings, including interval scales, checklists and comparative scales- with several levels of efficiency, (c) personal interviews, (d) case-study procedure, (e) opinions of supervisors, school administrators, teacher educators, and others, (f) cooperative. studies among colleges, (g) pupil evaluation of teachers, (h) study of criterion groups of teachers (successful and tion-successful youp), and (1) ratings of departments as the rating of the teacher directing the department . 9. Studies of relationships of yrs-teaching characteristics to psrfonance in student teaching and teaching in the field have resulted in varied relationships. It was noted that superior and inferior teachers may or may not possess some of the same abilities and qualities. One study indicated a large percentage of teaching failures resulted fru inability to make social adjustments. 10. low to insignificant correlations were found in one stat between teaching interest and practice teaching and teaching success. 11. One investigator fouls! that academic marks in general were very low in relationship to success in teaching. There was rather consistent agreement that marks in methods courses were related to student teaching. It was found that teachers remaining int! teac; mm m fa tc in the field had received higher student-teaching marks than teachers who had left the field. One study reported a positive relationship between interview ratings and student-teaching success. 12. There was some agreement between investigators that intelligence of teachers was related to teaching ability. One investigator reported that successful teachers were ahead of a failing group in scholarship and intelligence. 13. One investigator reported moderate correlations between background and training, vocational interests and attitudes an! county agricultural agents' effectiveness. Another investigator reported, however, that vocational interests were insignificantly related to teaching success. One investigator found wider variability in teacher satisfaction scores for less successful teachers than for successful ones and that teacher ratings did not correlate with interest inventory scores. 14. Successful teachers of agriculture more often belonged to farm organisations during their youth than did non-successful teachers. Successful teachers also had more often participated in extra-curricular activities in high school and college than non- successful teachers. One writer stated that farm experience was associated to success in teaching; whereas, another reported that teaching success could not be predicted on the basis of fare ex- perience. It was generally agreed that more than one year was required {or establish, 15. “mm expel mime had a flu job, 16. I meant on 3t“died to d for establishment in teaching. 15. One investigator reported that very few recomended training experiences of prospective teachers of vocational agri- culture had any close relationship to first year performance on the Job. 16. Practically all investigators were found to be in agreement on the fact that prediction of teaching success on factors studied to date is yet unaccomplished. e_ -——-——.—.——-—-——n CHAPTER III PLANKING AND CONDUCTING THE STUDY’ In this chapter the procedures followed in determining how teacher performance would be evaluated are described in detail. The methods of developing the performance rating scale with some of the pertinent findings which had implications for the remainder of the study are also presented. Finally, the procedures used in conducting the study proper are presented with comments regarding scoring of rating forms and selecting teachers to be included in the study; W Methods 9}; Evaluating Teacher Performance As previously stated, one phase of this study was concerned With the problem of evaluating teacher performance. Any method to be satisfactory should be as objective as possible. In evaluating performance of teachers of vocational agriculture, Specific area traits should be analyzed and evaluated for their relative impor- tance. A tentative outline of the problem.with the proposed pro- cedure for evaluating teacher performance was presented to the guidance committee. The guidance committee approved the general methods involved and raised pertinent questions regarding the evaluation of the scepe and quality of performance. After deliberation, a simple checklist was prepared similar to the one by Hye.(l) This checklist was presented at a regular weekly staff meeting of the Agricultural‘iducation Staff at Michigan State College for criticism. As several important considera- tions arose during the discussion, it was decided that a more com- prehensive instrument was needed to measure teacher performance. Literature and related materials were studied to decide how to rate teachers. Several self-evaluative guides and other instruments were studied in arriving at the method used in this study. It was discovered that Montgomery,(2) in conducting a study on in-service education, had prepared a problem checklist which contained numerous ideas important in evaluation of teacher per- formance. Hye(3) had prepared an inventory to be used by Missouri County Agents which also contributed to the background of infor- mation. One self-evaluative instrument, which had been prepared Specifically for teachers of vocational agriculture, was studied to 1Ivan Nye, The Relationship 23 Certain Factors to Countv Agent Success. Research Bulletin A98. University of Missouri, Columbia, Hissouri. June, 1952. pp. hl-Q. 2h. W. Montgomery, "Check List of Professional Problems for Teachers of Vocational Agriculture." Alabama Polytechnic Institute, Auburn, Alabama. 1952. 12 pp. (Eimeographed). 31van.Rye, "The Missouri County Agent Inventory." University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri. 1952. 15 pp. 73 determine traits that were concerned primarily with performance.(h) It was decided that any evaluation of teachers would be concerned primarily with traits of performance rather than with personality factors coupled with performance, since personality in itself was deemed to be an abstraction which was too intangible for primary consideration in this study. Other immortant criteria of success of vocational programs and of teachers of agriculture were discovered in bulletins pre- pared by the United States Office of Education. The first of these bulletins was based upon evaluative criteria prepared by the national Standards Committee for Vocational.Education in Agriculture.(5) The second bulletin contained scales on which criteria were developed and afforded numerous items pertaining to the study of teacher performance directly and indirectly.(6) Other sources of ideas were discussed in Chapter II in the review of literature. 4"Guide for Self-Rating for Use by Teachers of Vocational Agriculture." Department of Education, Michigan State College and The State Board of Control for Vocational.3ducation, Lansing, Michigan. A pp. (No date). 5Federal Security Agency, U. S. Office of Education, Ag Eyaluation 9; 5519 local Programs 93: Vocational Education in Agriculture ighthg'United States. Misc. 3233, Vocational.Division, Washington 25, D. C. 71 pp. (No Date). 6Federal Security Agency, U. S. Office of Education, An_ Evaluation.g§>local Programs g§,Vocational Education in Agriculture. Vocational Division Bulletin No. 240. Agricultural Series No. 58. Washington, 25, D.C. 1949. 75 pp. Previous experience had been gained in rating teachers on perfor- mance in working with all-day students, young and non-veteran farmers, and veteran and adult farmers.(7) After study and consideration of several methods which had been used in evaluation of programs and individuals in voca- tional agriculture, a rating scale was developed. Developing the Performance Rating Scale As has already been pointed out, a list of traits con- cerned with performance of teachers had been previously developed. However, the problem was now concerned with selecting a temporary list of descriptive statements characterizing performance that could later be submitted to a jury to evaluate. Each phase of the duties and responsibilities of the teacher of vocational agri- culture was set down, and descriptive statements were prepared for each. These statements included items tending towards good perfor- mance and descending to items which characterize poor performance in teaching agriculture. A temporary list was developed and presented to several committee members who made suggestions and criticisms. 7Ceorge W. Sledge, "Tenure of Teachers of Vocational Agri- culture in North Carolina Including Factors Involved." Thesis, )4. of Ag. Ed. North Carolina State College, Raleigh, North Carolina. 1951. pp. 63-6h. 80 The list was then revised in light of these and other suggestions. The items were arranged in random order under the major subsection being characterized in terms of evidences of teacher performance. The purpose of placing these items at random was to eliminate the possibility of the rater being influenced by the thought that items run from ascending to descending order of value. This revision constituted the original "Vocational Agriculture Teacher Performance Rating Scale" which was accompanied by a page of "Directions to Jury Evaluating the Vocational Agriculture Teacher Rating Scale."(8) Prior to the development of this original form, a meeting of the State Advisory Council for Vocational Education in Agriculture and the State Research Committee for Vocational.Agriculture in April, 1953, held in lensing and East Lansing reSpectively, had been attended. Suggestions from the members of these two groups, which were felt to be feasible, were incorporated into the study. The original rating scale used by the jury of exoerts contained only two columns for each item. One column was provided that the juror could check if he felt the item.should be retained for evaluating performance. The second column was for supplying weights of items retained on a numerical scale from a negative five to a positive five for each item's relative importance towards good and poor performance. The directions provided to the jurors essentially pointed out that if emperts could first agree on what items should 81 be used to describe teacher performance and the relative value of each item, then it could be eXpected that consistent agreement on performance might be forthcoming. Six teacher educators at Michigan State College in the Department of Agricultural Education, five state supervisors of vocational agriculture in Michigan, and four school administrators in Michigan were asked to evaluate and weight the items. Each member of this jury was qualified to serve in the evaluation of the original form due to his experience and professional training as evidenced by his tenure and position. This jury was also given the responsibility of deleting any items or phrases which they deemed undesirable on the rating scale, and likewise, they were given the opportunity to submit additional items. The standards which each item had to meet were decided upon after conferring with several.members of the guidance committee. The following standards, With reasons for their inclusion, were established for each item: 1. mmwm receive mg Esitive 9}; all negative weights 39 be; included. This standard provided a basis for eliminating items receiving both negative and positive weights which might have different interpretations by various prospective raters. Such weightings also showed lack of agreement and conti- nuity of value weighting; therefore, the items were not acceptable. 2. 55193123; flmm 9_f_' raters must have checked 5y; least 29_percent "Retain Item" for the item.22’§g_retained. It 82 was recognized that varying philosogvhies among the jurors might have influence on their individual interpretations and their esti- mate of relative importance of each item; therefore, this standard was deemed necessary that at least a consensus be found for each of the three sources of evaluations. 3. Since there were 15 jurors, _a_t_.. WA]; jurors M {1333 checked t3 retain _8._I_1. .1223} 5:133 gggh 9}: fly; three sources of ratings 3333 summed, in order for the item to be retained. This actually meant that 73 percent of the total number of checks for each item must have been checked to "Retain Item" for its retention. The purpose for this standard was to provide a more stringent test of each item's retention power since it was possible for an item to be retained after meeting the first two standards, yet still lack high agreement of the jurors on its retention. 1.. 313m 9}; geatest fremeng' m M g); £13m- amnesia item. then aneaaamuammemei Mtge. pgi_ni_:_; 239E239; m not more than 2'2 numerical weigxts outside this 331359. was retained. This wasanother method established to aid in discarding items on which agreement was not highly con- sistent. 5. The fifth standard was concerned not only with retention of items but also their discriminatory power. To arrive at this standard, it was necessary to develop a procedure for assigning numerical weights to the items retained on the basis of the first four 83 standards set for item retention. The procedure for assigning numerical weights to the items retained up to this point was: (a) First, the numerical weights assigned to each individual item were added; (b) then, the total received in step (a) was divided by the number of weights added and carried to one decimal place; this value constituted the numerical weight of the item as evaluated and weighted by the jury. From this, the fifth standard, concerned With item discriminatory power, was derived. m m REY—1.33 at. Mamaihzss (£2) maeluaEEmMQad—nemive 3.111292 E2139 3 negative £3.19. 1:21 181.1%; Egg £0.29. retained. The purpose of this standard was to include only items that would differentiate between good and poor teacher performance. This standard also aided in elimination of items having little discriminatory value that would only add to the length of the teacher performance rating scale. Upon applying each of these five standards to the items evaluated and weighted by the jury of experts, 26.8 percent of the original 11.6 items were discarded from the performance rating scale for failing to meet one or more of the standards established. In Table I, the number of items discarded and retained by subsections on the original performance rating scale is presented. The follow- ing titles were given to the lettered subsections on the performance rating scale: A - Working With People in Comrmmity; B - Maintaining Pr°fessional Standards and Relationships; C - Planning and Conducting General Activities; D - Maintaining Administrative Relationships; 81+ E - Utilizing Acceptable Methods of Teaching; F - Conducting Programs with All-Day Students; G - Conducting Programs with Young Farmers and/or Adult Farmers; H - Providing On—Farm Instruc- tion; I - Supervising and Developing Farming Programs; J - Teaching Farm Mechanics; and K - Conducting and Advising Future Farmers of America. The individual items that comprised each of the subsections on the rating scale can be found with their reapective numerical values in the Appendix.(9) After the five standards were applied to all items on the original performance rating scale, the official numerical weights were computed on the basis of weights assigned by the 15 jurors. The revision of the original scale constituted the "Vocational Agri- culture Teacher Performance Rating Scale" which was used in the trial test.(lo) It is important to note that "No" reSponses on the scale are scored opposite in value to "Yes" reSponses, whereas, "?" responses are scored as zero (0) or neutral in value. Other infor- mation concerning this matter is presented in the discussion on the lnethod used to score the performance rating scale. 9 1OAppendi‘x B. TABIE I NUMBER OF ITEMS DISCARDED AND RETAINED BY SUBSECTIONS ON THE ORIGINAL PERFORMANCE RATING SCALE Number of Subsection Items on Number of Number of Percent on Original Items Items Retention of Rating Scale Scale Discarded Retained Items A 10 3 7 70.0 B 10 2 8 80.0 C 17 3 lb 82.3 D 9 3 6 66.6 E 16 7 9 56.2 F 10 2 8 80.0 G 16 h 12 75.0 H 8 3 5 62.5 I 12 3 9 75.0 J 21 6 15 71.h K 17 3 lb 82.3 Total 1A6 39 107* 73.2 *Total number of items retained (107) represents 73.2 percent of the number of items on the original scale, including nine items added and evaluated during the process of having the jurors evaluate and weight the items. 86 222 Trial Test Before using the "Vocational Agriculture Teacher Performance Lting Scale" as a device for collecting data, a trial test was made. 1e purposes of the trial were briefly: (l) to test the scores arived among sources to discover the probable significant correla- Lons on scores among sources of ratings; (2) to eliminate items not zed in scoring teachers; (3) to eliminate misunderstood terminology. > attempts were made in the trial test to analyze the relationship 3 performance scores to {me-teaching characteristics. Forms for the trial test were mimeographed in sufficient :mbers to be mailed to ten school administrators and to be presented > the teacher educators at Michigan State College and to the state :pervisors of vocational agriculture in Michigan. Ten teachers :' agriculture with approximately the same length and types of :perience as teachers included in the study were selected for the “ial.test. However, none of these teachers were included in the smple used in analyzing the relationships of pre-teaching characteris- LCs and subsequent teaching performance. Individual typewritten letters, stating the purpose of the study 1d asking for cooperation, were prepared and mailed to the school {ministrators with a rating scale to be completed for the administra- >r's teacher of agriculture. This material was accompanied by'a amped, self-addressed envelope for their convenience in returning 87 the completed forms.(ll) During the same week this material was mailed to the ten school administrators, the teacher-educating staff and the state supervisory staff were presented coded performance rating scales to be completed on the same ten teachers. In this manner, performance ratings were made for the ten teachers completing the trial test. Two school administrators failed to return the rat— ing scales. Therefore, it can be seen that for eight teachers, three ratings each were received and that for two teachers there were only two ratings each. All forms were completed for each teacher by the teacher educators and the state supervisors. Scoring the Performance Rating Scale: The first problem encountered in scoring the performance rating scale was how to score the "?" reaponses. Much of the review of literature contained results of rating scales, but little on tech- niques used in scoring individual responses in cases similar to the present study. There was, however, one reference that had some bearing on this problem and was reported by Brown, who suggested a procedure for including "cannot say" (?) items in scoring the Minnesota multiphasic Personality Inventory. He states: "we see a large number of Inventory items omitted from scoring by the 'either - cr' Appendix E. logic of the Cannot Say device. The ? unit appears to have its reason for being in the following assumptions: If the patient cannot, or will not (same thing?), decide whether a particular statement is either true or false, or if it does not pertain to him, then it is neither true or false, and should be left out of the scoring scheme. It is proposed, as an hypothesis, that certain ? items be regarded as having some truth in them. This reasoning is used: That which is not entirely true, or mostly or usually true, and yet is not entireLy false, is partially true." (12) After making this statement, Brown proposed that items marked under the "?" column should be assigned a one-half point value as compared to a one-point value for items answered as "yes" or "no". Hesgm: "The reason for assigning a trial value of l/2 to the ? mark scored is this: Those True or False cards which qualify for scoring have each a value of l. The f ? card is considered as falling somewhere between this point and zero, and half-way between is a logical trial point." (13) Under the assumptions Brown stated, it follows that the method suggested was the logical one for scoring the items in this case, but in the present study negative and positive weights assigned to items were not of a one-point value. Also, the raters were given instructions to use the "?" column only when they had no basis for a decision in answering either "yes" or "no". Therefore, it appeared 12Manual N. Brown, "Evaluating and Scoring the Minnesota Multiphasic 'Cannot Say‘ Items." Journal.g£ Clinical PSyehology. 6:181. April, 1950. 13 Ibid., p. 182. 89 that the only other alternative for scoring the "?" column in the trial test was to assign automatically a neutral value of zero (0) to all responses checked under the "?" column. The performance rating scale used in the trial test had three columns - "yes", "no", and "?". The rater simply checked the appropriate column as to whether the item characterized the given teacher's performance or not, or he could check the "?" column when he had no basis for a decision. Since there are 107 items on the rating scale which were used, there was a need to develop methods to reduce the problem of scoring the 28 forms collected in the trial test. A scoring stencil was devised with the positive and negative weights of each item written on the stencil above the marking space for each reSponse. By applying the scoring stencils to each rating scale and using an automatic calculator, computations were made speedily and accurately, In this way the teacher's performance score was readily derived. The weights used on the scoring stencils were those assigned the reSpective items by the jury who evaluated and weighted each item on the performance rating scale. It was arbitrarily decided that any rating form containing more than 50 percent of the total possible h03.h points on the scale in the "?" column would not be used in determining either the Correlations on scores in the trial test or the teacher's performance in.relationship to pre—teaching, measurable traits on the student aprofile. The reason for this decision was to increase the validity 90 of the ratings included in the study. The assumption made was that if a particular rater had no basis for a decision on more than 50 percent of the total possible points on the scale, his rating was potentially highly subjective and unreliable on a majority of the items; therefore, the score derived from such a rating would not add to the value of the study. After analyzing the technique of computing the performance rating score, three steps were established for arriving at a teacher's performance score. They were: A. First, compute the score that the teacher gets by adding or subtracting the value of each item as checked by the rater in either the "yes" or "no" columns. This was denoted as value A. B. Second, add all values of any items checked in either "yes" or "no" columns, irrespective of negative or positive Sign values, but not for any item checked in the "?" column. This was denoted as value B. The reason for this was to get the total possible positive score had the items been checked favorably for the teacher's performance. C. last step, divide the value computed in B into the value computed in A, and multipdy by 100. The value received equalled the teacher's performance score in terms of percentage based on 100. The formula derived from the three steps involved in computing the performance score was: Teacher's Performance Score -‘5. x 100 B 91 Some further explanations probably need to be made regard- ing the procedure for scoring the teacher performance rating scale. Any item.checked under "yes" denoted that it characterized the teacher's performance, thus it was added to or subtracted from the score of the teacher as indicated in step A. Any items checked under "no" indicated a lack of that aSpect of performance or a negative aSpect of performance, therefore, their values were also added or subtracted as the case may have been for a particular item. Any items checked under the "?" column were eliminated from consideration and not used in any computations to eliminate a penalty for a teacher because his performance was not known. The teacher's performance score was based only on those items on which the rater could make valid ratings. Under this situation, the "?" column was relegated to a position of neutrality and assigned the value of zero. By this technique the "?" column in actuality became an aid to increasing the validity of "yes" and "no" responses as the rater would use the "?" column only when he had no basis for a decision. Upon scoring the performance rating scales as indicated, scores were derived for subsections on each scale as well as a total performance score for the total scale. Data from these scores and their analyses seemed pertinent to the ultimate study and are presented for consideration. Trial Test Findin~s: The data presented here are concerned with the scores derived on the ten teachers included in the trial test with con- sideration given to the correlation of scores primarily by sub- sections between teaeher educators, state supervisors, and school administrators. Before correlations of scores received from each teacher rating could be computed, the scores had to be ranked and given rank values and the differences in ranks derived. All compu- tations comprising the trial test findings, therefore, are based upon the data supplied in Table II. Table II shows that the administrators of teachers coded number three and number eight did not return the rating scales for their reSpective teachers. Therefore, only one correlation could be computed for each of these teachers; this correlation, in both instances, was based upon Subsectional scores provided by teacher educators and state supervisors. Failure to find a score in any subsection for a teacher as rated by either the teacher educators, state supervisors or school administrators denotes either one of two alternative reasons: (1) the teacher may not have performed in the area - for example, some teachers do not conduct farm-shop programs or adult-farmer programs - or (2) the rater may not have observed the teacher in the area and thus did not feel competent to check the teacher's performance only on a subjective Opinion. From Table II, Table III was derived to compute correlations of total scores between the raters to determine if there was any significant relationship between total performance scores between any two given raters. In order to facilitate the process of deriving correlations and tests of significance, a "Table for Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient for Teacher Performance Scores by Teacher- Educators (T.E.), School Administrators (idm.) and State Supervisors (Sup.) was prepared."(lh) The test of relationship apylied in the trial test was the. of the Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient . . 1" which was derived by the folloWing formula:( / rr 3-1 '.é§%iE_y_ N N—l In the formula, N denoted the numier of paired observations; whereas, D denoted the difference between two ranks of one varying unit. The correlations received from data by use of the formula given were tested for significance at the five-percent level using (:6) the following formula by Hagood and Price and then using the " Table(17) provided for the interpretation of the value received: 1I‘UI‘Lppendec J. 15M. J. Hagood anl D. O. Trice, Statistics for Sociologists. Henry Holt and Company, NeW’YOPk. 1952. p. A37. léIbido, p. [4.68. 17 id., p. 563. ' -2 a , \1i—‘iv nm_“i§m “1 men 8H .. .. 8H- .. o.m.. his: cm: GS 03 dom dam 0.3 02 n ma. 8a.. .. 03.. 5:2: m.$ R: 03 he. .m.e m 3% 8H .. 8H 8H 8H «.8 o.$ NS 8H 8H 02 goes. 0.? 8H .. 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H was 5:5 8H 8H 8H 8H 8a 8a 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H .2 . a. a fine 8H 4.3 8H 8H méo «ER 8H 8a 3K 03 m5. .5... wza has 02 do: 93.. .. 8H m.mm.. man 93... mums 8H .95 mam we is fins 02 m .3 02 8H 02 mm OS 02 .mé m game 02 sea 8H 8H 8H 8H .. .. 8H 8H 09” 8H 8H 8H dam 8H 8H 8H OS 8H 8H 02 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H . m . e N see 02 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H mém 8H Nd. .23 was 03 dam 8H 03 ~38 02 09“ ad. 8H 8H 02 d3 8H 8H OS 8H 8H 8H 02 8a 02 8H 8H 8H . n . a. a 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 02 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H .53 spam e a. H m u a m a o m 4 r3 $252 8a ass eases 38 omepo>¢ genomes *He..UHmoHH 2H H359 no Ewan. HQHOHHmoOs. mo was..me 2m“. 20 mflawom OZHHJE Home...” Bomxmm u..§o.homsw opopm I .msm mAOpmospm nogoooa I .m.a nopmnpmfinflspd I .ec< ”mzoaaom me one =hn.vopmm= nesfloo on» cw tom: mCOflpmwbonnnwa O.me OOH - OOH - - N.OO OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH .aam O.Nm OOH OOH OOH O.ss OOH m.mH s.Hm OOH OOH OOH OOH .m.a OH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH .Eea e.mO OOH - OOH OOH - OOH OOH m.OO m.em OOH OOH .ssm a.OO OOH OOH OOH OOH - OOH e.Hm O.me m.mm OOH OOH .m.e a s.me s.os - OOH OOH - Om.- N.Hm «.mH- m.mm e.mu m.~s .sea O.ms - OOH OOH - - 0.0o m.m~ s.mm e.me OOH OOH .asm Hes OOH OOH OOH OOH - ON H47 OOH Sm OOH OOH 43.. m seapom oz 56¢ e.Oa - - - - OOH - OOH m.s OOH OOH OOH .asm e.Om- OOH OOH- OOH- OOH- OOH- OOH- OOH- OOH- OOH- m.we H.om- .m.e s O.OO OOH O.HO OOH OOH OOH m.ss O.sm O.eo O.NH- s.sm m.ms .eea m.mO OOH OOH OOH - OOH OOH m.mm OOH OOH OOH OOH .asm O.mO OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH ~.ss OOH OOH OOH .m.e O «.mm OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH m.sm OOH OOH OOH OOH .Eea cease a a H m O a m O O m a "an amnesz use Hence eases oaoo owmno>< genomes 96 When the data supplied in Table III were ranked and tested in the two formulas for testing relationships by the Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient, it was found that teacher performance scores based upon total scores only between teacher-educators and school administrators had a rank correlation of O.hh8, which was not significant at the five-percent level. Teacher performance scores based upon total scores between teacher educators and state supervisors on the ten teachers had a rank correlation of 0.613, which was not significant at the five-percent level of significance. The perfor- mance scores on the ten teachers when correlated for scores based on ratings by state supervisors and school administrators had a rank correlation of only 0.246, which also was not significant at the five-percent level. It can be seen from these tests, based on total scores on;[, 'hat insignificant rank correlations were pro- duced between the three sources of ratings for the teachers included in the trial test. Attention was next turned to the study and analysis of correlations based upon subsectional scores between the three sources of ratings. The ranking of scores necessary for computations of arriving at the Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficients on sub- sectional scores between teacher educators and state supervisors, teacher educators and school administrators, and school administrators and state supervisors was based upon the subsectional scores supplied in Table II. TaBIE III DERTJ'ED TOTAL SCORES ON TEaCiEx OF AGRICULTURE PfiiFORI-JDXNCE U313} TI-IE TEACHER PLEFOE'JQANCE RATINJ SCALE IN THE TRIAL TEST Teacher Rat infiS 703*: Code Teacher School State .‘Imnber Educators Administrators Supervisors l 100 100 93 .8 2 100 96.7 100 3 83 .3 - 21+ .8 z. 100 83 .4 97 .6 5 1+0 .6 88.8 32.8 6 98 . 9 98 .2 98 .8 7 -56.h 66.6 90 .1. 8 68.0 - 72.9 9 80 .1; 1.8 .7 95 .h 10 82 .0 100 95 .6 Table IV shows the Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficients (rr) derived from the subsectional scores of the ten teachers included in the trial test. It was of interest to note that of 26 correla- tions computed, only one was negative. Correlation coefficients which were indicated as being significant at the five—percent level were interpreted to mean that the subsectional scores between the 98 raters were positively related, and it could be said that there was high agreement between the raters as to the performance of these teachers included in the trial test. TAB IE IV P&'_Z~LAI{'S RANK COPftZLlTION COEFFICIEZFTS FOR TEACIER HZRFOfil-QXTFCE SCORES BASED UPON SUBSECTIOHAL SCORES ON THE VOCRTIOXAL AGRICULTURE TEACHER IERFORHAHCE RATING SCALE AS RATED BY TEACHER EDUCATORS, STATE SUPERVISORS, AND SCHOOL ADI-IIIIISTPJEOMS LTeacher Educators School Administra- *Significant at the five-percent level. 'Teacher Teacher Educators and and tors and Code School Administrators State Supervisors State Supervisors Number rr t rr t rr- t 1 1.000 3.16* .648 2.68* .648 2.68* 2 .712 3.18"yr 1.000 2.82% .673 2.86* 3 - - .286 2.00 — - 4 .563 2.17 .773 3.65* .563 2.04 5 .426 1.32 .664 2.34 .564 1.80 6 .705 3.11* .673 2.69* 1.000 3.00* 7 .152 .46 -.214 .47 .018 .04 8 - - .744 2.92* - - 9 .565 1.93 .939 7.60* .495 1.58 10 .648 2.66* .849 4.24* .734 2.83* 99 By summarizing the correlation data presented in Table IV, it was discovered that a total of 15 correlation coefficients were significant at the five-percent level, which included scores derived from seVen of ten teachers. Eleven rank correlation co- efficients were not significant at the five-percent level. However, four of the 11 correlations listed as being insignificant were almost significant at the five-percent level. From this summary, one would eXpect that approximately 70 percent of correlations between sub- sectional scores for teachers of agriculture would be positively correlated. Summagz of. Trial Test: Even though the rank correlation coefficients between total scores, computed from the "Vocational Agriculture Teacher Performance Rating Scale", between the three sources of ratings were not signifi- cant at the five-percent level, it was discovered that correlations based on subsectional scores were significant. The latter ones had implications for the remainder of the study and are presented to substantiate the procedure used in the body of the stuiy. It was found that performance of teachers as rated by teacher educators and state supervisors correlated higher than did scores ‘between teacher educators and school administrators or state super- ‘Visors and school administrators. Scores on performance as rated by teacher educators and school administrators correlated higher than did scores by state supervisors and school administrators. This difference, however, was only slight. This indicated that the lowest correlations between scores on performance of teachers were for state supervisors and school administrators. As 10 teachers were included in the trial test, it was found that 80 percent of school administrators, eight in number, returned the performance rating scale. One-hundred percent returns were received from teacher educators and state supervisors. It was found that 15 of 26 correlations between two sources of ratings on individual teachers correlated significantly at the five—percent level or above. This represented 57.7 percent of the correlations computed that were significant at the five-percent level. Seventy percent of the teachers had two or more raters who agreed on their performance. It was found that total teacher performance scores ranged from.-56.4 to 100 with a total possible range of ~100 to 100. No distributional study of scores was made in the trial test. Conclusions Regardigg the,Trial Test: On the basis of the data accumulated in the trial test on the performance rating scale, a majority of the correlations computed between rating sources for each individual teacher in the study proper would be expected to correlate positively at the five-percent level of significance. 101 Total scores, as such, on teacher performance did not correlate significantly nor as highly as performance rated by each of the three sources when subsectional performance scores were correlated. Over-all performance scores do not indicate areas of performance in which raters fail to agree. Subsectional scores appear to be better measures of Specific areas of performance of teachers. The value of the instrument seemed to lie in finding those teachers on which two or three sources (teacher educators, state supervisors, and school administrators) agree on teacher performance in order that performance may be studied in relationship to pre- teaching traits on student profiles at Michigan State College. As a majority of the performance scores for an individual teacher, between sources studied, did correlate at the five—percent level of significance, the performance rating scale functioned with consistency. It was concluded that the same statistical tests should be used in the study to determine which teachers' performance scores would be studied in relationship to pre—teaching characteristics. It was also concluded that when scores on individual teacher perfor- mance correlated significantly between two or more sources of ratings, these performance scores should be averaged and used in studying the relationship of some pre-teaching measurable characteristics of pros- pective teachers and subsequent performance in teaching vocational agriculture. Procedure Followed in, Conducting the Priming Study Following the completion of the trial test, the performance rating scale used was revised slightly. The primary changes were in reducing the length of the statement of some items and in insert- ing some additional directions.(18) An important preparatory phase of the study was that of selecting the teachers included. Certain limitations were established as to Which teachers trained at Michigan State College were to be included. The bases of determining individuals were: (a) present teachers of vocational agriculture in Michigan for whom.profiles had been prepared in the Department of Agricultural Education; and (b) profiles of each individual to be included had to be complete enough to make the inclusion an asset to the study. As profiles were begun in 1948-49, the first group of teachers included were those graduating in 1948-49. The last group of teachers included were those graduating in December, 1952. Since data on teacher performance were gathered in October, 1953, teachers who had graduated in December, 1952, had taught at least nine months, and teachers who had graduated in 1948-49 had taught a maximum.of four years and three months. There was a total of 88 teachers of vocational agriculture on whom.performance scores were made. This number represented 100 percent of the teachers who had been trained in this period and who were 18Appendix c. :A l- . ,1-“ v I I 19' Of? .- IJ‘-~ l V s I. u 1 a c- A. F u «we 6 ~r.h “M A} r. nA— \n’” F . AL A» .a 0.. u. x xx .T. a. c. h. «a A: \A h e Z .1 km e a .. . AL .n.. C e. . t a t k. .9 c S t v 103 teaching vocational agriculture. In Table V, it can be seen that a total of 174 persons were trained. Of this number 86, or 49.4 TAEIE V TOTAL Inna-3R or mamms OF VOCATIONAL AGRICUIII‘URE TRAIIED IN MICHIGAN BETTEEN 19143-49 ANT) DE 31mm, 1952 Trained but not Trained and in Vocational Year of Total now in Vocational Teaching when study was Training Trained Agriculture teaching made Number Percent Number Percent 1913-49 36 20 55.5 16 #45 1949-50 #7 22 h6.8 25 53.2 1950-51 62 32 51.6 30 48.4 1951-52 29 12 41.4 17 58.6 percent had either not entered teaching or had dropped out after teaching for a time. A coded list of teachers, their school administrators and their'addresses was prepared. This code was subsequently used on perfbrmance rating scales mailed to the reSpective 88 school adndJfistrators. Five-by-eight-inch cards containing the pre-teaching characteristics to be studied were duplicated in sufficient number so that one was available for each teacher. The data found on each ‘teacher's profile(l9) in the departmental files and the college record 19Appendix G. will!- \.n JJI VIII-II 101+ department were recorded on these cards and later used in the analysis of data. After the 88 teachers had been determined as the ones to be included, it was necessary to duplicate a considerable number of revised performance rating scales, one for each teacher's school administrator, state supervisor, and teacher educator. The perfor- mance rating scale was prepared by the mineographed process. Each scale was then coded by number to assure confidential information. On September 30, 1953, the coded scales were mailed to the school administrators accompanied by'a letter stating the purpose of the study, an endorsement of the study by the candidate's major adviser, and a self-addressed, stamped envelope for returning the completed form.(20) During the same week that forms were mailed to the school administrators, coded scales were presented to the teacher- education staff and to the state supervisors. Regarding the letters accompanying the rating scales to the administrators, it should be pointed out that each of the 88 letters was tyxed personally. Eleven of the 88 forms were mailed to school administrators of schools in which 11 teachers had worked during the previous year. This was done to eliminate a school administrator rating a man whom he had not had adequate time to observe. 20 Appendix E. 105 Since some school administrators did not return the forms by the indicated date in the letter, it was necessary to prepare and mail follow—up letters.(21) Accompanying the first follow-up letter was another coded rating form identical to the one previously mailed. This type follow-up proved very effective. After the second follow-up letter, the returns were tallied and it was found that 86 of the 88 school administrators had responded giving a 96.5 percent return from school administrators. One—hundred percent returns were received from the teacher educators and state super- visors. However, as will be noted in the presentation of data, some of the forms completed and returned by the state supervisors contained an insufficient number of items rated and thus were not used in determining teacher performance. The rating forms in the study were scored by the same pro- cedure as previously cited in scoring the performance rating scale in the trial test. The rank correlation coefficient was computed on performance scores among the three sources of ratings, and where sig- nificant correlations were found the scores were added and averaged. 'These performance scores served as the criteria of teacher performance in determining the relationship of pre-teaching characteristics to subsequent performance in teaching vocational agriculture. Data regarding correlations on performance scores can be found in 106 Chapter IV as well as other statistical techniques used in the analysis of the data included in the study. A selected review of literature and related materials was made. There were three purposes for making the review: (1) to discover information pertaining to the items included on the ‘ student profiles which were analyzed and tested for association with teacher performance, (2) to discover techniques other investigators had used in analyzing similar data, and (3) to determine the findings, summaries and conclusions of other pertinent research that might aid in understanding and interpreting similar data which would serve as a background for doing a qualitative research study in this area. A total of 21 measurable characteristics were included on the student profile. Student-teaching marks were also studied in relationship to teacher performance. The data were analyzed statistically in compliance with the purposes of this study. Assumptions Fade in the Studv In order to provide a framework of reference for the study and to establish procedures to be followed, it was necessary to make certain assumptions. They are as follows: 1. That persons aiding in the development of the performance rating scale were the same types of persons who were by necessity continuously evaluating performance of teachers of vocational agri- 1'. 1‘ lny‘p c‘-~ LA .’ on ‘he 5 On '1': an“, .- *2. wire.- 107 culture, and were therefore qualified to evaluate and weight items on the scale. 2. That a rater would give a more valid rating on per- formance if the Opportunity were allowed for the rater to ear he had "no basis for a decision" on any items. 3. That scores of performance between sources of ratings, correlating at the five-percent level of significance, should be averaged and used to study the relationship of performance to pre- teaching characteristics of each resrective teacher. A. That ratings by teacher educators, state supervisors and school administrators were valid and reliable since each of these three sources were monaor less intimately aware of the perfor- mance of the 88 teachers included. 5. That so far as observer ratings were possible, these three sources used were the logical sources for rating performance of these teachers. 6. That each check made for any item on the performance ‘rating scale constituted an unbiased and non-prejudiced rating that ‘was as objective as any rating could have been. 7. That since all items were numerically weighted and no Ivater knew the relative weights of each item, a more objective ratixn;wms received than if each rater had been asked to make such inalue judgments on performance as "good", "fair" or "poor." 108 CHAPTER IV WENTATION OF DATA Introduction In this chapter the presentation and analysis of data are made together with pertinent findings. Attention is first given to selection of teachers to be studied. The relationship of some pre-teaching characteristics is then studied in relation to the criterion of average performance of teachers. Several sections are also devoted to relationship of scholastic ability and achievement, professional achievement and interests, and qualifications in farm- ing to selected areas of performance of teachers. Since student teaching is one aspect of teaching performance, it is studied in relationship to pre-teaching characteristics as well as to selected areas of performance in the field. To provide insight into performance of teachers and profile data.that may have resulted in lack of agreement on teacher perfor- Jnance, a case-study analysis is made of five teachers on which raters could not agree on their performance. Finally, a brief analysis is made of the ability of selected persons to predict teacher performance on the basis of profile data only. 109 Testinj Performance Scores of T3fchers of Vocat oncl Agricultrre “ 2g Determine Agreement Between.Raters and 22_Selcct Teachers 2'2 §_e_ Studied It is important to note that all performance scores of the 88 teachers on whom ratings were secured were derived by the steps outlined in Chapter III. A summary of the subsectional scores on the "Teacher Performance Rating Scale" for the 83 teachers in (3-) r} a ichigan first selected is p: esented in an appendix. -.v super- ‘h‘a'n-ir-w V ”1mm visors could not rate seven teachers on many items due to insufficient acquaintance with the teachers. However, 100 percent returns of ratings were received from the teacher educators and sta,e s apervisors. Eighty-six of 88 school adulnist~ators returned the rating forms sent them. This repreSe s a 96.5 perce w.t return from school aimini st ra- tors. It v. ill oe note i later th at several teachers could not be rated on certain subsectional areas. 1his may have resulted from inadequate observation of the teacher or no performance in some areas of work. In the trial test, it was found that averaged performance scores did not correh te at the five-percent level of sigii ic ance. ZFor this reason, it was decided that average performance scores of the “teachers in the study would be tested for agl-sement of association by 113 the analysis of ‘ 'éris “.08. This test involved the computation of a 1 teacher ? A‘! total sum of squares of average performance scores on e:c by te3ch er educators, school acL*11r1:Lst.ators and states supervisors. The test is de .- igncd to determine if the variation vriuhin one source eulu 1‘94; 5'}: v .qu 'P""V"‘l - "‘i'fi ('1 -.v—.‘:. 5-.."; L;;¢.~) CF ‘Ir ibidoA-J—l CF lx‘rl—fi-‘de 1L LAX-.1 I‘LJLL::UA~$J1..J—J SCVI‘UJSAJ “A y 131'." m y T 'fi-"m'fl 1")" T' fiv-x OF TgixCILJLQ F V001". 10.22 J AJL&CUL-U~~.JL 1.11)...“ SULJBCJ) ARA-1‘ 1:" Mean Sum of De grees of Square Source of Vari stion 363.19. res Freed om Variance F Total 216 ,372 .l-,7 2131:, etween-c lass 22,710 .01; 2 11,370.02 11+ .208 E'Iithin-clas s 193 ,632.1+3 2’. 2 800.13 {xi-(F2, 2+2 : J+9208) < .001 *The probability of getting an F of lin208 based on two and 214,2 degrees of freedom is less than .001. of rating is gree ter than the variation amenLr t}. e 80111085 of ratings. The results of this test are presented in Table VI. A total of2 5 average performance scores were used to develop the data presented. The average performance scores of teachers on which the analysis of variance is based are the ones previously presented in the 31mm ry of subsectional scores . 111 Since the findings indicate that the probability of getting an F of 14.208 is less than .001, it is concluded that the variation in average performance rating scores from different sources of rat- ings is significantly greater than that arising from differences within a source of rating. This essentially means that average performance scores fluctuated more among teacher educators, school adiinistrators and state supervisors than average performance scores assigned to teachers by teacher educators when considered alone. The same is true for scores by school administrators and state supervisors. Had the test of analysis of variance proven that the scores were not significantly different, the scores among the three sources would have been averaged for all 88 teachers and subsequently used as the criterion of performance. Since this was not true, it was thought necessary to compute rank correlation coefficients for performance scores based upon subsectional scores of teachers on the "Vocational Agriculture Teacher Performance Rating Scale." However, to determine expected reliability of the scale, coefficients of correlation were computed on average performance scores of 62 teachers between the three raters. The product-moment correlation coefficient between school administrators and teacher educators was .300; average scores between school administrators and state supervisors correlated .356; and average scores between teacher educators and state supervisors correlated .hOh. When these correlation coefficients were extended by considering three raters i-|111 1.12 (2) in the Spearman-Brown Pronhecy Formula, they resulted in \J estimates of reliabilities ranging from .562 to .671. Rolfe(3 indicated that rating scales give positive product-moment correla- tions from .36 to .h3 when used by experienced and competent supervisors. A rank correlation coefficient computed between two raters on subsectional scores in Section K of the scale for 62 teachers was .67 with a "t" of 6.75 which is highly significant at the .001 level. A product—moment correlation computed between administrators and teacher educators on scores in Section K was .AAO, which has an estimated reliability of .702. Even though this was true, it was felt that agreement on individual teachers was of utmost importance; therefore, rank correlations were computed between raters on subsectional scores. The use of the test of Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient provided the means for selecting teachers from the original 88 teachers. This test was made for each teacher as described in Chapter III. There were three rank correlations computed for a majority of the teachers, however, only two correlations were com- puted on each teacher for whom only two raters evaluated their performance. A summary of the Spearman's Rank Correlation 2Harry A. Greene, Albert N. Jorgensen, and J. Raymond Gerberich, Measurement and Evaluation.ig the Secondary School. Iongmans, Green and Co., washington, D.C. l9h3. p. 591. 3Infra, p. 52. 113 Coefficients based upon subsectional scores of teacher performance is presented in Table VI. The size of the "t" determines whether the correlation coefficient is significant or not when the number of degrees of freedom are known. The five—percent level of signifi- cance was used as the point at which agreement was desired. By analyzing the data in Table VII, it can be noted that 62 teachers' performance scores between two or more raters correlated at the five-percent level. This means that 70.4 percent, or 62, of the original 88 teachers were used in analysis of pre-teaching characteristics compared to teaching performance. It was found that ll3 Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficients computed were signifi- cant at the five—percent level. A total of 226 correlation co- efficients were computed between raters. Therefore, exactly 50 per- cent of the total number of correlations computed between raters was significant at the five-percent level. A total of nine negative correlations was computed between raters; four between scores based on evaluations by teacher educa- ‘tors and school administrators; two between scores based on ratings 'by'teacher educators and state supervisors (one of which was significant .at the five-percent level); and three between scores based on ratings bur school administrators and state supervisors. This total of nine zmegative correlations represents only'3.9 percent of the total 226 correlations computed. After it was discovered that 62 teachers' performance scores corunelated significantly between two or more raters, their subsectional 114 TABLE VII SPEARHAN'S RANK CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR TEACHER PLRFORHANCE SCORES BASED UPON SUBSECTIONAL SCCRES OF 88 TEACHERS ON THE VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE TEACHER PJRFORHINCE RATING SCALE AS RATED BY TEACHER EDUCATORS, STATE SUPERVISORS AND SCHOOL ADKINISTRATORS Teacher Teacher Educators Teacher Educators School Administrators Code and School and State and Number Administrators Supervisors State Supervisors 1‘r t rr t rr t 1 .580 2.130 - —' f - 2 .341 1.084 .706 2.820* .327 .948 3 .789 4.055* .411 1.552 .647 2.411* 4 -.248 1.260 -.115 .356 .742 3.49* 5 - - .773 3.660% - — 6 .3l4 .992 .176 .505 .543 1.824 7 .278 .867 .491 1.590 .510 1.670 8 .407 1.257 -.690 2.72% .642 2.63* 9 1.000 3.160* .773 3.63* .773 3.630* 10 .121 .375 - - - - 11 .525 1.947 .406 1.404 .280 .921 12 .682 2.639* .555 1.887 .204 .592 13 .250 .815 .542 2.037 -.038 .110 14 .491 1.689 .613 2.188 .861 4.778% 15 .528 1.964 .673 2.725* .155 .469 16 .771 3.620% .637 2o477* .469 1.670 Teacher Teacher Educators Teacher Educators School Administrators Code and School and State and Number Administrators S_pervisors State Supervisors rr t rr t rr t 17 .628 2117-2:- - .- - - 18 .789 3.952* .691 2.853* .519 1.816 19 .709 3.013* - - — _ 20 .854 5.124% .461 1.465 .634 2.3L4* 21 - - .177 .566 - - 22 1.000 3.160% 1.000 3.160% 1.000 3.160% 23 .817 4.493* 1.000 3.000% .988 19.266* 24 .406 1.404 .406 1.404 1.000 3.160% 25 .392 1.344 .691 3.019* .705 3.144* 26 .725 3.153* .182 .553 .482 1.648 27 .292 .963 .413 1.280 .634 2.320% 28 -.248 .808 .323 1.020 -.127 .383 29 .387 1.257 .203 .653 .373 1.204 30 1.000 3.160% .755 3.246* .755 3.246* 31 .861 4.735* .743 3.135 .555 1.887 32 .789 4.023% 1.000 3.160* .789 4.023% 33 - - . 263 . 860 - - 34 .809 3.640 - - - - 35 1.000 3.160% .773 3.633% .773 3.633* 36 I264 .818 .819 4.258% .438 1.533 116 Teacher Teacher Educators Teacher Educators School Administrators Code and School and State and Number raininistrators Supervi sors State Supervisors Tr t rr t rr t 37 .285 .826 - - _ - 38 .250 .772 .503 1.745 .770 3.403* 39 .789 4.023* .773 3.633* 1.000 3.000% 40 .705 3.137* .789 4.023* .789 4.023* 41 .789 4.023* 1.000 3.000% .773 3.633* 42 .523 1.834 .316 .916 .755 3.246% 43 1.000 3.160% .710 3.187* .710 3.187% 44 .848 4.748* .505 1.752 .562 2.023 45 .514 1.691 .514 1.691 1.000 2.820% 46 .598 1.686 .598 1.686 1.000 3.160% 47 - - .382 1.237 - - 48 .789 4.023* .773 3.633* 1.000 3.000% 49 .480 1.728 .647 2.678% .789 4.023* 50 .789 4.023* .789 4.023* .705 3.137* 51 .668 2.832 1.000 3.1604? .668 2. 832* 52 .770 3.388* .449 1.391 .582 2.019 53 .691 2.860% .691 2.860* 1.000 3.000% 54 .546 1.954 .164 .469 .670 2.546* 55 - - .673 2.725* - - 56 .773 3.633* .673 2.725* .773 3.633* 117 Teacher Teadher Educators Teacher Educators School Administrators Code and School and State and Number Adninistrators Supervisors State Supervisors 1'1. t 1‘1. t rr t 57 .379 1.156 — - - - 58 .364 1.251 .532 1.984 .350 1.179 59 - — - - .394 1.284 60 .723 3.130% .328 1.016 -.068 .204 61 -.150 .420 - - - - 62 .598 2.332% . 598 2.332% 1.000 3.160% 63 . 182 . 555 . 628 2.386% . 710 3 . 124* 64 .705 3.102% .773 3.633* .773 3.633* 65 .446 1.471 .535 1.979 .182 .555 66 .628 2.386* .319 .988 .647 2.652% 67 .392 1.332 .383 1.302 .612 2.441%- 68 .789 4.023% .773 3.633* 1.000 3.000% 69 .537 1.879 .257 .796 .078 .234 70 . 518 1.968 . 228 . 729 . 710 3 . 124* 71 .135 .432 - - - - 72 .705 3. 102* - - - - 73 .647 2. 652* .647 2.6527”c 1.000 3.160* 74 .546 1.965 . 546 1.965 1.000 3.000% 75 - - .537 1.986 — - 76 .382 1. 222 . 182 . 546 . 519 1. 816 118 Teacher Teacher Educators Teacher Educators School Administrators Code and School and State and Number Administrators Supervisors State Supervisors rr t rr t rr t 77 1.000 3.000% .519 1.816 .519 1.816 78 .057 .171 .393 1.257 .480 1.632 79 .607 2.154 .676 2.568* .755 3.246* 80 .519 1.816 .755 3.246* .755 3.246* 81 .167 .534 .326 1.075 .331 1.092 82 .346 1.038 - — _ _ 83 .194 .543 .355 1.065 .710 2.982% 84 - - .219 .672 - - 85 .789 4.102% .441 1.543 .647 2.652* 86 .580 2.088 .580 2.088 1.000 3.000% 87 .803 4.336% — — _ _ 88 -.337 1.112 .521 1.927 .104 .322 *Significant at the five-percent level. scores were averaged. score serves as the criterion of performance in this study. Each teacher's averaged subsectional and total The averaged subsectional scores for the 62 teachers selected to be studied are presented in Table VIII. It can be noted that in some cases no program.was in operation in some areas of performance. This «.1/ 1L 4.mm OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH 0.00 m.mm 8.00 OOH OOH mH mo OOH OOH O.mm OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH m.mo H.>O OOH 5H 4.0m n.5m mo N.OO mm N.OO m.m H.Nm| OOH H.H4 O.mm OOH OH m.mm OOH OOH OOH OOH. OOH OOH w.md OOH m.>m OOH OOH mH O.mm OOH OOH OOH OOH *8 OOH m.mm OOH d.hm OOH OOH 4H b.mw mm .*8 N.ww OOH m.nH OOH 0.0m OOH n.mm n.04 OOH NH n.0m OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH O.mm OOH OOH OOH OOH O o.mm Om 0.0m N.wm Om OHI H.0m m.mm O.Mm m.Nd m.H¢ 4.9 m 0.00 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH >.Om OOH m 0.0b H.8m OOH o.mh OOH OOHI OOH O.Hm OOH n.5d >.Hu OOH d 0.80 OOH O.mm OOH OOH m.mm OOH m.mm 0.0m OOH OOH OOH m O.¢w OOH ** OOH OOH OOH OOH m.mw :.Hm m.mm m.bm d.NN N Hmpoe, M, h, H‘ muonoomwowwao>¢han3 mcmwpoomnsm .0, .m, d nwmwwz genomes mmmefim mmom mo 03H. 53.....an @0340 EH26 Hm. “HO .Hmqu Egofimlmam MOE... Ba. Quaémmoo 305$... mmmoom OZHHVHMOMM mMEOdme mom manom OZHBME moi/Eéommmmm mgommfl. 20 mmwmoom Dmodmflpm HHH> Ema; m.O0 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH m.00 OOH OOH m.00 OOH om N.00 OOH OOH oQH 00H OOH OQH OOH OQH oQH OOH H0 mm 6.3 OS 2. 8H 02 .28 8a 004 4.8 064 ooa 84 an w.m0 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH Om mm m.N0 OOH ** N.mw OOH ** OOH OOH OOH m.OO m.Om 0.0m Hm 4.00 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH 4.m0 OOH OOH Om m.m0 OOH n.0m OOH OOH O.mm OOH OOH OOH 4.00 OOH 0.0m 0m m.m0 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH 4.Hm OOH n.0m n.00 ON 0.m0 OOH OOH OOH OOH 4.4m OOH OOH OOH H.Hm 0.mm w.m0 mm O.M0 OOH OOH OOH OOH m.0o OOH OOH OOH OOH m.mm OOH 4N 4.00 OOH OOH OOH OOH H.N0 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH mm OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH NN m.H0 OOH H.w0 0.m0 OOH 0.4m OOH OOH m.H0 H.O> OOH OOH ON m.H0 OOH 0.mm OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH m.mm 0.mm OOH 0H Hence M O H x O m m O O m 4 nonanz monoom townhoba 59H: mGOHpoomQSO oooo hogodoa 8.8 6.48 .6. 8.6 6.7 .6. 6.86.. 8.88: 4.66 6.66.. 8.8 6 6.68 68 8 8 664 8H 8H 62 6.66 8.88 8.66 62 62 62 8a R 8 .88 62 84 SH SH 81” 69” SH 8. . 86 84 8 .68 864 68 8.88 664 6.88 664 6.46 62 62 6.88 664 664 8a 6.66 86 6.88 664 62 62 864 8 8 62 SH 664 664 SH SH 66 SH 62 SH 62 62 664 SH SH 84 SH 62 664 6.6 82“ SH .6... 84 8a .6. 62 84 664 664 Sn SH 86 6.68 62 62 8a 62 8.66 84 684 664 664 8.66 62 .3 6.68 SH 664 664 62 62 SH 68 ooa 6.68 84 664 8.4 6.88 62 .6. 62 664 84 SH 86 SH 664 8a 664 as 8.88 SH SH ooa 62 88 63 62 62 SH 884 664 3 4.68 8.68 8a 664 664 SH SH 664 6.88 SH SH 664 66 4.68 664 63 8a 84 84 62 6.8 8 69. 62 63 8H 86 8.88 8H 6. 62 664 a .68 8H 8H 62 SH SH 6 .66 68 46.68 a a. H m 6 8 a a o m a 668.52 mohoom oomdpoba apHB mCOHpoompsm oooo homomoe 6.00 OOH 6.40 OOH OOH H.40 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH m.66 m0 6.60 OOH OOH OOH OOH 4.00 OOH OOH 4.H6 OOH OOH OOH N0 N.00 6.66 OOH OOH OOH OOH M6 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH O0 m.00 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH m.N0 OOH 66 m.O0 OOH 4.H0 6.66 0.N0 OOH OOH OOH OOH H.m0 0.Hm OOH 06 6.60 OOH OOH OOH OOH 66 H6 0.66 OOH n.06 OOH 6.N0 66 m.60 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH 06 OOH OOH m.m0 OOH 46 00 O.N0 6.40 OOH m0 OOH m.H0 m.40 OOH OOH OOH OOH M6 H.00 OOH OOH OOH OOH 0.N0 N.H0 m.m0 OOH OOH m.N0 OOH N6 H.40 m.H0 OOH OOH OOH 6.6m OOH N.6m 4.00 0.N m.H6 N.HHI O6 6.60 OOH ** OOH OOH m.N0 OOH OOH OOH OOH 4.N0 OOH 6m H.00 OOH 6.06 OOH OOH 0.N6 OOH OOH OOH n.06 OOH OOH mm N.00 OOH ** OOH OOH OOH OOH 6.66 OOH OOH OOH 6.H6 4m 4.60 OOH ** OOH OOH O0 OOH 6.m0 OOH OOH OOH OOH Mm H6900 m w H. m U m H O O m d ponszz mopoom oomdho>4 59H: mCOHpoomnsm oooo nonoeoe w or: -_)-./ .COpruoOo CH 5606060 02** .comeooU 6.906 mHmmn 02* 0.H6 OOH OOH 6.00 OOH H.N6 m.M6 N.HN OOH 0.0 m.4 4.mNI 06 m.60 OOH ** OOH 0.66 OOH m.H0 0.06 OOH OOH OOH 6.00 66 N.60 OOH 0.m0 OOH OOH 6.40 OOH OOH OOH H.06 OOH m.m0 m6 O.m0 OOH OOH OOH OOH ** OOH m.N0 OOH H.66 OOH 0.06 M6 n.60 OOH H.m0 0.N0 OOH * OOH OOH OOH 4.60 OOH OOH O6 «.40 OOH ** OOH 0.66 ** OOH OOH OOH 0.46 m.40 OOH 00 0.00 OOH OOH OOH OOH * OOH OOH OOH 0.60 OOH OOH 00 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH 40 H6600, 7M. .6 up mwopoomWomenobwmnpr mOWWpoomnsm 0. lm. 6 howmww genomes PERFORILJICB SCORES ON SUBSECTIOI-I A (IfOl’l‘iII’IG TABLE IX WITH PEOPLE IN COZ‘i‘LUNITY) 0F 62 TEACHERS 0F warmer-32.1. ASL-LICULTUR‘S In A GROUPED FPJSQUTHCY DISTRIBUTIOI‘I ‘ReeI*Limitglass-Interval ‘Nideroint' Frequency;£f) 97.5 - 102.5 100 43 92.5 — 97.5 95 3 87.5 - 92.5 90 5 82.5 - 87.5 85 1 77.5 - 82.5 80 3 72.5 - 77.5 75 67.5 - 72.5 70 1 62.5 - 67.5 65 1 57.5 - 62.5 60 52.5 - 57.5 55 47.5 - 52.5 50 42.5 — 47.5 45 37.5 - 42.5 40 32.5 - 37.5 35 1 27.5 - 32.5 30 22.5 - 27.5 25 17.5 - 22.5 20 1 12.5 - 17.5 15 7.5 - 12.5 10 1 2.5 - 7.5 5 -2.5 - 2.5 0 Below 2.5 - 2 1.4 M H1 T631113 X PJZFQELU‘JCE 8008.138 01-: sneer-scrim; 8 (2111881115 P:;0K3;810::.‘.L 5111:1638 AND RELATICUSHIPS) 0? 62 TEACHERS OF‘JOCATIONAL AGnICULruaz IN A GROUPED rsaguancr DISTRIBUTION Class-Interval Real Limits Kid-Point Fregpeney (r) 97.5 - 102.5 100 38 92.5 - 97.5 95 1 87.5 - 92.5 90 8 82.5 - 87.5 85 2 77.5 - 82.5 80 1 72.5 - 77.5 75 67.5 - 72.5 70 2 62,5 - 67.5 65 1 57.5 - 62.5 60 4 52.5 - 57.5 55 1 47.5 - 52.5 50 1 42.5 - 47.5 45 1 37.5 - 42.5 40 1 32.5 - 37.5 35 27.5 - 32.5 30 22.5 - 27.5 25 17.5 - 22.5 20 12.5 - 17.5 15 7.5 - 12.5 10 2.5 - 7.5 5 1 TRIBE KI PmFomUICE sow-.35 ON SUBSL‘CTIOI-I c (PLUHI-IG 21:1) coszCTIIIG GENERAL ACTIVITIES) OF 62 TEACHERS OF VOCATIONAI.AGRICULTURE IN A GROUPED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION Class-Interval Real Limits Hid-Point Frequency {11 97.5 - 102.5 100 35 92.5 - 97.5 95 1 87.5 - 92.5 90 5 82.5 - 87.5 85 2 77.5 - 82.5 80 3 72.5 - 77.5 75 1 67.5 - 72.5 70 3 62.5 - 67.5 65 2 57.5 - 62.5 60 2 52.5 - 57.5 55 2 47.5 - 52.5 50 1 42.5 - 47.5 45 1 37.5 - 42.5 40 1 32.5 - 37.5 35 27.5 - 32.5 30 22.5 - 27.5 25 17.5 - 22.5 20 12.5 - 17.5 15 7.5 - 12.5 10 1 2.5 - 7.5 5 1 42.5 - 2.5 0 Below 4.5 - 1 ‘—4 II 62 PCRFOK-L‘IIICE SCORES ON SUBSL‘CTION D (I‘L‘XIIITIIIITS ADI-IIHISTI TABLE ICU. ) urn LJ'XJ. IVE RELATI OI‘ISHIPS) OF 62 T131“... .1218 OF ‘J'chTIOIL-IL AGELICULTLEE IN A GFLOUPLSD FIQ'_U£EJCY DISTRIBUTIOI‘E HesI Ilimits Class-Intervalmd-Poinf Frec‘gency (r) 97.5 - 100.5 99 50 94.5 - 97.5 96 91.5 - 94.5 93 1 88.5 - 91.5 90 2 85.5 - 88.5 87 81.5 - 85.5 84 79.5 - 81.5 81 6 76.5 - 79.5 78 1 73.5 - 76.5 75 70.5 - 73.5 72 67.5 - 70.5 69 64.5 - 67.5 66 1 61.5 - 64.5 63 58.5 - 61.5 60 55.5 - 58.5 57 52.5 - 55.5 54 1 TABLE XIII PERFORMANCE SCOEES ON SUBSECTION E (UTILIZII‘IG .i'ICClIPTABLZS IZZTHODS (F TEACHII‘IG) OF 62 TEACI‘ELES OF VOCATIOE‘i/IL z‘IGl'LICUL'i‘UiLI‘) IN A GROUPED Fl’iEZQUENCY DISTRIBUTION Class-Interval Real Limits Mid—Point Frequency (1‘) 97.5 - 102.50 100 35 92.5 - 97.5 95 7 87.5 - 92.5 90 8 82.5 - 87.5 85 3 77.5 - 82.5 80 3 72.5 - 77.5 75 67.5 - 72.5 70 62.5 ~ 67.5 65 57.5 - 62.5 60 52.5 - 57.5 55 1 47.5 - 52.5 50 42.5 - 47.5 45 1 37.5 - 42.5 40 1 32.5 - 37.5 35 27.5 - 32.5 30 22.5 - 27.5 25 17.5 - 22.5 20 1 12.5 - 17.5 15 7.5 - 12.5 10 2.5 - 7.5 5 Below 2.5 0 2 "h I , JV *3 53 AB XIV 231903:nt 50010-3 0U SUBS-EC T 01: F (00: QUOTE ::0 BIUGII I115 .IITB ALL— DAY sTUUBUTs) OF 62 TIICUIBS 0F JOCAT I0UIL I0:;I0UL LIN A GROUPED FIB<;U may DISTRIBUTIOL Class-Interval Real Limits Hid-Point Frecuenqygfif) 97.5 - 102.5 100 52 92.5 - 97.5 95 87.5 - 92.5 90 3 82.5 - 87.5 85 2 77.5 - 82.5 80 1 72.5 - 77.5 75 1 67.5 - 72.5 70 62.5 - 67.5 65 57.5 - 62.5 60 52.5 - 57.5 55 1 47.5 - 52.5 50 42.5 - 47.5 45 37.5 - 42.5 40 32.5 - 37.5 35 27.5 - 32.5 30 22.5 - 27.5 25 17.5 - 22.5 20 12.5 - 17.5 15 7.5 - 12.5 10 2-5 - 7.5 5 1 ~2.5 - 2.5 Below -2.5 l N : 62 m ‘ *7 in L .13ng J}. rm PEFORILII‘JCZZ s00::::s 01-? SUBBBCTIUII 0 (CONDUCTING BII0:-::.:I:s gm YOU::0 F0031: AID/OR {QUILT RBI-315:) CF 51+ TEAJIIJLS OF VOCI'ITI (5;? LIL .‘IGL ICULTULQE IN A GROUPLD FIE ’_U;'JlICY DISE‘IBUTION Real Limits 97.5 - 102.5 92.5 - 97.5 87.5 - 92.5 82.5 - 87.5 77.5 - 82.5 72.5 - 77.5 67.5 - 72.5 62.5 - 67.5 57.5 - 62.5 52.5 - 57.5 47.5 - 52.5 42.5 - 47.5 37.5 - 42.5 32.5 - 37.5 27.5 - 32.5 22.5 - 27.5 17.5 - 22.5 12.5 - 17.5 7.5 - 12.5 2.5 - 7.5 -2.5 - 2.5 Below'-2,5 _ Class-Interval Hid-Point 100 95 9O 85 80 75 7O 65 6O 55 5O 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 T? J. N : equcncy (f *3 28 WWW-<1 54 - I I eylvwe-‘. ‘ ‘7‘ ' ' , . \I' . m"".0-‘.~ "._ - - - ’-.-—0 c--. --. — Q . -.——.—‘ -v a -1.- w. .- -r — ——- o— - s c a C Q . -vv ——-.—’-—— --.———.----——-— - ‘ -.._.—-—-..- .- .—q - -- ~--- -. -.--- ~—-. w.— w-c4-up -——— H o -, ~-- «- «— —.— .___._.I_,, —. - - , '... —' I '. m- - - “m“-.. I - ‘1 ' O . ‘l ’ "o ’L. . l I I . ' ' or"--- U—o-\o:v‘-‘-— "I ‘ r 1 n r- w v . ‘ o ’ w - o J I- .. ”a" r' ' r! r ‘r' ‘3 — d ' y , , o ‘ o v -.r7 '— '.-'\ v- . ‘ ‘ .- I . " . l y I . ) . ) »_I .-»A r k“ ‘- \r 1‘ AJ'.‘ ) _ ! . ) ¢ I I I" mm P -. 'x r' It ‘I ./ 1 o ’ "' -’~ 0 -’ v ryrx r- r-w1 f‘ H." '6 .' ’ . p 'l' I . ~) , '/ {‘1 H r‘as‘ ,1 .4; l I t V ‘I ' I .3 1' .I . I j . . 3 I, / A‘ v ’ 7‘1 f- .' r- f .~ ' f- I " r I I \ . 3 — . ) . l _ ~.—I' f” .4, « I 5 I .' x — , '. ‘ I O Q - \- .. .- —.‘ ~ {'"1 1.. "fl _ L . , . ‘ .- W v \ . ) )1 . . , , ' "7 r_" 7" F' f" I I I ~ 1 I . . \ - I .. . ) ,)"" v r ,3 ~ ; 1‘1 r' I f‘ | \ _ f; I \_ ,I 5 ,‘ C ‘ . . C ‘ I r,r f‘ . . . I I , - .I 9 s , . / . O ‘ O . v ‘5" r gm '4 ,7 r‘ \.' ”i 'I- 1 ‘1 ‘1 ) _, o . , o - r-g r ,a H .‘ C) I r; - < 'l 1) ‘I “ t. ‘ . a.-. ‘U r g ’- . I A ”a r -'\r-y {- r‘ r- i 1‘ - r I I .a . A‘ I / . - a) v-~ fl _ r‘ r' - t: I ‘5' [-1 r . j I', *- —. . I ___~ -_-«~. 1’? r. ~ {- ‘r . I 5' ,. i » _. (\rx ’- '.! , ' J1 .I" 1 .53; _ 3.2,: ;"7 « ‘ [3 fl.” .— (x. :3] Q. - '. 1‘]! 1 J1 #1 vLJ J‘l \J v # J 2‘»," _ 72,1; *7? J l .3 an v.“ +- q--——-——v. A! 7!, . TABLE I‘CIK PJ‘JIFOIG'LLI‘JCE SCOi'LLS ON SUBSLSCTION K (COTILJUCTII-IG {id-ED ADVISII‘IG FUTURE FME‘QLE‘LS OF “1231011) OF 62 TEE-.CPLJRS CF VOCATIOI‘LLL .XGLtICUL'IUi-LE IN A GROUPED FIE.;U'_.I‘»ICY DIS'lRIBUTIOII Class Interval Real Limits Mid-Point Pregnancy Ls) 97.5 - 100.5 99 53 9h.5 - 97.5 96 91.5 - 94.5 93 A 88.5 - 91.5 90 1 85.5 - 88.5 87 1 81.5 - 85.5 84 79.5 - 81.5 81 76.5 - 79.5 78 73.5 - 76.5 75 70.5 - 73.5 72 67.5 - 70.5 69 6 h.5 - 67.5 66 61.5 - 64.5 63 58.5 - 61.5 60 55.5 - 58.5 57 1 52.5 - 55.5 Sh 49.5 - 52.5 2 N: 62 —--'~-- ---.~« .--—.— ~, H...__—»—..-... u—C.«.—.——‘ — -'“~——_—,Tvu -———v——‘.-‘-- ..-- »_-- . .-..—_ - _.-p-~.~._ ---‘§- -.,.. ..__._., “u.“ up--- » a _ . . . 7‘ ~ _, -._ - 11—- ‘ . . . 1 q... —. m —. A ...- h...)- -1- r< J‘- -v ‘ \ ' I- ~ x ‘ v . ' \z u. . 4 - .. , 4 7- , H ,1 — ' ‘ . , . 2 ‘ .r» r .- .»\ ~ .6 ‘ r. . . k 1 ‘ _ '1 _ . 2 v . \-"\ C’ \"1 L; . r“ / ~ — ‘ ‘ . w. ' ..' , O ’- a, ‘ i. I If“! r‘ ‘- f“ ‘. , - \ — ‘ , , s,. . I 1" r‘r“. I“ "T" r" "N. F ‘N / " » - 2 ) '2 - L. / . . g I . " r v . (1, p. ( I , ' — . g '. . .f . O _' _ w A» I: f H r f. f .I 1 - I 3 3 ~ ‘ O ‘ .‘ ’ I r‘r‘l I“ ’ (”K I“ l "‘ ‘ ' 1 '-" C 7’ i ‘v‘ .I r' ~ r-‘rj r r "(' } - _> I F: v V) - “ , . I . . , ' *2 r: c‘” r- r - J): ' } - )1, ’u “ ‘ ’r O .r .v' . y " , 7‘ p- ‘ ‘u l r ’ P - 2 ' 4 . . ‘ ' . . . . L] m I'Y . n .. I r: I T; ' \ .. - -r’ ,‘ o Itv y , . ’2 ’2 .- t ' 1 '.' f» r' . , . ) — I . ‘ 3 ) I .z a . r . AJ’V ~ '- “, I” .-' , ) — fl“ ) ~ 9- “ g ’ _. u ‘ A " r‘ri _ . - ’\ 5T , ) . z . ) . ' H I“? C" ”\fx [4 f" " 4” ‘ — . } .- . v ‘N ,‘\ i‘ 'V 7‘1 H ‘ I ‘ "W - ’ F) l - ..v Q _ '1 I' ~ A r' ‘ , ‘ u . . . ~— I ~ ) . -. ‘ Q .A—V M- “" ‘ v . " -. — ' I n 'JI 136 was more noticeable in Subsection G which was concerned with conducting young- and adult-farmer programs and Subsection J which was concerned with teaching farm mechanics in the program of vocational agriculture. In order to facilitate study of data and to analyze the performance of the 62 teachers selected, it was felt that frequency distributions of performance scores by subsections should be made. Tables IX to XX give the grouped frequency distributions of per- formance scores by subsectional areas. The column entitled "Real Limits" in each table refers to the performance levels by class intervals. It was felt that other data regarding performance of teachers by the subsectional areas should be presented. Therefore, in Table XXI, a summary of the ranges, median scores, and arithmetic means of subsectional areas of performance of the 62 teachers is Ipresented. It is of interest to note that six teachers were not conducting either a young-farmer or an adult-farmer program when data were collected. This fact is not shown in Table XIV; nor is the fact that the raters had no basis for any opinion of the perfor- Inance of two teachers. It was also discovered that 13 teachers had no programs in operation in the farm-mechanics area. It can be noted in Table XXI that the lowest arithmetic mean (If any subsectional distribution of scores is found in Subsection C, ycith an arithmetic mean of 84.6. Only four subsections had arithmetic me ans be low 90 . 1.37 t appears that a somewhat better distribution of performance scores might have been expected than was actually received. The range of scores indicates that raters, in instances, did rate teachers very low on the performance rating scale. However, a majority of the teachers had performance scores which were extremely high. Performance scores on all subsectional areas were decidely skewed towards a perfect score. While some teachers scored low on the scale, the scale failed to discriminate between teachers scoring at the top of the scale. The probable causes of skewed distributions of performance scores may be that: (1) teachers included may have been a superior group of teachers; the fact that they have remained in the field and two or more raters agreeing on high levels of performance tends to substantiate this; (2) points on the scale, on the positive aspects of performance, were not fine enough - several levels should have been provided -i.e., when positive statement was answered "yes", the opportunity to mark "yes" as Seldom, Frequently, Always or some such degrees of performance should have been pro- vided; (3) other factors not included on the performance scale may be the discriminating factors in success of teachers of vocational agriculture --i.e., no information was gathered on the teacher regard- ing his personality traits and personal habits, except by implica- tion in some areas of performance; and (A) raters may object to saying an.item describes a teacher when the item is negative. They B8 may have justified marking a majority of items positive by rationa- lizing that the item describes the teacher "sometimes" - getting back to degree of performance rather than absolute performance in terms of "yes" or "no". Evidence will be presented later to the effect that the 62 teachers studied are in some reSpects a rather superior group. This evidence will uphold the probable cause listed first for the skewed distribution of performance scores. Relationship‘9£.Fre-teaching Characteristics gg_Student Profile 32. Average Performance Scores gg’Teachers of Vecational Agriculture Since this part of the presentation begins the study of relationships of pre-teaching characteristics to performance, it appears logical to first present data regarding the distribution of profile factors. Such a presentation will indicate the nature of the group being studied in terms of their scholastic and professional ability and their farming background and interests. When this is done, consideration will be given to the relationship of pre-teaching characteristics to average performance scores, than to subsectional areas of performance. {3 \0 TABLE XXI SUI'fI‘ARY OF THIS RANGES, NEDIANS AND ARITHD'E’I’IC IEANS OF SCORES ON SUBSECTIOI‘IAL PERFORMANCE OF TEACEERS OF VOCATIOI‘JAL AGRICUIJ‘URB" Subsectional Range Arith— Teachers Percent Teachers Percent Area of of Median metic Scoring Scoring Scoring Scoring Performance Scores Score Mean Above A.M. Above Below" Below A.M. Add. A.M. A 123.4 98.9 90.5 A6 7h.2 16 25.8 B 95.5 98.h 88.8 44 70.9 18 29.1 C 138.8 98.0 84.6 42 67.7 20 32.3 D 1.6.1 99.1. 95.3 50 80.6 12 19.1. B 137.7 98.0 88.6 L9 79.0 13 21.0 F 149.2 99.5 9h.h 52 83.8 10 16.2 G 200 97.7 88.2 39 72.2 15 27.8 H 101.2 99.6 95.2 St 87.1. 8 12.9 I 93.3 99.4 96.2 51 82.2 11 17.8 J 40.4 98.5 95.h 37 75.5 12 2h.5 K 50 98.7 96.0 53 85.4 9 1A.6 Ave. score 90.1 96.4 92.0 51 82.2 11 17.8 *Abbreviation "A.M." reprents "Arithmetic Mean." 140 Distributionlg£_Profile Factors: Records of ACE Psychological Test scores were found for 52 of the 62 teachers studied. The scores are reported by deciles on the student profile and were thus studied in these terms. It was found that 22 teachers had scores between the first and third deciles. This represented 42.3 percent of the total. Twenty, or 38.4 percent, had scores between the fourth and seventh deciles. However, only l0, or 19.3 percent, had scores as high as the eighth to the tenth deciles. 0f the same 52 teachers on whom scores were reported, 19, or 36.5 percent, had scores between the first and third deciles on Reading Comprehension scores. Twenty-five, or 48.1 percent, had scores between the fourth and seventh deciles; but only 8, or 15.4 percent, had scores between the eighth and tenth deciles. It is interesting to compare Clark's findings(h) to those of the present study. Clark reported that 34.0 percent of teachers who had left the field had ACE test scores between the first and third deciles as compared to 44.5 percent of the teachers who remained in the field. This latter percentage is very close to the 42.3 percent cfound for the present group. He also found that no.4 percent of the ‘teacherl leaving scored between the fourth and seventh deciles as Elnfra, p. 32. 1A1 compared to only 33.3 of those remaining. The latter percentage is comparable to the 38.4 percent found in this study. likewise, he found that 25.6 percent of those leaving teaching scored between the eighth and tenth deciles as compared to 22.2 percent of the teachers remaining in the field. In the present study, 19.3 percent of the teachers scored in this top decile grouping. In both cases, there seems to be a negative selection factor in Operation when considering ACE scores only. Data on mechanical index for the teachers included were very incomplete. Records could be found for only five teachers. This was an insufficient number on which to base any relationship. Three teachers that scored above average on mechanical index had average performance scores between 92.6 and 97.5. However, one teacher scor- ing below average on mechanical index scored above 97.6 on average performance. In the opposite extreme, another teacher, who scored above average in mechanical index, had an average performance score below 77.5. Thirty-six, or 61.0 percent, of 59 teachers had honor-point ratios the first year in college between 1.7 and 2.2; 18, or 30.5 percent, between 2.3 and 2.8; and five, or 8.5 percent, between 2.9 and 3.4. No teachers had honor-point ratios above 3.5 for the first year in college. Compared to this, the honor-point ratio of these sanwe teachers for the second year in college was somewhat better. 142 Twenty-seven, or 45.7 percent, had honor-point ratios the second year between 1.7 and 2.2; 22, or 37.2 percent, between 2.3 and 2.8; nine, or 15.2 percent had honor-point ratios between 2.9 and 3.4. Only one teacher had an honor-point ratio the soyhomore year above 3.5. A higher honor-point ratio was found for the 59 teachers during their third year in college. Only 21, or 35.6 percent, had -honor-point ratios between 1.7 and 2.2 for the third year; 30, or 50.8 percent, had ratios between 2.3 and 2.8; six, or 10.1 percent, had ratios between 2.9 and 3.4; and two, or 3.5 percent, had honor- point ratios between 3.5 and four. There is evidence that the honor- point ratios of these 59 teachers increased slightly from one year to another. Records of 53 teachers show that 25, or 47.1 percent, had honor-point ratios for the "Five Basics" below 2.2; 15, or 28.4 percent had ratios between 2.3 and 2.8; and 13, or 24.5 percent had honor-point ratios for the "Five Basics" above 2.9. Actually, four of the latter group had honor-point ratios above 3.5. "Basic English" was studied by itself in relationship to pre-teaching characteristics. Records of 51 teachers show that four, or 7.8 percent, had honor-point ratios on "Basic English" below 1.9; 32, or 62.7 percent, had honor-point ratios between 2.0 and 2.9; and 15, or 29.5 percent had honor-ooint ratios above three. All.honor-reint ratios are based upon a system which allows four points for a grade of "A", three points for a "B", two points for a 143 "C", and one point for a "0". There were two reasons why recorls could be found for only 53 and 51 teachers, reapectively, for basic courses: several teachers were transfer students originally and requirements were waived and records were just not available on some. Nine teachers, or 15.8 percent of 57 teachers, received a mark of "A" for Education 202; 26, or 45.6 percent, received "B"; and 22, or 38.6 percent received "C". No teacher received a mark of "D" for Education 202. Three teachers, or 5.3 percent of 56 teachers, received a mark of "A" for Psychology 201; 14, or 25.2 percent received "B"; 33, or 58.9 percent, received "C"; and six, or 10.6 percent, received "D n . Five teachers, or 8.7 percent of 57 teachers, received a mark of "A" for fiducation 207; 29, or 50.8 percent, received "B"; 21, or 36.8 percent, received "C"; and two, or 3.7 percen , received "D II . Records of the 62 teachers tend to show that teachers generally receive higher marks in courses in their major than in other profes- sional courses. For example, 15, or 24.2 percent of the teachers, received a mark of "A" for Education 305 which is the introductory agricultural education course; 33, or 53.2 percent received "8"; and only 14, or 22.6 percent received "C". No teacher received a "D" for Education 305. 144 Regarding the tested interests of teachers, it was found that only five, or 8.9 percent, of 56 teachers had rated interests of "B" for "interests of teachers of vocational a3riculture." This rating means that these teachers probably have interests of the criterion group of successful teachers of voccti onal a3ricu1ture. Mnety-one and one-tenth percezlt, or 51, of the 56 teachers had rated interests of "A". This rating means that these teachers have the inte r3s sof the criterion group of successful tear hers. No teachers had rated "interests of a teacher of vocational agri- culture" of "C". Records were not found for six teachers. Data of' 'Tecchin; Satisfaction" ratin3s for 51 teachers show that 50, or 98 percent, rated "3" and only one rated "B". These ratings for "Teaching Satisfaction" indicate that this group of teachers had interests of successful teachers who were well satis- fied with their work and their jobs. No teachers had rated interests which would indicate indifference or dissatisfaction wi h their job and work. Data of "Interests of a Farmer (Strong)" for 56 teachers show that only six, or 8.9 percent, had rated interests of "B" and 50, or 91.1 percent, had rated interests of "A". Records on interests of a farmer were not found for six teachers. Hovever, it can be seen that this group of teachers have rated interests comparable to the criterion group of eXperienced, succes ssfu 1 teachers of vocational agriculture. a- Q . \1.‘ 11-5 Records for 60 teachers were found for the amount of their farm experience, report 1 in number of years. Sixteen, or 26.0, had two years of farm evyerience beyond the age if 15. Twenty-one, or 35 percent, had betwee. 2.1 and three years of farm ex'erien(:e; and 23, or 38.4 percent, had more than 3.1 years of farm eXgerience. Therefore, aggrotir'tel, three-fourths of the teachers had mere than 2.1 years of farm experience. Anoth der asgect of farza experience is the qual’ty of that eXperience. The scope and variety of farm eXperience for 61 teachers were 3raded y teacher educ.=itors accord1n3 to an est atliSEMe sgstem. A. at. t‘ "covera3e 01 U) The mark rece1ved by each teach3r is recorded a "3 ZXperience." It was found that six teachers, 0 9.8 percent, received a mark between one and 1.9 for covera3e of farm experience; vd1en one point rep we ts a mark of "3", two points a "C", ‘rre points a "B" and four points an "A“. Thirti-four, or 55.7 percent of the teachers, received scores bet een two and 2. 9; and 21, or 35.7 percent, received scores above three. Of the latter group of 21, (‘0 only four received a mark of four. From this datr, it can b seen that the teachers included have average to better coverage of farm exxerience, when a mark of "C" or two points is denoted as being average. Actually, the group is above average on this basis. Only 29 of the 62 teachers incl ded had been members of the Future Farmers of America. Three had receiVed the "American Farmer" chagree rank; two had advanced to the rank of "3 tate Farmer"; 20 had 1A6 rea hed the rank of "Chazfi er Farmer"; and four had only become "Greenhands." Simim uly, only 38 of the 62 teachers he d been enrolled in hi3h-school agriculture. Of those who had, 10, or 26.3 percent, received only one year of instruction; ei3ht, or 21.0 percent, were enrolled for two years; 12, or 31.6 percent, were enrolled for three years; and eight, or 21.0 p wrcent, received four years of instruction in high-senool agriculture. Thirty of the 62 teachers were previouslym emma rs of a 44H Club. Nine, or 30 .O percen+ ,had been members for onl' one-half to two years; eight, or 26.7 percent, were members for 2.1 to three years; three, or 10 percent, were members for 3.1 years to four years; and 10, or 33.3 percent, were members for more than 4.1 years. Records of 58 of the teachers shOW'that only one teacher had an average mark in "100- 200" A3ricultura1 Co“ses below an honor- point ratio of 1.9. Thirty-nine teachers, or 63.9 percent, had honor-point ratios between two and 2.9; and 18, or 31. 0y hercent, had honor-noint ratios above three on these to cc hnical a3ricult ural courses. .Assuming a "C", or two-point ratio, to be average, there is evidence again that this group of teachers is somew what above average for this profile factor. each of the 62 teachers were assi3ned a composite of instructors' Iwrtin.3s precediig student teaching. This cormpo te rating by the structors in agricultural education represented the ins tructors' 1L7 opinion of the potential teaching ability of each prOSpective teacher at this level in the training program. Data show that 12, or 19.3 percent of the teachers, were rated "Excellent"; 43, or 69.3 percent, were rated "Acceptable"; five, or 8.1 percent, were rated "Doubtful"; and two, or 3.3 percent, were rated "Unsatisfactory." no teachers were rated "Superior" by the com- posite of instructors' ratings at this level in college. The only other factor being considered is stwient-teaching marks. Student-teaching marks were available for 61 of the teachers. Of this group, three, or h.9 percent, received student-teaching marks of "AA"; 10, or 16.h percent, received "AB"; 34, or 55.7 percent, received "BB"; nine, or 1A.? percent, received "BC"; and only five, or 8.2 percent, received "CC" on student teaching. a Determination of Superioritg‘_§ysroup; Data on the distribution of profile factors of the 62 teachers seem to indicate that in many respects a superior group of teachers is being studied. Since having such teachers would affect the probability of getting any significant relationships between pre- teaching characteristics on the student profile and performance in the field, the necessity of determining whether the group is superior or not was evident. Since several investigators have found more significant relationships between student-teaching marks and perfor- mance in the field than for any other factors, further analyses were made on student-teaching marks. To do this, it was necessary to know the total number of teachers trained for the period being covered. In Table V, the total of persons trained is given with the number not now in vocational agriculture and the number stil in the field of vocational agriculture. During this same period, four persons did not qualify as teachers of vocational agriculture since they made "DD" on student- teaching eXperiences. Of the 86 persons trained but not now in teaching, records could not be found for four. A comparison of the group not in the field of vocational agriculture and the 62 teachers being studied and in the field when the study was conducted appeared as the next logical step. An analyses of the two groups should perhaps be preceded by two important questions. Has a selection factor already eliminated the potentially poor performers from the field of vocational agri— culture teaching? hhat do the data show between those in teaching vocational agriculture and ones not in teaching vocational agri- culture? Of the 82 persons trained, but not in teaching vocational agriculture, three, or 3.6 percent, received marks of "AA" for student teaching; nine, or 10.9 percent, received marks of "AB"; 25, or 30.h percent, received marks of "BB"; 25, or 30.h percent, received marks also of "BC"; and 20, or 2h.h percent, received marks 0f’"CC" on their student-teaching experiences. By simple comparison IA? of student—teaching marks, it can be seen that the 62 teachers of vocational agriculture had much higher marks on student-teac performance than the 82 persons who dropped out or never entered the field of teaching vocational agriculture. There is statistical proof that this fact is significant and that the 62 teachers are a superior group of teachers, based on this evidence. To establish statistical evidence that a selection factor was in Operation and that a superior group of teachers was studied, it was necessary to compute the 95 percent confidence limits of the various percentages of the two groups at each level of student-teach- ing performance.(5) The 95 percent confidence limits for the 2h.h percent of graduates making "CC" on student teaching g§d_ggt.;§, vocational agriculture teaching are 33.6 percent and 15.2 percent. The 95 percent confidence limits for the 8.2 percent of graduates receiving "CC" on student teaching and are 32! teaching vocational agriculture are 15.1 percent and 1.4 percent. The fact that the confidence limits do not overlap means that the difference between the two percentages is significant beyond the .05 level. This upholds the hypothesis that a selection factor has already taken place since more persons receiving "CC" on student teaching drOp from the field of vocational agriculture than ones that remain. ZErom this, it would be eXpected that the potentially low performing Hagood and Trice, gp. cit., p. 357. teachers have alreaiy dropped out, leaving a highly selective and homogeneous group of potentially good performing teachers. The 95 percent confidence limits for the 5h.9 percent of graduates making "BC" or "CC" on student teaching and 22E.i§:!22éf ticnal agriculture teachigg are 65.4 percent and hh.h percent. The 95 percent confidence limits for the 22.9 percent of graduates making "BC" or "CC" on student teaching and who are new teaching vocational agriculture are 33.2 percent and 12.6 percent. The fact that the confidence limits do not overlap means that the difference between the two is significant beyond the .05 level. More persons making "E0" or "CC" on student teaching drop from teaching or never enter teaching than do ones making "BC" or "CC" and Who remain in teaching. This finding supports the belief that a superior group of teachers remained in the field and potentially poorer teachers, in terms of performance, drOpped from the field. Slightly over three~fourths of the 62 teachers studied made "BB" or above on student-teaching performance. The confidence limits for this 77.0 percent making "BB" or above and remaining i3 teachigg vocational agriculture are 86.8 percent and 67.2 percent. The 95 percent confidence limits for the 45.1 percent making "BB" or above on.student teaching and ggtrremainigg $2 vocational agriculture are 55.6 percent and 34.5 percent. The fact that the confidence limits «do not overlap means that the difference between the two is significant ‘beyond the .05 level. This is further statistical evidence that a 151 superior group of teachers was studied. Whether having this superior group of teachers will influence the relationships between pre-teaching characteristics and subsequent performance or not cannot be determined at this point. The hypothesis is that it will influence the relationship. It is suggested that performance scores will tend to be high and closely related, making it difficult to establish statistically significant relationships between pre-teaching characteristics and performance as measured. Relationship 2; Pre-teachinngactors 32 Average Performance: Since it has been established that in several respects the 62 teachers being studied were a superior group, consideration will be given first to the relationship of their pre-teaching characteris- tics on the student profile to their average performance scores. A summary of the relationships of average performance to each pre- teaching characteristic is presented in Table XXII. The test of Chi square(6) was used to determine if there were any significant relationships between average performance and pre-teaching characteris- tics. It can be seen that by this test, no significant relationships were found at the five-percent level. However, of the 52 teachers on whom records were available on the ACE Peychological examination, five had average performance scores below 77.5. Three of these had 6Ibid“ p. 365. 152 ACE scores between the fourth and seventh deciles, and two had ACE scores between the eighth and tenth deciles. This sane type relationship was found for the five teachers on."Reading Compre- hension" scores. In comparison to these findings, Rolfe found no relationship (r I .10) between ACE scores and teaching success.(7 However, Ia Duke found ACE scores correlated .61 to teaching efficiency.(8) Of the five teachers scoring below 77.5 on average perfor- mance, four had honor-point ratios below 2.2 for the first year in college, and one had an honor-point ratio between 2.3 and 2.8. Only one teacher had an honor-point ratio the second year in college above 3.5 and he had a perfect score on average performance in the field. Three teachers having honor-point ratios the second year between 2.3 and 2.8 had average performance scores below 77.5, and two teachers with honor—point ratio between 1.7 and 2.2 also had performance scores below 77.5. The two teachers with honor-point ratios the third year above 3.5 both had perfect average performance scores. Four teachers of 53 had honor-point ratios in the "Five Basics" above 3.5; all four had average performance scores above 97.6. C) These findings are in agreement with those of Ieavitt(’) and 7Infra, p. 31. 8Infra, p. 58. O , - O D O O O O O O O 3... 2.1L . ’ D a O 153 Sutherland(lo) who reported little relationship between grade- point average and success in teaching. Cf five teachers sco*ing below 77.5 on average perfbrmance, three received "B" for Education 202 and two receiVed "C". It was found that 55.5 percent of teachers making "A" for Education 202 scored above 97.6 on average performance compared to 40.9 percent making "C" and scoring above 97.6 on average performance. The 95 percent confidence limits for the 55.5 percent are 87.8 percent and 23.2. The confidence limits for the 40.9 percent are 61.2 and 20.6. The fact that the confidence limits overlap means that the difference between the two is not significant at the five-percent level. Five teachers of 59 scored below 77.5 on average performance; three received "C" on Psychology 201 and two made "D" on this course. 0f the same group, one received a mark of "B" in.Education 207 and four received a mark of "C". Six teachers of the total 62 scored below 77.5 on average performance; one received a mark of "A" on Education 305 and five received marks of "B". It was previously noted that 51 of 56 teachers had rated interests of "A" for a teacher of vocational agriculture and only five had rated interests of "B" on this scale. It was found that over’three-fourths of the teachers rated "A" scored above 92.6 on loIan‘a, p. 69. 154 average performance. Only 21.6 percent of teachers with rated "A" interests scored below 92.5. The arithmetic mean for average per- formance was 92.0. The 95 percent confidence limits for the 78.4 percent rated "A" and scoring above 92.6 are 89.6 and 67.2, and the confidence limits for the 21.6 percent are 32.8 and 10.4. As these limits do not overlap, they are significantly different at the five- percent level. On this basis it may be assumed that teachers with "A" rated interests score statistically above the arithmetic mean for average teacher performance. however, as some teachers With rated interests of "A" score below average, it may be theorized that other factors are reducing performance and over-riding the importance of rated interests. The fact that some teachers with questionable interests, rated "E", score high on performance may cause one to think that the lack of high interest may be compensated by other factors and thereby result in high performance. While the findings here are not conclusive, it is of interest to note that Seagrove discovered a correlation of only .08 between the Strong Vocational (ll) Ullman found that teaching 12) interests correlated -.05 with teaching success. Interest and teaching success. Since it was found that 50 of 51 teachers had rated "A" on Wreaching Satisfaction", it was impossible to establish any statistical Illnfra, p. 60. lzInfra, p. 54. 155 difference between performance and rated levels of "Teaching Satisfaction." It was found, however, that over four-fifths (82 percent) of teachers rated "A" scored above 92.6 on average per- formance. Only 18 percent rated "A" scored below 92.5. Only one teacher was rated "E" on "Teaching Satisfaction" and he had an average performance above 92.6. On the basis of the criterion group of teachers, it can be said that teachers studied have "Teach- ing Satisfaction" ratings and "interests of teachers of vocational agriculture" comparable to successful teachers. They also scored high on average total performance. Based on this evidence, it is suspected that high interests are closely related to high perfor- mance, recognizing that other factors may infrequently partially discount high interests and cause low perfbrmance. Similarly, t was found that 78 percent of teachers with "A" rated "Interests of a Farmer" scored above 92.6 on average performance. Only 22 percent rated "A" scored below 92.5. These yercentages are statistically different from one another. From this, is is surmised that high rated interests of a farmer are associated with high average performance. Of the six teachers with interests rated "E", two scored above 97.6 and four scored between 92.6 and 97.5 on average performance. Here again, it may be that other factors than interests cause below average performance for some teachers with high-rated interests. It is believed that further refinements need to be made for the three interest scales studied to more sharply differentiate and predict between teachers with high-rated interests. Data compiled for 60 teachers show that eight teachers had above 4.1 years of farm experience; three of the eight scored above 9".6 on average performance; three scored between 92.6 and 97.5; and two scored below 7.5 on average performance. Of four teachers receiVing a mark of "A" for their coverage (quality) of farm experience, one scored above 97.6 on performance; two scored between 92.6 and 97.5; and one scored below 77.5. Since only 29 teachers had been members of the Future Farmers of America, the opportunity to compare a group not having this pro- file factor presented itself. Of the group having been in the Future Farmers of America, 10, or 3h.5 percent, scored above 97.6 on average performance; 12, or h1.h percent, scored between 92.6 and 97.5; and seven, or 2h.l percent, scored below 92.5. Thirty- three teachers had not been members of the Future Farmers of America. Sixteen, or 48.5 percent, of this group scored above 97.6 in average performance; 11, or 33.3 percent, scored between 92.6 and 97.5; and six, or 21.2 percent, scored below 92.5 on average perfor- mance. Three teachers - receiVing a Chapter, State, and American Farmer degree, reapectively - had performance scores below 77.5. Of the three teachers receiving American Farmer degrees, not one received an average performance score above 97.6. On the other hand, (use former Greenhand did. By a ccmgarison of the percentages of teachers making above 97.6 on performance, it can be seen that 157 membership in the Future Farmers of America did not tend to influence performance of teachers since a higher percentage of non-members scored in the top performance interval than did members. This relationship, however, is not significant. It is interesting to compare these findings with those of Efferson who found that super- visory ratings of teachers who had been Future Farmers were higher than ratings of teachers who had not been members.(13) A similar comparison can be made of teachers enrolled in high-school agriculture and those not receiving such instruction. It might be expected that teachers who had enrolled in high-school agriculture would have better rerformance than teachers not having this eXperience. The data, however, show that 12 of the 24 teachers, 50 percent, not having high-school agriculture scored above 97.6 on performance as compared to 34.2 percent of teachers having high- school agriculture. These percentages, however, are not significantly different at the five-percent level. Seven teachers, or 29.2 percent, of the 24 not having high-school agriculture scored between 92.6 and 97.5. Eighteen, or 47.4 percent of teachers having high-school agriculture scored between 92.6 and 97.5. Five, or 20.8 percent, of the teachers not having high-school agriculture scored below 92.5; seven, or 18.4 percent, of teachers having high-school agriculture scored below 92.5 on average performance. Three teachers of the 38 13Infra, p. 65. D“ Pre-Te aching TAEIE XXII '\"‘)\vql\VfiV? r‘r‘ ILHLLL it"JIV—LA OF Allilfirir.‘34 PLLLPI’ lvlule- .Ud QV AJuICULI v.3 T0 “ACE . .Lg—lnaoz*11-.u Chutn, PROFILE Number of Individuals Chi souare .I. (C l 'x . w 1'“ 3H... STJJJ Degrees of 3 f‘fl T" m~-- {’1__' ”._, ‘ 7?, (fi' T .vv‘v i‘ugo Or 1‘4“V‘. JLJ OF JItTiO- FTLRISTIC CH Chg acteristic Chi square X2 Freedom based upon ACE Intelligence 52 2.35 A Reading Comprehension 52 7.27 A Honor-Point Ratio First Year 59 1.73 h Honor-Point Ratio Second Year 59 3.97 4 Honor-Point Ratio Third Year 59 3.03 h Five Basics 53 2.58 A Basic En lish 51 2.17 A Education 202 Grade 57 1.50 4 Psychology 201 Grade 56 10.43 6 Education 207 Grade 57 8.Al 6 Education 305 Grade 62 1.52 A Vo-Ag. Teacher's Interest 56 A.12 2 Teaching Satisfaction 51 1.70 20 Interests of a Farmer (Strong) 56 3.05 2 Years (Amt.) Farm EXperience 60 1.07 h 159 Ere—Teaching nd viidals Chi silure De3rees of Characteristic Chi sjuare Y2 Freedgm based upon ' Cove-ra.3e of Farm n3. erienc3 Cl 6.11 A F.F.A. Rank 2? 3.7? 6 Years of V.3. .jxgricultfl‘”e 33 ZOCS 6 Years of A-H Club Timbershi 30 7.53 6 Ave. hark in "100-220" A3r. Courses 58 1.46 A 'Om:‘ it?) 62 601v? 6 f‘ I ‘ ".i f. '7‘ ~ - :q student-T each_a3 n,rhs Cl .52 C9 .1. *Si ni_icant at the five-r-ez cent level with iniicated de3recs of freeic-m. havi_n3 hi3h-s m}ool a.3ricu lture had per WP] ce scores beloW'77‘ .5; two of these had four years of agriculture and one had only one year of hi3h-schocl a3riculture. ‘ercent of the teac ch3rs who were v r- H *‘5 d ('5 g, i.) :3 U} [.10 I ‘ 3 ( +- (‘0 1‘5 ( 1' --.-I ”J C] it o “ 5'! .f‘ . I r ‘A —— 1 As! r. forner memuels of a A—H slab scaled a13.e 9..3 on peIf 1m..nce as f. ‘_ ’- fl \- !' fl «.1‘ - fl“ .. t? A v 1‘ VOLmezed o A3.7 percent 0. be». -3-o131L3 to a L-H Club. Fi.f y percent of formsr L—F Cl b ruun rs scorei between 92.6 an197.5; 160 and 13.3 fercent scored below 92.5. Twenty-ei it and one-tenth percent of teachers not belor3in3 scsrel between 92.6 and $7.5; and 2?. percent scorei bel 0H' 92.5. There is some evidence here that teachers scorir‘.~ low on performtnce tend more often to be persons ‘w not belonging to a h—H Club. The per ce nta3es, however, are not 1‘1 statisticaILy different since they are basei on s;:2a 1 numbers. Of six te.che rs sc orin3 below 77.5 on avera3e gerfornance, two had received a ratin3 of "Excellent " ty the C33trsi- of three had been rated "’cce eivle" ani one as "Doubtful." It is possiole that at the junior-€13 s slevcl teacher elucat rs had not had adeeuate time to effectively observe and evaiunte future potential performznce of each prospective teacher. On the basis of the evilcnce presented, the valiiit" of ir"tructors' ‘ v -\‘\« 7 -. - P l! r ‘. .5 . w A" . r331r s of uics;ective teacher: at their Junior ievol apps rs ~" ~.-- '1, -1-.. (‘17.. .. " . F. . H v}. cil-l A—"Vu QC. ' ' a; ”01; a 01 3. 7.03.1621 c.) 3 * It was decided the t a cor pari: on of a "too" and "bottom" 3roup of teachers on aver33 e seriarnr* eni3ht have some merit. Ei3ht tOpt eachcrs ani the ei3ht bottom teachers on avera3e performance wer e arbitrarily selected for this comparison on the profile factors. The average scores for each criterion group for several pro—teaching characteris tics are pre se mel in Is :.AI: I. Included in the table 3 e those factors with scores that could he awxe a 3ei. in the Future Farmers of America of America could not be averaged. Three teachers in each group (top and bottom) had not been members. Three of the to; teachers had ranks of "Chapter Farmer" and ne was a "Greenhani." Of the four teachers in the bott.m group that had been members of the Future Farmers organization, one each had been a "Greenhand", "Chapter Farmer", and ”State Farmer" and "hmerican Farmer."' Two teachers in the tOp group had no high-school agriculture as compared to three in the bottom group. Three of the top group had had no A—H Club eXperience compared to six of the bottom group who had had no 4-H Club exnerience. To prOperly interpret the average- scores given for the groups on instructors' rating, it is necessary to know that one point was assigned to a rating of "Unsatisfactory," two points to a rating of "Doubtful", three points to "Acceptable", four points to "Excellent" and five points to a rating of "Superior." Since scores given in terms of deciles could not be averaged for comparison of the top and bottom group, it was necessary to determine the percentages of each group scoring above and below average on the profile factors. Khen this was done, it was possible to test the differences in percentages of the two groups on the remaining profile factors, excluding "interests", to determine if they were significant. Data on these factors are presented in Tab le HIV 0 (301:1 subL-JUI: OF ufi- Tux? \,I\I!r ‘Tf‘\ \r‘r uni Vlth‘be uu bu C1"...L..Lb4.;ullb TAB IE XXIII T PCP AID EI'P'T CCI‘TCI-l I" Mr UJL l IVS 0:: r”? 1W1 (3‘1 ~"T'\ ifl—J D‘UL)“.JL ‘81:! JULJAJLhBCZL) KIN-TM.C.A ‘-‘"l‘- I" T‘- h 11.0: .LLr. T ‘v’.‘ Laban-.450 ‘ vT-v ‘ .LAIJ 152 Average Score Average Score Pre-Teaching Characteristic for for Top Group Bottom Group Honor-Foint Ratio 1st Year 2.17 2.26 Honor-Point Ratio 2nd Year 2.28 2.33 Honor-Point Ratio 3ri Year 2.L~ 2.48 Five Basics 2.40 2.54 Basic English 2.33 2.h2 Education 202 2.87 2.95 Education 207 2.25 2.42 Psychology 201 2.25 1.8 Education 305 3.00 3.10 Instructors' Rating, Composite 3.30 3.35 Amount (Yrs.) Farm EXperience 2.36 3.73 Coverage of Farm.ZXperience 2.41 2.12 Years of High-School Agriculture 2.3 2.75 Years of h—H Club 4.00 2.50 Ave. Mark in "100—200"A-'r. Courses 2. 66 2.75 Student-Teaching Marks 3.00 2.94 0000000000000000 oooooooooooooooo 163 O From.the data presented in Table XXIV, the 95 percent on- fidence limits were computed to determine if the percentages of the top group scoring above ani below average on characteristics were NUKBLR AND PZRJBHT OF TO? AND BOTTCM'GROUIS CF TBACHSRS SCORING ABO'E AND BBLUN AthAGE 0N CihTaIN’PfiB—TBACEING CHAhACTLRIST CS ON THE STUDLHT EKCFILE T 3 Group Bottom Group Fre~Teaching Above Below Above Below Characteristics Average Average Average Average No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent ACE Intelligence Test Scores A 50.0 A 50.0 h 57.1 3 h2.9 Reading Compre- hension Test Scores 3 37.5 5 62.5 6 85.7 1 14.3 statistically significant from the bottom group doing likewise. By observation it can be seen that the percentage differences for the top and bottom.groups on ACE Intelligence test scores are not significantly different. The confidence limits computed for per- centages on Reading Comprehension test scores overlapped and were therefore not significant at the five-percent level. This is true even though the percent of the bottom_group scoring above average on.Reading Comprehension appears much greater than the percent of the 16!. top group scoring above average. It is interesting that the top and bottom groups of teachers respectively had "A" rated interests for "Interests of a Teacher of Vocational Agriculture", "Teaching Satisfaction", and "Interests of a Farmer." There were no teachers in either group that were rated "B" or "C" on the interest scales being studied. A rating of "A" indicates that both groups have interests of successful teachers of vocational agriculture. On the basis of this evidence, there is no apparent relationship between rated interests and the performance levels of the selected eight "tOp" and "bottom" teachers. There may be factors other than "interests" contributing to good and poor performance of the two groups. Relationship f Certain Ire-Teaching Scholastic Ability Scores 23 Selected Areas 9;; Performance 3; Teachers '2; Vocational Agriculture Selected areas of performance were studied in relationship to ACE Intelligence test scores of teachers. These relationships are presented in Table XX'. Tre only significant relationship at the five-percent level by the test of Chi square was ACE scores related to "working with Peeple in Community." However, the im- portance of this relationship is that it is negative. This is evidenced by the fact that four teachers with ACE scores above the eighth decile scored below 82.5 on performance in this area, whereas no teachers having A33 scores below the third decile scored as low as 82.5. Actually, 17 teachers of 22 with ACE scores below the third decile scored above 97.6 on this area of performance. There may be several possible reasons for this negative relationship. It may be possible that the teacher with less in- telligence knows his shortcomings and compensates for his lack of measured intelligence by working harder to make his teaching a success. The persons who score higher on the ACE may think that they will be a "success" without any effort and as a result have poorer quality teaching performance than a lesser intelligent individual. On the other hand, it might be that the "bright" teachers are beyond the mass of peOple; thus isolating themselves; whereas, the average teacher is working in the realm of the mass and being more nearly like them can work with them better. It is also possible that a non-language or mechanical ability test would show that the intelligence factor is not actually different for a majority of the individuals being studied. These possibilities are only projections of thought and are not based on the findings. In Table XXVI, the relationship of Reading Comprehension test scores and two selected areas of perfbrmance is presented. No significant relationships were found between the selected areas of performance and test scores for Reading Comprehension. 166 TABIE XXV REIATIORSHIP OF ACE IRIELLIJLNCB TSST SCORES TO SELECTED AnEAS 0F PERFCREANCE 0F TEACHERS OF VCCATIORAL AERICUII‘RE Number of Area of Teachers Chi square Degrees of Performance Studied X2 Freedom See. A - "working with People in Community" 53 l2.7l* h Sec. 8 - "Maintaining Professional Standards and Relationships" 53 5.07 4 Sec. C - "Planning and Conducting General Activities" 53 4.00 4 Sec. E - "Utilizing Acceptable Methods of Teaching" 53 7.97 h Sec. F - "Conducting Programs with All-Day Students" 53 8.14 A Sec. G - "Conducting Programs with Young and Adult Farmers" 46 4.88 A *Significantly negative relationship at the five-percent level with the indicated degrees of freedom. 167 1.57.3 KITH fiV-uofl‘ ha. ”\“77 “x v‘ i‘:-‘? qu (0"? "~“r-‘fi ov-Tfim PWLZ'TW a ::3’.)IP OF '. I SIZLJ‘... .‘I'J UL.41U¢J¢AH.' U- V... Lad. SUK; 15.5.) To gum.)- L‘:\' 4‘3” C‘: n An. 3pm-:hl‘33 CF T‘j.‘ . .3 Eli-’3 C'F JOCS ’ TIC. “11:1 Alli-IVE): Ti MJPE Area of Ilmler of Chi square Degrees of Performance Teachers X2 Freedom Studied Sec. B - "liaintaining Professional Standards and Relationships" 52 7.31 A See. C - "flan: ing and Conducting General Activities" 52 7.Al A *Significant at the five-percent level with indicated degrees of freedom. From data presented, it can be surni used that scholastic ability as asured beers lit‘Lle relation s} ip to the selected as cas of’performance f :GGCEBIS of agricul.ure. Gnu " one of eight relation- .L st? 5 w 3 significant at the five-percent level ani that rela " nejative. The relationship bet een ACE sccres and Ltrformahce in."Cond ucting Pro grams with Young a.d Adult Farmers" was positive ‘but not at a significant leVel. 168 Vbcational Agriculture The measures of scholastic achievement studied in relation- ship to performance in this section are: honor-point ratio third year in college, "Five Basics" and "Basic English." In Table XXVII, data are presented regarding the relationship of achievement measured by honor-point ratio to performance in five selected areas. No significant relationships were found; however, "Planning and Conducting General Activities" had the highest positive relation- ship to honor—point ratio. In comparison to these findings, Stuit found that scholastic success correlated .31 to success in teach- my) It was found, that of two teachers having honor-point ratios the third year above 3.5, one had a performance score above 97.6 on "Maintaining Professional Standards and Relationships", and one scored between 72.6 and 97.5. These same individuals both scored above 97.6 on "Planning and Conducting General Activities." Raters were unable to evaluate performance of two teachers in "Conducting Programs with Ybung and Adult Farmers." Six teachers were not evaluated on this area of performance since they were not conduct- lhlnfra, p. 60. h i“"| 169 ing either young-farmer or adult-farmer classes. Four of these six had honor-point ratios the third year in college between 2.3 and 2.8; the other two had honor—point ratios between 1.7 and 2.2. While this f'nding should not be over-generalized, there is indica- tion that persons with high honor-point ratios more often conducted programs with out-of-school groups than persons With low honor- point ratios. The relationship of the "Five Basics" to two areas of perfor- mance was tested by Chi square. It was found that the Chi-square value computed between performa.ce in "Horking with PeOple in Community" and "Five Basics" with four degrees of freedom was 8.39. This Chi square is not significant at the five-percent level; it is, however, significant at the ten—percent level. Of four teachers with honor-point ratios for "Five Basics" above 3.5, all had per- formance scores on the section above 97.6. The Chi square computed between performance in "Maintaining Professional Standards and Relationships" and the "Five Basics" with four degrees of freedom was 10.30. This Chi square is Significant at the five-percent level. HoweVer, the relationship is negatiVe. This is substantiated by the fact that 66.6 percent of persons with an honor-point ratio below 2.2 on "Five Basics" scored above 97. on performance as compared to only 50 percent with honor—point ratios above 2.9. 170 TAEIE XXVII REIATIONSHIP 0F SCHOLASTIC ACKIZVLKLKT KCNCR-PJINT RATIO THIRD YEAR IN COLLEQS T0 SEISCTT' ARLAS CF .ZRF‘RKAHCE CF TEACHERS CF VOCATIOEAL AGRICUZIWEE Number of Chi square Area of Teachers X2 Performance Studied Degrees of Freedom Sec. 3 - "Kaintalning Professional Standards and Relationships" 59 1.22 A See. C - "Planning and Conducting General Activities" 59 6.80 4 Sec. E - "Utilizing Acceptable Methods of Teaching" 59 1.83 4 Sec. F - "Coiducting Programs With All—Day Students" 59 1.63 4 Sec. G -"Conducting Programs with Young and Adult Farmers" 51 h.22 A *Significant at the five-rercent level with indicated degrees of freedom. The Chi square computed between performance in "horking 'with People in Community" and honor-point ratio in "Basic English" with four degrees of freedom was b.43. It is not significant at the five-percent level. Only one teacher of 51 had an honor-point ratio of four for "Basic English" and his performance score on this area of performance was below 82.5. In comparison to this, four teachers with honor-point ratios below 1.9 scored 97 .6 or etter on this area of performance. However, only 61.3 percent of teachers with honor—point ratios between 2.0 and 2.9 scored above 97.6 as compared to 75 Percent of the teachers with honor—point ratios for "Basic Eng lish" bet een 3.0 and 3.9. a Relationship of Achievement in Professional Course werk Eg’oelected Areas of Performance gf'Teachers of Vocational Agriculture It appears that some relationship should be found between achievement in professional course work and performance under normal conditions. This would be assuming that a normal distribution of scores on performance and achievement on course work were available for study and the U teachers stui A were not already a superior group. However, as a superior group is being st uc ied, will there be any significant relationeri; Data compiled in Table XXVIII show no si ”n; 1C8 1t relationsnip between achievement in Education 305 and four selected areas of per- \11 formance. Ho teacher hai received a mark of "D" for Education 302 . It was found that a larger percentage of those scoring below 87.5 on "Conducting Programs with Young and Alult Farmers" made "A's" in lilucation 305 than those making "C's" in liucation 305; these per- cermages were 28.5 and 8.3, respe ecti vely. However, the largest ‘ l) of those with; erfOIm ance . ow 87. 5 n1ade "9's" for Eiuceti n 107. In comcariaor, Ullman found that professional .. (15) marks corr related low with teaching success. Fi-din=s that are presentedi ble H.IK,indicate that J p. Psychology 201 hai a mix 'ficant relat onship to performance in "7~r‘i“* Wi 'h Peorle in Community." However, the other two relation- L50 shigs re orte d are not significant at the fiVeur er mnt level. Since the study of Fry holcgy 201 is concerned with understanding the thennrena of learnin an} no tivation, it is encour13 n3 to find that Forlornance of teacl1ers in v.01kinb with geople in rural com— F“.. .. n , .1. 1‘, J. - ., ,. : 1 ° .116 uni-6’71}. «18 v lue serviced 101‘ the 103.1:1t1.oz.s.1ip betwee n Elucation 207 and performance ir"Utlli.in' Accc pteh e Nethois of T achinr" of r7'7 teachers with six de3rees of freedom was 8.3?. This Chi square is not significant at tle fivo— -j?rc 2 nt level of si3nificance. It was of interest to note that $8.6 percent of the teachers rarzing her on Elucation 2C7 scorei above 97 .6 on this area of performance, and 70.0 percent of the teachers making "C" or lower \ \. on Education 207 scored above 27.3 on "Utiliz ing Ace e table Ifc thois m1 1 “I“ . "c ‘ - ‘L"':‘ T“ L.‘ A \‘ The CE;i-sq1are v Ac camliced becncin i ucacicn 102 ail ‘l‘ or v ,m~-_ . T: -.‘, ,- - ,-.-_’~ perfo11ance 01 27 te1c1er1n "dwlllziho nCCfl31u :3.e “ctuOlS of WSI 9T3, p. 550 - A ,- D‘ -. , v -. : -‘ : 9.. -~ 4' A L 1 ‘~ 0‘. .' ~- ‘ 1 ‘, v ’ a ".1".- {”1" was g.-7 nu*ch its “gt 519:-m131nu 1~ ,ue 1;.e-rarccgt 114:1 _-J. - D . J - . c . .‘ w \;.h 1our neornzs c. fleesom. a-q 3': ff". ' r'VY'V ‘Dk‘l “ ‘C.V uLa- vx —~~ . --‘-»~ov-p— .~v:‘ - qv-T-nrvy-— - '1‘ T Y -, r—\-vr‘-_ ' hr rn-\ (_§1jfy‘an1 .“- (1??zj [:1 -LuJ—A5¢ .Lv. 34.": 3.; b- d3u;L....;c...u.uu.L .ui uJuUuJ. Luz! U) .Lb UHA‘JVLJ Luau») w " "~ """" , -, 1,; . - a *r - -.- .--'nv~_---n*~._lj~ CF tut. blklgiubfin U13 1.thde L. Juarzrlvlmb AusanauMUL'...‘ 7.73 :===:~— ‘ 0 , Huzker of (11 s‘aare a .1.-~ ,p T by ”v n Degrees o; [‘81‘5933 'J- ¢ _ 1‘ ('34. J ‘- H 3 n fin «uqs- 1 X rr°cuom 51‘ C- b.“ b'vc Elk/“ale“; " '1 91:..- ' .: 3,. 96C. .3- - ' -.L.Lntalzl...45 *5, p h. ' ' \.-\ "'-«. 14.01.63 L‘QLUAL; 3L-s&-L -s- .13 " ' ' ' -' t" A 1 l -‘n'l ALv-L'\V‘_OLAUlt*r—s' bl; ‘1."L3 4 C" h - 4 . l‘ '.rv-u s, uCC. £3 "' "J l.L.Lu.L.I.b 1n .4 “. ,'4 1-1‘12- r- ‘5 ALLCDVBJ-) 3 “AAA/‘3.) 4. "‘0 r “-= .v ('1 ’ PP '. ;t,c-a.:;_.r‘v" L..- 6.“) Ar ’I‘ w “,3 fl :2‘" .JCC. r - "Vonista‘Ab .- _..,‘ r, , . 11-7 “,1 ITOSLJHQ filth n11-J ’ "1‘- .‘ - -. f . bungents" C2 ).C7 A rs ‘ 2 Sec. u - "Conuuct1ng ‘v I" y\-I 1".1‘} ' “ " frobr1L: n-un I uzb 5 - .. 12‘» . ’2‘) r J 41.11414; A .‘I'melsn 51+ 7.}J l} .w-c- :n; n. . .-_ u - .. I 0 ‘: r . , «913n11-canz a. hue f Vb -percenL leicl wi n 1n1;Ce 01 He ‘e»s h . of lrecdam. . ~gi- A -: r9 1,-1 I". -v r - . v- ‘w. . ~. 0 \ -. . 3' 5 . o :9 Cuflm1r1~e hue 11nd 1~s o1 rel¢*loush_ps o; acw‘l repent 1n n . pr HESS; RE 3111 that on-y one of the Chi squa F888 I" p—l V orr'ance, n 4 .i‘ .‘l - 'b ‘ . v a comfmyed M15 5;-. it Can be :0: n .54 __ (:91..qu L a ‘C o 'l‘ O ‘m‘ .' .-..:1 .1 ,.~ lbfiflb po:ioi!e reicfi: 3521p .0 "in“. ° fi-~ 1‘ 1 ..... n . -‘ lieycicut in LofCuO_O f kOl anl perfozmar-ce .. "Jerking with People in Contamity.’ M‘fiTfi Qrvolor‘r ‘ow u ‘5‘. T \T ‘\‘-TY) (3’1 ‘1 -v 'r 1'7“".n1: k‘VJ’V‘". )l - ”‘1”. ,.. ‘ .h—be-LLLNALLI VA 4rkc..4_ul.a_u AJ-IT III IU-V..UT Uufi 201 TU ULJLVLA—NJ 13.55.; D r1 1 UP i"fiL£CiJQaL-YCE Or igu'tCLans CF VOCATIUI'mL AJILICUIIUILE l Famher of Chi Square D _“ \H n ,n m ,- oeuieco of “redo of ‘eacncrs v9 h oodon a 0 ~ :rv: I Performance Stuiied “ Soc. A - ”forking with C's w I H rcopie in Com .uni'y' 50 12.?)* h Soc. B - 'Jaintnidino I: ofcssionai o1a1i'“vs ani ~olr1tion3hips" 56 2.65 6 Sec. E - "Utilizing Acceptab7e Hethods of Teach' 5" 56 3.71 , 6 1 ignificant at five—palm at level with iniicated degrees of freolon. (3r\ Q“ '1': y‘ ‘..'9\ ~~~~~~ ‘i fi ‘(cl - i‘ L \‘I N - L r! L A f‘n‘.‘ \ "' fad .. H r-T -' of J1 U‘ .g-5 A.--l'~\— :..;C- .r' vu) y'J av {:pC‘JU' 11$ 91:.) — W .- m * of Performance‘gg’Teachers g£,Vocational Agriculture Does havim ginterests ofa teac {10? of voc tiowl l agriculture moan that a person will necessarily be a SUCCELSL ul teacher? Is teaching satisfaction asso ciatei with being a suzzessful teac..er? Does 175 having interests of a farmer comparable to the criterion group of successful teachers associate itself with high performance in working 'ith farm people? These are the questions that will be studied here. Data compiled on the relationship of interests of a teacher to performance are presented in Table XIX. The Chi squares com- puted were not significant at the five-percent level. This does not mean that there was no association, but merely indicates that the relationships were not statistically significant. Approximately 90 percent of the teachers studied ha ra ed interests of "A" and a large majority of these scored above 97.6 on performance. It is surmisei from this that having interests of the criterion group of successful teachers of vocational agriculture is associated with high performance. However, it must also be recognized that factors or conditions other than interests of a teacher cause performance to be lowered frequently. dridence of this is that 68.6 percent of teachers with "A" rated interests scored above 97.6; 11.7 percent rated "A" scored between 82.6 and 97.5. Therefore, some factor or groups of factors apnarently interact with or counteract interest and lower performance. Approximately the same type relationsnips 1 were found between interests and otxcr areas of performance. These findings were not unexiected since Ullman had found that teaching interests correlated insignificantly with teaching success and with 176 f I practice teaching,\10) The relationship between interests of teacher ani performance in "Utiliting Acceptable Methods of Teaching" was positive and apfroaching statistical significance. It was of interest to note that, of five teachers not con- ducting programs 'ith young- and adult-farmer grouse, three had rated interests of "A" for a teacher of vocational agriculture and two had rated interests of "3". Since only one teacher was rated "3" for "Teacher Satisfac- tion" and 50 were rated "A", it was needless to compute Chi squares between teaching satisfaction and several areas of rformance. The y k \ "Teachin Satisfaction" scale, which is a subscale to "Interests of 3 a Teacher of Vocational Agriculture" can be used only wnen teachers have scored "B" or "A" on the first scale. Since all teachers studied were rated "R" or above on all scales, this factor did not apply in studying teaching satisfaction ratings. Ninety-eight percent of the teachers studied had ratings of "A" for "Teaching Satisfaction." Of this group, 68 percent scored above 97.6 in "Work- ing with Feople in Community"; 14 percent scored between 82.6 and 97.5; and 18 percent scored below 82.5. Approximately the same percentages were found in the three performance levels in "Maintain- ing Professional Staniards and Relationships", "Utilizing Acceptable l6 Infra, p. 54. 177 Mfiiodscfl'Teaching", and "Conducting Pro;rams with Y’ung anl/or 0fthe teachers with "A" ratings for "To (hing 3 tie &4PETWK¢ scored above Q7.6 in "Conducting Programs with All-Day- Stwhnfis"; 10 percent scored betmeen 84.e ari 97 q and only six sane relationships Aprroximately th percent scored below 82.5. We Mti n- were.mnnd.with performance in "Maintaining AlmlulthQt’VP ships." ion between U) It can be seen that there ao;;are ntly i an associet rated ’Teaching Satisfaction" and performance. However, it has been noted that teachers with "A" ratinfs not only score high 1n perfor- mance, but infreouuo1tly a small number score low in performa.nce. It is believed that other factors are reducing performance levels for hough they have} i :h rating for teach- these few individuals even tion betteen "Interests of Q) There apnears to be higher associ a Ftnimar (Strong)" and performance than the ratings on the two 1es Data in Table XXXI iniica te that interests of a previous scal .farmer‘enmi successful per related. It was found that 74 p, 8.3 of a farmer scorei above 97.0 for {erforience in 1‘-’.=;tel ‘— ' O {1‘ r 'V'o.rk'i (g vwith IGOp la in Community" as comptred to 50 Cereilt ":3". Only 28 percent with intern "5." score": 195610» 97.5 in cows artiscvl to 50 percent of those with "3" rated interests. H 0) T'fiTv vvv qua-v.4 ILA—g’k W “‘7 ',‘n‘-!-L"’:'._ 1:. ::r:~—‘:- .‘,‘mfi A‘“ p fry~-v I F‘vv- —- r1 'TA/‘I IM” 7"— ‘ ~ F n . I J 3‘ _L« ‘ ‘V'? L f J‘L',- LL- .XL ;xJI»ICU 3L: U- Lu" L‘th‘.‘ ‘~-. .V..M n:._.-.;- . «A n—a:~v'..._4-- fiwf‘; (‘- ‘T‘<fi HMV‘ - i Ava ‘1 -V’ fifihar v A- ~3‘fi '7“ I n'Y’ “’3 fl ' b 1 4 -U JAJHJA‘J ‘3 Lb Luv- Vau‘dovu o Luau IJW Nmfimr a? (mi sywre Derrees of FrerA m -X. ’ A 1.5 Area Of LE‘LA.3- F rforma.nce ouugied Sec A - "Jerking with O - ‘ . ‘ .g'v- . ? .~che 1n CorranlsJ" 56 1.,1 2 A“ n ,,. - : s 02¢. a - "IaMlfi a1 Jab '5 . t“ '7!- .1 1 o, as si 01131 Us 31:11.15 C‘I ‘ "‘4; . 3“,“ v ‘2 ‘ .1: 2’ ." - 1 LI"? ,_. 1'4: 1"“ N 50 9.0“. 2 Sec. 3 - "3511111 g r?"h"tab1@ Nethods . rr:-‘~' ~41 ’ 9, '7 n Sec. F — "Conducting Iro‘rtns Hi) All- "\I~ A Day 9911A _fi‘3" 1.23 2 \‘1 g,\ so. 3 - "Conducting ~sn- on- ~°L ._ F.s;rn¢s Miuh Youné and/or A ult Farmers" A? 3.84 2 I‘ .~ 4- ~‘ ‘ . - ,—. '-‘ '. ’ .- -iCsrs at tns f1ve-rsrc Rt le'cl wlfln ladlcssud f3 SimiTsrly, it was discovered th°t 35 percent of teachers with "A" rated interests of a farmer scored above 9?.7 in "Canfluct- .»-\~ n ~r‘ '4‘ A . ‘4 a ‘ - r - ' lug .PC “3,- w_uh n1‘- ;J stsnth. mu c'ggs e1 to 53 ~-rrsnt VLVH ’7‘ r L .3 p . -. .'~ " '4" Fau9' *flLd‘Ubtb. unl I; parcegt rassd "g" scorei Felgw 97.5 1‘0 ‘0 I T1-'~T‘1 ‘firV'I -4ux‘u .u‘; “'P'fl1".0~‘_\"T"'“ :71 -\ \l~‘fl"‘f‘1:l . 5‘ f‘fi'vun‘t) _‘}2;: *‘~‘\” M‘ "M'Kfi‘ 'v ---c In. ALAAVAHJ...‘LA UL. ”iAI&-‘WLU LP 2'. .".‘-..L$'.._..b u.-b-...-,' -U 4......J‘J .L-vd.-) ~\ -. "- ‘ 17‘? ". "1 Tr'p l| fi""" g.‘ i.e.,; U;.1 “Us“ 'uf z“;.u.._»»u Lt «vu-x:lbsuxTJ :OsQlA-‘u'uuu v'iu-a __ , n . . , :Ii-. :L-‘I;r OJ- V-o-o - m . a .? -~-. “;I‘ezi or J. chCuUL S r(,:.u“""” ‘Fueic’l ‘5—‘Afih‘ J ‘ .‘~ ~'- ." vll VI" n 16:: q ; Jaymfi .LLI -Oi.'.' .24.; JL' 1") ;'..,, A 4 new.“ °..-~. SEC. 1‘ - VUL‘.-L..C+.1 Lo . r . 'L‘ *‘V TO ”ALS- w'.Lu1. :.:-1— r. F“- .A ' n t: 1'1 "_V. n “‘r'sbuiean ,6 LL.¢wn 4 * . e n , ‘2. z ‘ QLC. J - ”V “(‘v‘ ‘ f v,,...., .‘H 1'. -. -§ourwmf Nlufl saun; ,' “~ '71- K‘» .J: '. (a s; 3‘1": .44.!“ A 112-6“; L"; ”l 2 I“ V "' -~. I: -o A ‘ r1_ ~. ,. .4. ‘ _ a" r.’ '“/ " Lu»: Ik..L~.eFJth‘U 'J 1.;J g r , , 1. n J, L‘oarams" S-J 1.371: 2 u LL % ' ”°‘ an: at the xiVe—percent level with indicst U¢ULI_J- a» is negative, which means that teachers enrolled for only one yeax'in agriculture had better performance than those with four years ‘1‘ 18~ of agriculture in hi5h school. Only eight students with two years of training made above ?7.5 in this area. Of the eight teachers who had four years of high-school agriculture, six scored 97.6 and two below 72.5 on performance in "Providing On-Farm Instruction." Of 2A teachers who had no high-school agriculture, 91.6 percent scored above 97.6, and 8.3% Percent scored below 72.5 in this area. In contrast, 8A.? percent of the teachers having high-school agri- culture scored above 97.6 and 5.3 percent scored below 72.5 in this area. Approximately the same percenta5es of teachers having high- school agriculture and teachers not having high-school agriculture scored above 97.6 on "Supervising and Developing Farming Prograne." The percentages were 81.6 and 83.3 for each respective group. Findings regarding the relationshige of h-H Club membership to selected areas of performance are presented in Table XXXVI. The Chi squares computed were not significant at the five-percent level. Only 30 teachers of the 62 eing studied had formerly been members of the A—H Club. Eighty percent of the teachers who were former members scored above 97.6 on "horking with Peeple in Community", and 59.4 percent of the 32 teachers not former members scored above 97.6. Only'6.6 percent of the former members scored below 82.5 as compared to 25 percent of non-members. The 95 percent confidence limits for the 80 percent are 94.3 and 67.7. The 95 percent confidence limits for the 59.3 percent are 76.1 and L?.5. As these confidence limits overlap, the apparent association is prOVed insignificant at the ‘ 3T five-percent level. Of 13 teachers having more than five years of O O - ’ L-H Club experience, e15ht had performance scores abQVe 97.0 on A313 XXXVI O RZIATICXCHTP CF Y31RS CF L—H CT“3 FTVT"3"TT -C SLISCTLD ARCAS C: iALFCLHANCJ UF TQACHIZS CF JCCATICTA ASKICL TUBE humber of Chi square Areas of Teachers 9 De3rees cf . ~ 'r‘I Performance Studied X rree Llom Sec. A - "Horking with People in Ccnmunity" 30 1.53 A Sec. H - "Providin3 On- Faz'm Irlstl action" 30 2.3h 4 See. I - "Supervising and Developing FGFPID' Pro5rams" 30 1.25 h *Si3nificant at tle five-perce nt level vWit indicated derrees of freedom. "Providing Cn-Fsrm Instruction." Cf six teachers havingl -ess than one year of h-H Club, all had performance scores above 97.6. Xinety rercent of the teaclers who were former h-HC lub nembers scored above 97.6 on this area, compared to 8h.5 percent of teachers who had not been h-H Club members. Only 3.3 percent of the former members scored below 72.5 as comgared to 9.A percent of the non—members. V n11 10 teachers having more than four yaw of h-HC o3 no membm shi 1p scorei above 97 .6 on "Sugervisirg sni De'eloping Farnin 191 Pro Ans." A150, six members hw virg lee s tian one year of me:mber- sfiio scored above 07.6 on this area. L I The fin ' lprcfile factor, average mer” in 100--‘0 a3ri- cultm r 41 cours as , as relatei to yerfornence is }r Ldlcl in m, -1 Vf'f’ff‘r" "9‘. fit. ' .. . AA ' 1‘: a» 1- J- J“ I ”UL ILAII . Ine p4; squares :cAIIc d vere not sI3AIIIc(nc at tAe five-percent level. ”cwever, one Chi scuire was no on 0 ' n r - I.“ 1 - rT‘-. . ‘v‘fi ‘: 'VV " Slonlflcent at the ten-pelcent I “16 ILis Chl sounre was computei between average msrks in ZGC-ZDC egrica]- ure 1 courses and perfor- mnnce in "Teachinr NJ It was found thst 88.8 percent of teachers naving a "E" or better ave s3e on 100-200 'ric ul urel courses Hccr d above 97.6 ("D Cr. on "Coniuctin3 Plo3rems with AI l—Day Stuients." Cnly 2.5 percent 'e on thee e courses of the teachers havin3 less then a "B” averc3 scored above 97.6 in this area. S‘Jty--our and three—tenths gercent of the teachers having a "3" or better avere3e on a 3ricn1turel courses scored eaove 97.6 cn "Conlucting ITO3r .- ._-,,. v» _ I .k. ‘, ,. . o . - D O ' . -. . . .. . r l I . . - _. . o u. . u _ . -— e A _ O r I o‘ ' w. ‘ " A .- o 4 .. . \ ; ,,\- ; ‘ r ' ‘ « , . ll . ' h. ‘ ~ .\ . o r . ‘ "(r . . ’- I A ~ I O Cf the 14 teachers retorted not conducting farm—mecviqics H“o'“9“° Your tzerp rat :5 ";"cell-nt", six Wise ratei "Lccet+“*70" tw ”ere rated "Doubtful" ani two were r2191 "Unsati frctv.y," By Comparing the iistrihntion 01 ratin % of te 1trs who were Q ' , farm mecnanlcs : ~ ‘50» . .- ""- r“\ Jfarm meanlmugxu, tneze ‘ r. ‘~ . - r 4‘ ‘ teacners not tog-31.11133 3“ 177 mesh an 10 m‘— . ‘ n - w - o 1 . r ‘ 31'93. 11:131‘73 perhaps EBVCI‘F‘l TGrLbOIIS l: at p-o- -0 ,_1 [D (.0 C9 d area of farm mernin_cs . ‘: "‘ ('- ~u1on of ratings 01 ° teachers these 14 programs vnre not perform- 'Iot LT‘DVND .I _ g “AI1,J .3- 3‘2‘421 IF A; AIYfiJ‘ 7‘1nn‘. '11‘ .’ ‘ \\1p"i\inlrv\f:v“’\:) {—71 J‘hn P:A’I {71 .€./ 4.: 4+») 4 ;'-¢-1- C - w'J 9; -4 ‘9 —— "I V A - c -— ’ Oi *4 -- " "-' o c- —‘ —-— sumei that H. d indicat of teaching abilitv ani perfor logical to study stulent—toeohin mance in relationship to some pre-tesching is conronly'believed that student-teaching correlate with performance than do any other pre-te teristics. mance, it then Several im3. ortant questions aris 3“” .n - Cnaracteristics ‘ a. . . 1,“, ‘ 1. stanent-teacnlng marns are seems an aspect of perfor- charaeteristics. It marks more nearly charac- refine e at this point. Is here a possibility that w119t is measured in student-teaolzing per- formance is °omethin3 diff mensuxed in the present stu:y? Can tlw be} the way a student teacher performs under e rent from or more dir .ct complete than that lief be justified that 197 vision of te her educators and super*wi .in fig teachers will be approximately the performance level he will maintain when he under- ilim ' of a full-time teaching pOSition With 4. CI: takes the resuon i A greatlv reduced guidance and supervision? f? Student-teaching marks are not in actuality pre-teaching characteristics, bu. they directly reflect performance in teaching under supervision. For tt -is reason, they will be interpreted as marks of teaching performance, recognizing that the term "perfor- K mince" as used in this study is not synonymous with performflce as conceived in stuient teaching. In many respects, the performance measured in student teaching might be a more valid measure of actual teaching ability than that measured in this study. At least, more concentra.ted observation occurred preceding ass ig mment of student-teaching marks, and personality and other factors are part _ally accounted for in the marks. tith the foregoing comments in mind, a logical question is: what are the relationships of student~teaching marks to perfor- mance in the field and to some pro-teac} 1in3 characteristics? The relationships of student-teaching marks to selected areas of perfor- mance shall first be considered. In Table XKXIX, a summary of these re ationshio are presented. Ho Chi squares were found to be signifi- ;. O) cant at the five-percent level. There are, however, some interesting relationships between marks and certain levels of performance by teachers. Of the teachers scoring above 97.6 in "Planning and Conduct- 198 ing General Activities", 17.6 percent made "A3" or above on Wuient teac} i.ic 3, 61.7 ,ercent made "?B", 8.8 p. rcent made "BC", and 11.7 percent made "CC". Of those scoring below 72.5 in this area of performance, 1A.2 percent made "AB" on student teaching, 6L.3 percent made "BB", an«i 2l.h mrcent med "BC." Of the six te c‘n rs reported having no young—farmer and adult-larmer pro rams, two received "a3" on student teaching, three received "33" and one received "CC." It was found that no chin3 made less than teachers making above "AB" on student tea n "Pro iding On- -Farm Instruction." However, four teachers r» 72.6 maki% v "3:" or b910W'nHaie less than 2.5 in this area of perfor- mance. There were a total of 13 teachers reported having no farm- mechanics programs. Of this group, one received "in" in student teaching, two received "£3", six received "BB", two received "BC" ani two received "CC." On the basis of student-teachi.3 graies, there is no acpa rent reason why these teachers were not conduct- ing farm-mechanics programs. It is recognized, of course, that administrative approval, lack of facilities, et cetera, may be prohibiting pr grars for these teachers. Of those scoring above 97.6 in "Teaching Farm Mechani.cs", 19.4 percent had student-teaching marks of "AB" or better, 58.3 percent received "“8", 16.6 percent received "BC" and 5. 6w arcent received "CC" in student teaching. w p; \O ‘0 Even though there are reasons to b3li3 ve that student teaching and performance are related, no significant relationships Jere established between the two in this study. The reason for this may be that two different sepects of performalce are being measured. As previously indicated, the marks for student teaching include a partial measure of personality, attitudes and habits that were not evaluated in the present study. has t relationships, then, would be eXpected between student-teaching marks and certain pre—teaching characteristics? A summary of ties 3 re.- itionshi,s is presented in Ta leTKL. It can be noted that the 13C hi scuares A computed were not significant at the five-perc nt level 1.hen —J Flo corrected for continuity. The most significant onssips were found between student-teaching marks and both thel Huc Mi 305 marks and instructors' ratings. It appears interestin; that the only factors with any de 3ree of association are those that were eva lurted exclusively by the teacher—educ ting staff in agricultural education. S nce it was expected that stud Hnt- whiz‘3 marks would L10 have rather high relationships to many pre-teaching characteristics - and no such relationships were found for the superior group of teachers - it is thus not surprising that the relationships found between pre-teachin3 characteristics and subseqvent performance were also very low. The selectivity factor mentioned here is the one discovered in the study of student-teaching marks of teachers in voca- “ ”"‘IX All“ A...“ --r- ‘IVfi-f I “fly .mj ----- fivy-y-v) srru r—s‘wv‘ IV!‘ -:~,v-‘u.p' ‘7 iLJLXLlulJu; 1.1.4) C¢ 03...:1“ .T; 'XCiiI-.’J ilud‘ls TU S“ “a...“ Jasmin) L]. w ‘ VT '1’“ Id.-‘L)1L-..u v3 Cl‘ .LJIWCELJQJ‘ C'I' JU‘.J:\TI-L:l-IAXL h J. 1&1ch $9123 Ember of Chi square Areas of Teachers 2 Degrees of Performance Studied X Freedom Sec. C - "Planning and Conducting General Activities" 61 9.56 8 Sec. E -"Utilizing Acceptable Methods of Teaching" 61 h.2& 8 Sec. F - "Conducting Programs with All- Day Students" 61 5.75 8 Sec. G - "Conducting Programs with Young and Adult Farmers" 53 7.10 8 Sec. H - "Providing On—Farm Instruction" 61 6.79 8 Sec. I - "Supervising and DevelOping Farming Programs" 61 3.22 8 Sec. J - "Teamchi Farm lechanics" L7 7,45 8 QC” fit ignificant at five-percent level with iniice ted degrees of freedom tionel agriculture as compared to marks of persons trained wro ei,}er did not go into vocational a3 -culture or who d1 op ced from an LL21 TABLE XI. RELATIONSHIPS OF SOME FREFTEACHING CHARACTERISTICS TO STUDENT- TEACHING PERFORMANCE OF TEACHERS OF VOCATIONAL AGRICUITURE Number of Ch PreJTeaching Teachers 1 Square Degrees of Characteristics Studied I; Freedom ACE Psychological Test Scores 53 h.88 8 Honor-Point Ratio Third Year in College 58 9.05 8 Education 207 Mark 57 13.68 12 Education.305 Mark 61 10.17 8 "Vo~Ag Teacher's Interests" (Strong) 55 3.98 12 "Teaching Satisfaction" Scores 50 6.6a 12 "Interests of a Farmer" (Strong) 55 7.97 12 Amount (Years) of Farm EIperience 60 6.93 12 Coverage of Farm Experience 61 8.51 12 Rank Achieved in Future Farmers of America 29 10.28 12 Years Enrolled in High- School Agriculture 38 h.19 8 Average Mark in 100-200 Agricultural Courses 58 8.02 8 Instructors' Rating(Composite) 61 10.69 12 *Significant at five-percent level with indicated degrees of fre edomo 2D2 (18) the field. Some of the related findings are also of interest. For example, only two teachers had honor-point ratios the third year in college above 3.5; they had student—teaching marks of "ES." The relationship between marks in Education 207 and student teach- ing was positive but not significant at the five-percent level. It is of particular interest to compare he Education 305 marks to student teaching. It would gerhsps be exgected that a professional course in agricultural education would have a closer relsti nsnip b0 stuient teaching than any'generel education course. To illustrate this relationship, as well as to present the style of tables used in computing the Chi squares reported throughout the study, Table XII is incluied for study. A possible reason for this positive relationship may be that teacher educators are evaluating consistently for ertain objectives in the trainee and his progrem. inother reason may be that the same teacher educa- tor follows a student from his Education 305 class to his student teaching. Any previous experience with the stuient or Opinion of the student based upon past echriences might greatly influence the marks the student receives in student teaching. If the latter reason was true, there may be a continuous bias operating throughout the evaluation of groups of several individuals. Sucre, pp. 1L7-151. 203 T343723 XII EEIKA‘LTILIILSI’~ OF 1.11.3.1; 1:: DU‘JRTIO: .I 305 OF 61 TZACIZES CF UL CJKTIUD: ‘iL AerbICiJTE‘ 3.: A.::? Treulie UTJUanU—J- DlUUonl-Linonlrm Lewis ”ark in Stuiur‘~Tcec'1ng_N'rhe Education 305* CC EC BB AB AA Total A l 8 2 3 lb 0 1:) u N H «J H \o \2 H \I E: \o w Total 5 9 3!; 10 3 61 who teacher received a mark of "D" in.Education 305. t was surprising to find that teachers with marks of "3A" on student teachin' had two to three years of f€.rm ex mrience. There were only three such teachers, however, and the number is too small to draw any conclusions. \utherlanl(lg) found this same type relationship wherein some of the teachers wit the least amount of farm experience did as well or better than some teachers wi th a much greater amount of farm exterience. lgsutherland, or. cit., F0 35° o I \ _ . O 0:13r two teachers he i 3 fm -;eint \"k"/ av:ra3e in 100—200 a3ricultural courses. B oth made "CD" on stuient tefching. It is not surprising that ther rela iors hip between stu’ert teaching anl instructors' ratin3s was a so positive. However, a study of the distribution of student-teachin3 marks by each level of r: ting wouli sho ' th't rating an individ'al ani preiicting his student-teaching mark would result in some Very unlesirihle . . P. m 'H (8 ‘\~ 1 -. ‘\ '- ‘-‘f"' “O L . p: CitLlCtloqc. Lula Can be seen c3 Stuwdln; ole istri2utiou that i D \r . mru ‘ V *L r r1 '- ," " -‘ f w " "‘ . ~ 5:; P is pzesentei in LabLe “LII. Jo Can liso h- even Undt d i rge mtJUILUL of the teachers being studied were rated "1 saleable" or above preceding student tee.c 3H3, and that a lar3e majority received "3:" or better on their st Ludent-.eecnin3 Y“ruler This further .0 surverts the contextion that a su_erior 3roup 0; teachers is bcin3 studied. TABLE XLII T'fiv if“? ‘vfivy v) A“ " bvr‘vp vynm—‘lfi-"fl V3 .rfi-‘r-‘ffi 1""- - ‘v \—.'.' , y . ‘W‘ \l . - I’ , . ‘MMLLJL, .T- to I- v. .3v4“.¢~~‘ ‘Oo’.-d~ ~J’ C'\.1~.L- -’.a—-¢_J .- STVN a -‘ ‘ f‘"-r T ‘ ""'~" ’ Ml ' ‘ ' ‘ ‘V' ”'fi' ,v'fiiu" “ 1 - » - «J4‘AU. AJ.-4: A 45‘ VA“... -A- JAJ LIL: O L;i - EL»; 0F ILC ‘L “IV a. .1 :iuitJ.Vv -- U.“ Instructors' n . tudent-Teach1333Herks Rating .343“. v:o :‘f it, e» if- ‘g C B j 13:3 ‘53 4‘“in T04: :. 3 Yb: :1 ' 13 . ent l l 5 2 3 12 AC Ce {wt ab 19 3 8 23 8 1; .- Doubt f L11 5 5 ins Hti factor; 1 l h) Total 5 9 3h 10 3 61 .u, ”,3. . , .. ’7" _ ° _. _ nee teachers here rated "ouuerior" at *unior level in Colle 205 g Case-Studx Analysis 91 Five Teachers o_n- Whom Raters Could NOt Agree Consistentlx:§§.tg,Their Teaching Performance Of the original 88 teachers on whom ratings were secured, raters could not agree consistently on 26 as to their performance. H It was felt that there was value in studying a group of these 26 to determine if there were reasons why raters could not agree on their performance. Therefore, five teachers on whom least agree- ment between raters was found were selected for study. E Certain information will be presented for each individual. First, the profile data for each individual will be presented. Second, performance scores will be given by the source of rating. Third, the correlation coefficients computed between raters for subsectional performance scores will be given and interpreted. Fourth, reports of visits and comments by teacher educators, state supervisors and supervising teachers concerning the individual and his program Will be presented to see if their observations and eXperiences influenced their-ratings of the individual. Finally, each case will be summarized on the basis of the information presented. Before studying the five cases, there are several questions which should be kept in mind. These questions are: (1) Does the rating of a teacher by a teacher educator reflect the opinion gained of the student in Education 305 and his mark in this course? (2) Do comments in the report of visits indicate why teacher31may school ;* '1‘. *rvv. Crw: tv-ri‘v +‘.-" .t.‘ O -k)l'l'r‘ \ ‘voL-J -. At.“ .1" J..( .' L‘ .l- 3.-~- : .)°~':’.v—‘a~ 'l ‘ . L'.l.‘ L) 'J“ '1' .1... .- .._ - e A ‘.~) V .any‘ “qJ-f 'q. A’ J |_L E ’1‘ .‘fi ‘ A v‘ .. L a --- o 1' t I 1 J n 9.- ..) ‘ ‘3'}. d V \1T. ‘-‘ 1‘ 44¢ ble‘v ‘L .'» ”‘95 d—- .A J ,g--\\." 'D a x A p yn 7:1- .sfects of ,nrlorxenco lle (‘1- no ?‘-~ \r-.L\r\V‘I I, m 7“ "33"“.41'1‘ *0 A . or ,t. ~ ‘~ A recorded on his stulcnt prof; e: l‘! 0". ' "‘”‘Ir. ‘ ‘Q‘ — ——. I . :_ “"1 ' :11. v’01 , ,W . .. h . v”. .2) “|Jw‘—---- J..\’.° -VVU ‘fi—“él \lv\_I_-L u . . / J )» ' fl" 3 ‘ ,..‘.'.‘,~ o>\‘ - ~ ‘ fl "I bdo UVJ‘L:.JL » 9‘ wold‘UéL .- ‘JU.1 \- L \ i 4-.‘J "~v‘,-.v\‘- - n I -.lv ' l I .441; 3 L. 4;.011 ‘ VPC1‘f : \A'ryr J «hulk, , dnfi :4, \V‘ (v LJ ‘4‘ 1.4 ‘ — " kg‘ .L.’ 2MP r .| ' - ‘ JV/ formance was evalua ed. fn" L.» - 0 v..." ‘AI.—\‘,.r“l,-‘9-\r\ 1 -| t " Pr.” - A ' ..‘ U 4 A ~ V dhy'do raters nct see ‘4. I .. ‘~%‘.s \J o 10 o...“ -. ,vnn lnllf"~ It? The following scores were -‘ V J4 x .’ .,.r,s-~tr ”1:“! ”a-.. A .fi. . or." 'J*\) A»-_L at A .4‘ .- - ‘—.U ..3 A .. n .L ‘.l L, — K“ . |~_l q o A ~ ‘ WC" _ . .41.. -4. ~.\J K) J '\ I . " ‘ v m ”fin. - 3w LJ\ ‘1‘; wvuJ. .. ‘- id .»»1 I ' -'." f“. " H '_ r ' I. ‘3 ~ .3 -- J5, -| .A . Ain‘t-v.- kJ "JL: U] 207 anlifications in W: Amount of farm eXperience - 2.0 Coverage of farm experience - C mark F.F.A. (Rank) - State Farmer Years of high-school agriculture - 3.5 Years of h—H Club membership - 1.5 Ave. mark in "100—200" Agricultural courses - 1.5 Student-Teachg’ g Marks: "CC" (2) The performance scores given this individual by the raters are presented in Table XXIII. (3) Only one Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient was com- puted between raters since only two ratings were secured for this individual. This correlation of scores based upon ratings by a teacher educator and a state supervisor was .177 with a "t" value of .566 which is not significant at the five-percent level of significance. This means that the subsectional scores assigned by teacher educators did not correlate significantly with scores assigned this individual by state supervisors. (1.) The state supervisors and teacher educators had visited the teacher on his job and had observed him doing instructional work. Previous to this the supervising teacher in the department in Which the individual did student teaching had made several coments concerning this individual. The supervising teacher commented: "....makes pleasing appearance - - - will make average or better teacher, provided he can get some help, some encouragement, in being a bit more energetic and thorough in his work. People will like him, 208 TABLE.XLIII PERFORMANCE SCORES OF CASE NUMBER ONE Subsect ional Raters Area of School Teacher State Performance Administratori" Educator Supervisor A 7h .7 72 .5 B -5 .7 100 C -100 100 D 7 .1 66 .h E 17 .h 100 F -h7 .7 75 .9 G ~31. .6 100 H ~100 56.3 I -12 .3 100 J ~20 .3 100 K 81.7 100 Ave . -7 .L 91.7 *No' rating secured from this teacher's administrator as the rating scale was not returned. but his work may be shallow.” A course instructor said: "......Volun- teered for comittee work; little participation in class discussion; few questions or cements; average prospect for teaching." A state 209 supervisor in one of his reports of a visit comented that: "....much work is still needed to bring the supervised farming program to a satisfactory scope - - he would have to spend considera- ble time coordinating the program of the school with the parents and students if a. strong vocational program is to be operated. He is making fine progress in the organization and operation of his F.F.A. program - boys are taking an active part in development and Operation of local program." (5) To summarize this case, it can be said that the individual appears to have approximately average scholastic ability of college freshman. However, his scholastic achievement the first two years in college are slightly below average. His achievement in professional course work indicates that he did average work in two courses and below average in two others. One of the courses in which he did below average work was Education 305 which is the introductory course in agricultural education. His qualifications in farming are below average for beginning teachers of agriculture. There is some indication that the "CC" marks in student teaching are in keeping with his professional background. It seems likely that the teacher educator rating this teacher knew of this individual's background, marks in professional courses, and qualifications in farming. The fact that the individual had 3. below average record may be reflected in the low performance scores assigned by the teacher educator. 210 The state supervisor rated this man 56.3 on Section H, which is "Providing OneFarm.Instruction", and 100 on Section I, which is "Supervising and Developing Farming Programs." From the comments of the supervisor after one of his visits, it would be expected that a lower score would have been assigned for this latter area by the supervisor. Comments by the supervising teacher and a course instructor indicate that the individual was an average student with perhaps not too much initiative. The individual had commented in his auto- biography that he came from a broken home. His parents were divorced when he was five years of age. The lack of agreement concerning this teacher's performance seems to be related to the fact that the teacher educator was per- haps more familiar with the individual, knew of his limitations and previous shortcomings, and this knowledge perhaps accounts for the low scores assigned; whereas, the casual observations of the state supervisor had perhaps failed to detect these inadequacies at the time of rating. Case Number Two (1) This teacher graduated from.college in the 1949-50 school.year. He had been teaching approximately three years at the . 9' time his performance was evaluated. recorded on his student profile: Scholastic Ability: ACE Intelligence Test - lst decile Reading Comprehension - lst decile Professional Characteristics: Achievements Education 202 - C PSychology 201 -»C Education 207 - B Education 305 - B ggalificat ions _i_1;1. Em: 211 The following scores were Scho last ic Achievement : Honor-Pt. Ratio First Year - 2.0 Honor-Pt. Ratio Second Year - 2.5 Honor-Pt. Ratio Third Year - 2.5 Five Basics - 2.3 Basic English - 2.7 Interests : Vo—Ag Teachers (Strong's) - No record Teaching Satisfaction -'No record Interests of a farmer (Strong) - No record Amount of farm experience - 2.5 years Coverage of farm eXperience - C mark F.F.A. (Rank) - Chapter Farmer Years of Higthchool Agriculture - 1. Years of h—H Club Membership - None Average mark in "100-200" Agricultural Courses - 3.0 Student-Teacth Marks: "BB" (2) The performance scores given this individual by the raters are presented in Table XLIV. (3) Three Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficients were com- puted between raters. The correlation of scores between teacher educators and administrator was -.2J+8 with a "t" of .808 which was not significant at the five-percent level. The correlation between teacher educator and state supervisor was .323 with a "t" of 1.020 which 212 TABIE XIIV PERFORMANCE SCORES OF CASE NUMBER TWO W Subsectional Raters Area of “School— Teacher State Performance Administrator Educ at or Supervisor A 71+ .7 100 100 B 76.8 -l.5 68.6 C 69 .1 75 .1 85 .5 D 67.2 100 100 E 100 82 .8 9 .1 F 71.8 100 31+ .9 G 100 4.2 .8 * H 100 56.3 27.7 I 100 80 .1. 100 J 81.9 12 100 K 100 100 100 Ave. 87 .1 69.0 75 .6 *No‘ basis for a decision. was not significant. The correlation between school administrator and state supervisor was -.127 with a “t" of .383 which also Was insignificant at the five-percent lavel. (1+) Several cements were made regarding this individual and his program in Operation. The supervising teacher said: uHe talks 213 too fast." The teacher educator, after a visit to the department in which the individual was employed, commented: ”.....maintains a fine rapport with students observed; class was conducted informally and a good response was elicited; thorough job of pupilateacher planning was done, but without much reference to needs on the home farms and farming programs represented; farm mechanics class not well planned -poor use of space and poor housekeeping. His super- intendent is more aware of the contribution which the department can make to community than is the agricultural.teacher." The state supervisor who observed the individual said: '.....he seems to be doing a rather satisfactory job as far as classroom.and onethe—farm visits are concerned. There are students in vocational agriculture classes with not much opportunity to develop broad programs of supervised farming; ....found very limited application of farmp mechanics instruction directly to projects of a farm nature. .....Teacher said few boys lived on farm - farm mechanics was not up to standard the day of my visit." (5) To summarize this case, it appears that this individual is below average in scholastic ability, yet he achieved slightly above average in his scholastic record and professional course work. He had a fair background in farming with four years of agricultural instruction at the secondary level, and he maintained a "B" average in technical agriculture in college. His lowest area of performance as scored by a teacher educator was for Section G which is "Conducting 21A Programs with Young Farmers and/or Adult Farmers." There is some indication that scores by teacher educators and administrators on Section J were influenced by the type of farm-mechanics program the teacher was conducting. On the other hand, the state super- visor recognized definite limitations in this part of the teacher's program, yet scored him perfect in performance. There is no reason to believe that the state supervisor was scoring this individual on general impression rather than on specific terms of performance called for on the rating form used. Several areas of this teacher's performance seem to be quite satisfactory. In their reports of visits, the teacher educator and state supervisor recognized about the same limitations in the farm-mechanics phase of his program. The relationship found between teacher and pupils appears good. The reason for disagreement between raters concerning this teacher's performance is questionable. It may be the result of some raters rating on the basis of specific items of performance in contrast to others rating on the basis of general impression even though Specifics are called for in the rating form. gees.- W 211223 (1) The teacher graduated from college in the 1949-50 school year. He had been teaching approximately three years at the time his performance was evaluated. The following scores were recorded on his I» I 215 student profile : figholastic Ability: Scholastic Achievement: ACE Intelligence - No record Honor-Pt. Ratio First Year - 1.8 Reading Comprehension - No record Honor-Pt. Ratio Second Year - 2.2 Honor-Pt. Ratio Third Year - 2.3 Five Basics - 2.0 Basic English - 2.0 Brofessional Characteristics: Interests: .: Achievement Vo-Ag Teachers (Strong's) - Education 202 - B No record Psychology 201 - C Teaching Satisfaction - Education 207 - B No record Education 305 - A Interests of a Farmer - No record Qu_alifications in. Farming: Amount of farm eXperience - 2.2 years Coverage of farm experience - D mark F.F.A. (Rank) - Not a member Years of high-school agriculture - None Years of A—H Club membership - None Average mark in “100-200" Agricultural Courses - 2.3 Student—Teaching Marks: ''CC" (2) The performance scores given this individual by the raters are presented in Table XLV. (3) Three Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficients were computed between raters evaluating the performance of this individual. The correlation of scores between teacher educator and administrator was .387 with a '’t" of 1.257 which was not significant at the five-percent 216 TABLE.XLV PERFORMANCE SCORES OF CASE NUMBER THREE W i:::e:;ional school Teafiggirs State PerfOrmance Administrator Educator Supervisor A 39.0 -60.7 100 B: 100 -60.7 100 c -58.2 -1oo 62.5 D -3.3 29.2 100 E -57.3 -66.2 27.9 F 0.0 -l4.1 1.8 G ~37.7 ~100 80.1 H ‘* ~lOO 100 I 54.2 -15.3 100 J 60.8 -53.3 -75.1 K 74.3 -28.1 100 Ave. 13.5 ~49.5 60.4 *No basis for a decision. level. The correlation between teacher educator and state supervisor was .203 with a "t" of .653 which was not significant. The correla- tion between school.administrator and state supervisor was .373 with a "t” of 1.204 which was insignificant at the five-percent level. 217 (4) Several comments were made regarding this individual. An instructor of Education 302 and 406 said: "....does just enough to get by in quantity and quality." His instructor in Education 305 indicated he did - "Excellent work." The teacher stated in his autobiography - ”Shall teach several years, buy a farm.and settle down." The supervising teacher noticed that he was a poor speller and said: "Poor spelling at times has almost developed into a discipline problem. He does not visualize where he is going." The teacher educator in reports of visits in the teacher's department stated that: "The superintendent is quite pleased with Mr. x. His only criticism was that 'he talks too much'. Classes seemed to be operating satisfactorily. He tended at times to confuse his pupils. He is failing to use local farming situations in his classroom work. The farm.shop has serious shortage of tools for farm shop projects." A state supervisor commented briefly: ”...seems well liked by- students. ...conducts an interesting and lively discussion." (5) To summarize this case, it appears that the teacher had average scholastic achievement in college. His achievement the first year was slightly below average. However, his achievement in professional course work was above average. He does not possess a strong background in farming. He did not belong to or participate in any rural youth groups listed. In comparison to the majority of student teachers, he was below average in student teaching. The teacher educator's rating of this teacher seems to correlate with $7 . ‘71)..4-131 “near—“*"' ‘ ‘ 218 what he reported after visiting the individual. Example of this is the ratings given in Section E - "Utilizing Acceptable Methods of Teaching", Section F - "Conducting Programs with Yomg and/or Adult Farmers" in relationship to the statements that the teacher confused his pupils and failed to use local farming situations in applying classroom work. His administrator rated him down in several sections. One of these was in Section D - IMaintaining Administrative Relationships." This appears interesting since the administrator had commented that the teacher"talks too much." little evidence of why the supervisor rated him as he did is given. The reason for lack of agreement between raters on this teacher's per- formance is still in doubt. It may be due to more observation of the teacher by two of the raters than by the other rater. Case Number Four (1) This teacher graduated from college in the 1951-52 school year. He had been teaching approximately one year at the time his performance was evaluated. The following scores were recorded on his student profile: Scholastic Ability: Scholastic Achievement: ACE Intelligence Test - 2nd decile Honor-Pt. Ratio First Year - 2.1 Reading Comprehension - 4th decile Honor-Pt. Ratio Second Year- 2.1 Honor-Pt. Ratio Third Year - 2.2 Five Basics - 2.2 Basic English - 2.0 219 Professional Characteristics: Interests: Achievement Vb—Ag Teacher's (Strong's) - Education 202 - C 3rd decile Psychology 201 -D Teaching Satisfaction - 7th Education 207 -’B decile Education 305 -‘D Interests of a Farmer (Strong's)- 3rd decile anlificat ions in m: Amount of farm.eXperience - 2 years Coverage of farm.experience - C mark F.F.A. (Rank) - Net a member Years of high-school agriculture - ane Years of 4-H Club membership - None Average mark in "100-200“ Agricultural Courses - 3.0 Student-Teaching Marks: "BC" (2) The performance scores given this individual by the raters are presented in Table.XLVI. (3) Three Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficients were comp puted between raters evaluating the performance of this individual. The correlation of scores between teacher educator and administrator was .167 with a "t" of .534 which was not significant at the five-per- cent level. The correlation between teacher educator and state supervisor was .326 with a "t" of 1.075 which was not significant. The correlation between the school administrator and state supervisor was .331'With a "t“ of 1.092 which was also insignificant at the five-percent level. (4) Several comments were made regarding the individual and his program by teacher educators, state supervisors, and others. 220 TABIE XLVI PERFOP LANCE SCORES OF CASE NUMBER FOUR Subsectional Raters Area of school Teacher State Performance Administrator Educator Supervisor A 47.9 10 100 B 100 48 77.5 C 61 76 .4 100 D 100 100 100 a 100 18 I 100 F 71.1 -16 100 G 61.7 100 100 H .100 -1.2 100 I 100 100 100 J 100 100 100 K 100 100 100 Ave. 83.6 69.7 98.4 The teacher revealed in his autobiography that he was an only child and that he had an operation for goiter in 1951. A teacher educa- tor reported on visiting him.and said: "He had given considerable attention to setting up a new farm shop; students seem to like him; class participation good; knew what he was trying to accomplish; kept 221 class moving nicely although once or twice he seemed at a loss as hOW'tO proceed when a question was raised which did not seem particularly related to the lesson; expressed particular satis- faction with adult work; students seem.to like his friendly, un- assuming manner; spelling is a problem for him;:made visits to all his students before school started. A state supervisor commented that: ".....students are getting some good experience in getting shop ready for use. ....is a promising, young teacher - but could be more forceful in his teaching; made few farm.visits in October; needs a course outline for his day-school program." (5) To summarize this case, it appears that the teacher has slightly below average scholastic ability. His scholastic achieve- ment was average, but his marks in professional course work is below average. His interests and teaching satisfaction ratings are comparable to the criterion group of successful teachers and farmers. He has minimum.farm.eXperiences for a teacher of agri- culture. He was not a member of any recorded rural.youth organiza- tion or instructional program. Scores between raters correlated positively, but not at an acceptable level of significance. The teacher educator scored the individual low in Section F - "Conduct- ing Programs with All-Day Students." This may have resulted from his observation of the teacher's difficulty in handling unrelated questions raised during class discussions. The raters agreed that his performance in several areas was very good. The state super- 222 visor seemed to consistently rate the teacher higher than did any other rater. The state supervisor's comments indicate some additional farm visits might be desirable, yet scored the indi- vidual "100" for Section H - "Providing;0n~Farm Instruction." The reason for lack of agreement of this teacher's performance between raters is not indicated too strongly in the data accumu- lat ed 0 Case Number Five (1) This teacher graduated from college in the 1950-51 school year. He had been teaching approximately two years at the time his performance was evaluated. The follOWing scores were recorded on his student profile: Scholastic Ability: Scholastic Achievement: ACE Intelligence Test - 6th decile Honor-Ft. Ratio First Year - 2.0 Reading Comprehension - 3rd decile Honor-Pt. Ratio Second Year - 2.1 Honor-Pt. Ratio Third Year - 2.3 Five Basics - 2.0 Basic English - transferred Professional Characteristics: Interests: Achievement Vb-Ag Teacher's (Strong's) - Education 202 - C 5th decile Paychology 201 -’D Teaching Satisfaction - 4th decile Education 207 -»B Interests of a Farmer (Strong's) - Education 305 - C 5th decile Eggalifications in Farmg’ g: Amount of farm.eXperience -2 years Coverage of farm.experience - C mark F.F.A. (Rank) - Net a.member 223 Years Of high-school agriculture - 0.5 Years of 4-H Club membership - None Average mark in "100-200" agricultural courses - 2.9 Student-Teachigg Marks: "CC" (2) The performance scores given this individual by the raters are presented in Table XINII. TABLE XINII PERFORMANCE SCORES OF CASE NUMBER FIVE Subsectional Raters Area of School Teacher State Performance Administrator Educator Supgggisor A ~42.8 20.8 100* B 100 -100 27.9 C 45.3 -32.1 50.7 D 100 52 100 E 100 -52.5 33.7 F 100 -33.3 100 G ** *n ** H 100 ~38.7 45.9 I 76.5 18.1 63.2 J ** 63.9 ** K 100 100 100 Ave. 68.4 9 63 .1 / *NO basis for a decision. **NO-program in Operation in this area. /Scored on less than 201.7 points (50 percent of points on rating scale). 224 (3) Only one Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient was computed between raters evaluating the performance of this individual. The correlation of scores between teacher educator and administrator was -.150 with a "t" of .420 which was not significant at the five-percent level. Since the supervisor did not rate the teacher on a sufficient number of items to produce a valid rating, only one correlation coefficient was computed. (4) Several comments were made regarding the individual and his program.in reports of visits by a teacher educator and state Supervisor. The teacher educator reported: "He said he would not teach adult classes at X;' classwork badly organized; too easy on pupils; poor professional attitude; places himself on same level as pupils; states he would resign if he had to teach an adult class; handicapped because of study hall assignments." The state supervisor reported: "Although the teacher of vocational agriculture has had full time to devote to vocational agriculture, the adult- and out-of-school young-farmer groups have not been developed. The first year Mr. X was at X, 96 percent of his students received experience in a supervised farming program and 83 percent had owner- ship growing toward establishment in farming. iLast year only 79 percent received experience at the 'doing' level and 55 percent were carrying ownership projects." The supervisor, in a letter to the teacher's superintendent, stated: ".....insufficient time is allowed your teacher to do an adequate job of on—farm instruction." 225 (5) To summarize this case, it appears that this individual is approximately average in scholastic ability and achievement. His achievement in professional courses is slightly below average of the majority of teachers trained. His teaching satisfaction score is average for teachers of vocational agriculture. He had very little experience in rural youth organizations and instruc~ tional programs. He had minimum.qualifications of farm.experience for a teacher of vocational agriculture. The scores assigned this teacher by’a teacher educator are in keeping with the things observed regarding the teacher and his program.during a visit. The teacher educator's most severe criticism.seemed to be in regard to the teacher's poor professional attitude. It was in.this area B - "Maintains Professional Standards and Relationships" - that the teacher educator rated this individual -100. The state supervisor was rather severe in his criticism of the program in operation, yet he did not rate a sufficient number of items to really be considered. The implication given by the supervisor was that the supervised farming programs was deteriorating in quality since the employment of this teacher. From the comments and ratings of the raters, it is understandable why this teacher was rated low in performance. A possible reason.why raters did not agree on this teacher's performance may be due to the amount of observation of the teacher and his attitude. Even though the teacher 226 educator and state supervisor had Observed the poor professional attitude of the teacher and his lack of desire to Operate out-Of- school groups, they did not agree on the relative performance of this teacher in the two areas involved. General Summagy‘9£.the Five Cases It is felt that some possible reasons were discovered as . to why raters did not agree on some teachers' performances. In general, it was noted that the five cases studied were only average students on a majority of characteristics on their student pro- files. The very fact that they are just average persons and were not either extremely high or low in measurable characteristics may have created confusion and difficulty in rating their reapective performances. There was indication that the lack of agreement of some teachers' performance may be related to the fact that the teacher educators were more familiar with the beginning teachers than were either administrators or state supervisors. In this case, it is apparent that the teacher educators were more likely to know of the individual's strengths and limitations, thus accounting for the scores assigned. On the other hand, the casual Observations of the state supervisors and administrators may have failed to detect any strengths or inadequacies at the time of rating. The amount and 227 nature of observation both seem.to be important in securing agree- ment as to a teacher's performance. Another possible reason for lack of agreement on performance scores assigned by raters is that raters may recognize certain limitations of a teacher or his program, yet disregard these factors in their evaluations. There is reason to believe that, in this case, raters sometimes scored individuals on general impression rather than on specific items of performance called for on the rating form used. Another aspect of this results when one rater scores on specific items of performance in contrast to others rating a teacher on general impression. There is also reason to believe that some raters consistently rate individuals higher than do other raters. In several cases, it was found that some raters commented in their reports of visits that certain limitations were evident either in a teacher or his program, yet they rated teachers high in these areas of performance. The state supervisors did not consult reports on file during the process of rating teachers. Some of the teacher educators did refer to reports of visits during the process of rating teachers. Whether some raters are more discriminatory in their ratings or not is not known. There are, however, evidences that they may be. It is believed that much evidence of a teacher's performance was discovered in studying reports of visits by state supervisors and teacher educators. When considered in this light, certain general 228 impressions of performance in relationship to pre-teaching characteristics of the five cases can be made. It is fairly evi- dent that teachers on whom raters could not agree did not score relatively high on performance. Similarly, their pre-teaching characteristics considered jointly were only average to below average to below average. When considered in these general terms, there appears to be a positive relationship between low perfOrmance scores and low scores on measurable, pre-teaching characteristics of teachers of vocational agriculture. Since performance scores of these teachers did not correlate significantly between raters, their performance was not, however, studied for determining statis- tically whether this apparent positive association was significant or not at the five-percent level of acceptance. Prediction of Teacher Performance on the Basis of Student-Profile It was not a stated purpose of this study to attempt to predict teaching performance, but rather to analyze the relationships of pre-teaching characteristics to subsequent performance of teachers of vocational agriculture. It is, however, recognized that persons viewing a student's profile either consciously or unconsciously do a certain amount of predicting even in a guidance and counseling situation which is normally encountered. This being the case, it appears worthy to consider whether performance can be predicted on 229 the basis of the student-profile data which have been studied. To implement this phase of the study, two individuals were selected to predict the performance of the 62 teachers being studied on the basis of their student profiles. One of these individuals was a trained vocational educationist with seven years of professional eXperience who did not know the 62 individuals. He was, however, familiar with the student profiles and their current uses. The other individual was a trained, experienced educational psychologist who was not acquainted with the individuals being studied. The reasons for selecting these particular individuals were: (1) a prediction by'a person trained as a teacher of voca— tional agriculture and currently engaged in teacher-educating work was desired, (2) a prediction was desired from.a person who had considerable knowledge Of the factors on the student profile yet had not had experience in using these particular ones, and (3) the individuals selected were not acquainted with any of the 62 teachers, thereby eliminating possible bias due to previous knowledge of a teacher. Each of the two predictors were given the 62 student profiles containing all available information on the pre-teaching characteris- tics. Each predictor was directed to study each student's profile as a composite of the student's pre-teaching characteristics and from the data supplied to predict the performance level of each teacher. No Specific number of teachers were to be predicted as top, average or 230 poor teachers. It was left to the predictor to determine how many teachers would be predicted in each level of performance. Since the use of the student profile had been based solely upon intuitive knowledge of any possible relationships of characteristics to performance, no system was supplied to the predictors for a basis of making their predictions. This created an intuitive prediction of the 62 teachers much like any prediction which may have occurred previously without any valid foundation. This point should be understood clearly to see the intent and purpose of securing the predictions made. The essential question faced therefore is: Can teacher performance be predicted on the basis of the student-profile data currently being used? The criterion of teacher performance used is that of the average perfOrmance scores derived from.the ratings of teachers supplied by school administrators, teacher educators and state super- visors. The relationship of prediction of performance to actual rated performance level of the 62 teachers was tested by the method of Chi square to determine if the association was significant at the five-percent level. The trained vocational educationist predicted teacher perfor- mance on three levels - "top", "average" and "poor" teachers. The relationship of performance level to the prediction of performance on the basis of student profile data by the vocational educationist is shown in.Table XLVIII. The Chi square computed on the data given ‘-_‘ 231 was 3.47 with four degrees of freedom which was not significant at the five-percent level. On the basis of this test, it would be concluded that this predictor could not successfully predict TABIE XLVIII RELATIONSHIP OF PERFORMANCE IEVEL T0 HiEDICTION OF PERFORMANCE ON BASIS OF STUDENT-PROFIIE DATA FOR 62 TEACHERS OF VOCATIONAL AGRICUIII'URE BY WEDICTOR "A” Average Predicted Predicted Predicted Performance “Peor" “Average" "Top" level Teachers Teachers Teachers Total 97.6 - up 7 14 4 25 92.6 " 97.5 9 13 2 21]. Below 92.5 6 5 2 13 Total 22 32 8 62 teacher performance on the basis of student profile data alone. It is interesting that 50 percent of the predicted "top" teachers scored above 97.6 on average performance; 40.6 percent of the predicted "average" teachers scored above 97.6; and 31.8 percent of the predicted "bottom" teachers scored above 97.6 on average performance. On the other hand, 25 percent of the "top" teachers scored below 92.5 as compared to 15.6 percent of the 232 "average" teachers and 27.2 percent of the predicted "bottom" teachers. These percentages indicate that the predictor could predict to a very slight extent, yet not at a significant level for statistical acceptance. The trained, experienced educational psychologist pre- dicted teacher performance on five levels, using letter marks as predicted performance levels. For example, "A" designates predicted superior performance, "C" designates predicted average performance, "D" designates predicted below average performance and "F" designates predicted failing performance. The relation- ship of performance level to the prediction of performance on the basis of student-profile data by the educational psychologist is presented in Table XIIX. The Chi square computed from these data was 2.13, with eight degrees of freedom. This Chi square was not significant at the five-percent level. Therefore, it would be concluded that this particular predictor could not successfully predict teacher performance on the basis of student-profile data alone. It was also found that 38.8 percent of the teachers predicted "B" or above scored above 97.6 on average performance as compared to 36.8 percent predicted "D" or below. Similarly, 38.8 percent of the teachers predicted "B" or above scored between 92.6 and 97.5 as compared to 36.8 percent predicted "D" or below. Also, 22.4 percent of the teachers predicted "B" or better scored below 92.5 on average performance as compared to 26.4 percent “In! 233 predicted "D" or below. The latter predictor commented that collegiate extra-curricular activities and some measure of social adjustment should be included on the student profile to aid in making better predictions of teacher performance. TABLE.XIIX RELATIONSHIP OF PERFORl-JXNCE IEVEL TO HIFDICTED PERFORMANCE ON BASIS OF STUDENT-PROFIIE DATA FOR 62 TEACHERS OF VOCATIONAL.A3RICULTURE BY EREDICTOR "B" Average Number of Performance Teachers at Each level of Predicted Performance level F D C B A Total 97.6 -»up 2 5 11 4 3 25 92.6 - 97.5 3 4 10 4 3 24 Below 92.5 1 4 4 2 2 13 Total 6 13 25 10 8 62 On the basis of the evidence presented here, it is the contention that teacher performance cannot be successfully predicted on the basis of the present profile factors without knowing the relationships established in this study; There are reasons to believe that additional profile factors are needed before teacher performance can be predicted at a level Of statistical acceptance. The findings 234 presented substantiate the belief that - until such profile factors are found to be valid for selection of students and prediction of teacher performance - the profile data should not be used for these purposes. Additional implicated factors should be accumulated. If this policy is adopted, additional research and continuous study must be made in this area to arrive at any satisfactory system of utilizing student-profile data. CHAPTER V SUMMARY The summary of this study is divided into two sections. The first section is concerned with development of the rating instrument, procedures used, trial test findings, and review of literature. The second section will be devoted entirely to a summary of the most important findings. Procedureg, Rating Instrument and Related Findings 1. A rating scale was developed for evaluating performance of teachers of vocational agriculture. A jury of six teacher educators, five state supervisors, and four school administrators evaluated and weighted items which composed the scale. A set of standards was develoned to serve as a basis for inclusion of each item on the scale. A total of 107 of 146 items on the original scale met the standards and were retained for the revised scale. This represented 73.2 percent of the original items retained. 2. A trial test was conducted, using the original perfor- mance rating scale. A system for scoring the scale was developed. Ratings Of 10 teachers' performances were secured in the trial test from teacher educators, state supervisors and school administra- 236 tors. The test of Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient was used to determine if ratings between raters were significantly related. Average performance scores for the ten teachers did not correlate at the five-percent level of significance. A total of 26 Spearman's Correlations was computed between raters on subsectional scores of teachers' performance. It was found that 15, or 57.7 percent, of 26 correlations were significant at the five-percent level, based upon subsectional scores. Seven of 10 teachers' subsectional scores between two or more raters correlated at the five-percent level. 3. A total of 174 persons were trained as teachers of voca— tional agriculture in Michigan between 1948-49 and December, 1952. Of this number, 86, or 49.4 percent, were not teaching at the time of the study. Therefore, 88, or 50.6 percent of those trained were teaching. 4. Ratings for the 88 teachers were secured from teacher educators, state supervisors, and school administrators. One- hundred percent returns of ratings were secured from teacher educa- tors and state supervisors, and 86, or 96.5 percent, of the 88 school administrators responded to the request for performance ratings. 5. In testing scores of the 88 teachers by analysis of variance, it was found that average performance scores fluctuated more among teacher educators, school administrators, and state 237 supervisors than scores assigned to teachers by teacher educators when considered alone. The same was true for scores by school administrators and state supervisors. 6. Sixty-two teachers' performance scores between two or more raters correlated at the five-percent level of significance. Therefore, 70.4 percent, or 62, of the 88 teachers were studied in analyzing pre-teaching characteristics and teaching performance. A total of 113 of 226 Spearman's Correlation Coefficients were significant at the five-percent level. The Spearman-Brown Prophecy Formula revealed estimates of reliabilities ranging from .562 to .671, based on average performance scores. From this standpoint, the instrument was as reliable as any other rating instrument on which reliability data were available. The subsectional scores for the 62 teachers were averaged and subsequently served as the criterion of performance. 7. A skewed distribution of performance scores-for the 62 teachers resulted from the ratings secured. 8. An extensive review of literature revealed that much research has been conducted in areas of predicting teacher effec- tiveness and measuring teaching ability. Two possible criteria of teaching effectiveness were studied: (1) observation and evalua- tion Of the teacher and (2) observation and evaluation of the product of the teacher - the pupil. 9. Important findings revealed in review of studies were: (1) low to insignificant correlations were found between teaching 238 interest and practice teaching and teaching success; (2) vocational interests correlated very low to teaching success; (3) successful teachers of agriculture more often belong to farm organizations during their youth than do non-successful teachers; (4) there is disagreement as to whether farm experience is closely associated with teaching vocational agriculture; (5) very few recommended training experiences of prospective teachers had close relation- ship to first year performance; and (6) practically all investiga- tors agreed that prediction of teaching success on factors studied to date is yet unaccomplished. Findings 9}; Relationships 1. A total of 21 measurable characteristics on the student profile were analyzed for relationships to teaching per- formance. Student-teaching marks were also studied in relationship to teacher performance. 2. In analyzing the distribution of the pre-teaching data of the 62 teachers, it was discovered that teachers remain- ing in vocational agriculture had received statistically higher student-teaching marks than persons trained who dropped from the field. This was interpreted to mean that a superior group of teachers was studied. For a majority of the 21 pre-teaching characteristics on the student profile, the teachers studied were above average. 239 3. The Chi square computed between average performance scores of teachers and the 21 pre-teaching characteristics were not significant at the five-percent level. 4. Only 29 of the 62 teachers had been members of the FFA. Thirty-four and five-tenths percent of these scored above 97.6 as compared to 48.5 percent of the teachers who had not been members. These percentages, however, were not significantly different. 5. 0f eight teachers with more than 4.1 years of farm experience, three scored above 97.6 on average performance, three scored between 92.6 and 97.5 and two scored below 77.5 on average performance. 0f four teachers receiving a mark of "A" for coverage (scope and variety) of farm experience, one scored above 97.6 on average performance, two scored between 92.6 and 97.5 and one scored below 77.5. 6. No significant difference was found between teachers having and not having had high-school agriculture and scoring above 97.6 on average performance. 7. Of six.teachers scoring below 77.5 on average performance, two received a rating of "Excellent“ by the composite of instructors' ratings; three were rated "Acceptable" and one "Doubtful." 8. A comparison of the eight "top" and eight "bottom" teachers in performance revealed little differences between the groups on the traits studied. The only characteristics which were slightly in favor of the "top" performing group Of teachers were: 240 (1) mark in.Education 202; (2) mark in Paychology 201; (3) coverage of farm experience; (4) number Of’years of 4-H Club membership; and (5) student-teaching marks. Top and bottom groups, reapectively, had "A" ratings for "Interests of a Teacher of Vocational Agri- culture", "Teaching Satisfaction", and "Interests of a Farmer." 9. Only five of 56 teachers had a "B" rating for "Interest of a Teacher of Vocational Agriculture." Fifty-one had rated interests of "A", meaning that their interests are comparable to those of the criterion group of successful teachers. Since 50 of 51 teachers had ”A" ratings for "Teaching Satisfaction" and only one had a ”B" rating, this group should be well satisfied with their work and jobs. 10. A negative relationship, significant at the five-percent level, was found between ACE Paychological test scores and perfor- mance of teachers in "Working with People in Communityx" Four teachers with ACE scores above the eighth decile scored below 87.5 on perfOrmance, whereas teachers having ACE scores below the third decile did not score as low as 82.5. No significant relation- ships were established between "Reading Comprehension" scores and selected areas of performance of teachers of vocational agriculture. 11. Only five scores for mechanical index were found for the 62 teachers. Since data were insufficient for adequate study, no relationship could be established with performance and this factor. 241 12. The Chi squares computed between scholastic achieve- ment as measured by honor-point ratio and performance in five selected areas were not significant at the five-percent level. However, "Planning and Conducting General Activities" had the highest positive relationship to honor-point ratio. There was some indication that persons with high honor-point ratios more often conducted programs with out-of-school groups than did persons with low honor-point ratios. The Chi square computed between performance of teachers in "Working with People in Community" and the "Five Basics" was significant at the ten- percent level. A significant negative Chi square, at the five- percent level, was found between performance of teachers in "Maintaining Professional Standards and Relationships" and the "Five Basics." No significant relationship was found between "Basic English" and selected areas of performance. 13. No significant relationships were found between Education 305, Education 207, and Education 202 and selected areas of perfOrmance. However, a significant positive relationship was found between achievement in Psychology 201 and performance in "Working with People in Community." 14. Teachers with "A" rated "Interests of a Teacher of Vocational Agriculture" scored statistically above the arithmetic mean for average teacher performance. Teachers with "A" ratings generally score high in performance, but infrequently a small number score low. 242 15. Significantly positive associations, at the five- percent level, were found between "Interests of a Farmer (Strong)" and performance of teachers in "Working with People in Community" and "Conducting Programs with All-Day Students." A positive association, at the 10 percent level, was found between "Interests of a Farmer" and "Conducting Programs with Young and/Or Adult Farmers." Ninety percent of the teachers with "A" rated interests scored above 97.6 in "Providing On—Farm.Instruotion." 16. A positive relationship was found between the amount of farm experience and "Conducting Programs with YOung and Adult Farmers.” The significant relationship, at the five-percent level, found between amount of farm eXperience and ”Providing On-Farm Instruction" was negative. All of the 16 teachers with only two years of farm experience scored above 97.6 on "Providing On-Farm Instruction" compared to 18 of 23 with more than 3.1.years scoring above this level; four scored below 72.5. 17. NO significant relationships were discovered between rank achieved in the FFA and selected areas of performance. A negative relationship, at the five-percent level, was found between years of high-school agriculture and "Providing On—Farm Instruction.” Eightyaone and five-tenths percent of the teachers having high-school agriculture, and 83.3 percent not having high- school agriculture scored above 97.6 on "Supervising and Developing Farming Programs." Only 30 of the 62 teachers were former members 243 of the 4-H Club. A positive Chi square, at the ten-percent level, was found between "Average marks in 100-200 agricultural courses" and performance in I"Teaching Farm Mechanics." It was found that 88.8 percent of teachers having a "B" or better average on 100—200 agricultural courses scored above 97.6 on "Conducting Programs with All-Day Students" compared to 82.5 percent of the teachers having less than a "B" average. 18. Two of ten Chi squares computed between instructors' ratings and selected areas of performance were significant at the five-percent level. The relationship between instructors' ratings and "Utilizing Acceptable Methods of Teaching" was found to be positive, but the relationship found with performance in "Maintaining Administrative Relationships" was negative. Fourteen and five-tenths percent of the teachers rated "Acceptable" or better scored below 87.5 on "Utilizing Acceptable methods of Teaching" compared to 42.8 percent of the teachers rated "Doubtful." 19. No significant associations were found between student- teaching marks and selected areas of performance. Of 13 teachers reported having no farmemechanics programs, one received "AA" in Student Teaching, two received "AB“, six received "BB", two received "BC" and two received "CO". No significant relationships were found between student-teaching marks and pre-teaching characteristics. The two highest positive relationships were found with Education 305 marks and instructors' ratings. 20. A case-study analysis of five teachers on whom raters could not agree on their performance was made. Teacher educators, state supervisors and others in their reports concerning the five teachers and their programs revealed possible reasons why raters did not agree on each teachers' performance. Reasons which seemed apparent included: (1) cases studied were "average" - not extremely high or low in measurable characteristics - this may have created difficulty in rating performance; (2) teacher educators were more familiar with the beginning teachers than were either administrators or state supervisors; (3) raters sometimes scored individuals on general impression rather than on specific items of performance called for on the rating form; and (4) some raters consistently rated individuals higher than did other raters. Teachers on whom raters could not agree did not score relatively high on performance; their pre-teaching characteristics considered jointly were only average to below average. Considered in these terms, there seems to be a positive relationship between low performance scores and low scores on measurable, pre-teaching characteristics of teachers of vocational agriculture. 21. Two educators attempted to predict teaching performance of the 62 teachers on the basis of their student-profile data alone. They did not successfully predict performance as measured at the five-percent level of significance. However, it was found that 245 50 percent of the predicted "tOp" teachers scored above 97.6 on average performance; 40.6 percent of the predicted "average" teachers scored above 97.6; and 31.8 percent of the predicted "bottom” teachers on performance scored above 97.6 on average performance. The differences of these percentages are not significant at the five-percent level. The raters indicated a need for additional profile data in predicting performance. CHAPTER VI COI‘JCLUSIOI‘S AND RECOllIENDATIOIB Conclusions Three purposes of this study are related to the conclusions and two to the recommendations. In this section, conclusions regarding the findings associated with the following three pur- poses are presented: (1) to devise a performance rating scale for measuring performance of teachers of vocational agriculture; (2) to discover pre-teaching characteristics related to measured-teacher success; and (3) to discover if present pre-teaching data were sufficient for guidance and limited selection of prospective teachers. Each of these purposes Will be considered in the order they are listed, with subsidiary conclusions listed along with each lnajor conclusion. 1. The performance rating scale deveIOped proved to be a fairly reliable and valid instrument for measuring performance of'teachers of vocational agriculture. The instrument is primarily a measure of performance and does not purport to measure personality and social behavior of teachers. The validity of the scale is based upon the judgment of the jurors who evaluated and weighted each of the items on the scale. a. C. 247 The rating scale is comprehensive in that the many work areas of a teacher of vocational agriculture were represented and evaluated by leading educators in state supervision, school administration and teacher education. The relative weights assigned to individual items are suggestive of the relative impor- tance of certain aspects of performance of teachers as compared to others. These relative values might conceivably serve as a theoretical guide for time distribution and expenditures of energies of teachers of vocational agriculture, recognizing, of course, that the items on the scale are not all inclusive of different work phases of the teacher of vocational agri- culture. The rating scale has limitations which may be partially eliminated by its revision. The instrument did not adequately discriminate among teachers scoring relatively high in performance. Evidence of this is the skewed distribution of performance scores for the teachers studied. Causes of skewedness of scores do not necessarily lie in the instrument, but may be the resultant Of studying a superior group of teachers. If this is true, the skewedness is understandable. A superior group of teachers was studied with respect to certain factors. Selectivity occurs at several 248 points in the training program and after graduation from college. Certain individuals drop from.college due to below minimum academic averages. Other individuals fail to qualify as teachers of vocational agriculture because of inadequate farming background or failure in student teaching. After graduation, some individuals who do not have interests in teaching enter other employment; others leave teaching after a short period Of employment. For various reasons the persons remaining in teaching vocational agriculture are primarily a selected and superior group for their chosen vocation. This selectivity naturally influences the performance scores computed from a scale devised to measure a "representative" group of teachers of vocational agriculture. Average performance scores of teachers do not adequately reveal performance in the specific work areas of teachers. This necessitates consideration of per- formance scores for "subsectional" areas Of performance. A study of scores on subsectional area of performance of_teachers should reveal possible areas in which additional training is needed and areas in which teacher educators could strive to improve during the training program. 249 e. If raters are given the Opportunity to help devise rating instruments, it is believed that they can more nearly agree on the performance of teachers. Ratings, however, should be made as objective as possible. Raters should be informed that when they are aware of certain limitations and strengths of teachers they should rate teachers on specific items of performance rather than on general impression. Rating performance on general impression of a teacher would defeat the purposes of trying to evaluate specific items or areas of performance of teachers of vocational agri— culture. f. It is difficult to evaluate effectively the performance of teachers. The activities of teachers are so diverse that raters are, in cases, unable to adequately observe and evaluate specific items of performance. In evalua- ting performance and ability, consideration should be given to personality and social adaptability. 2. No significant relationships were established between average performance scores and pre-teaching characteristics of teachers. However, there were several significant associations established between pre-teaching characteristics and selected Egggg ‘qf_performance. a. 250 Evaluation of performance in specific areas appears to be more valid than trying to evaluate average performance of teachers of vocational agriculture. Teachers are more proficient in some work areas than others. With the trend of multiple—teacher departments, it appears logical that special abilities and interests of each individual might be considered in determining division of duties and reSponsibilities of teachers. Evaluation of teachers' performance, in such cases, perhaps should consider specific areas of performance rather than the traditionally complete type performance program desired of a teacher in a one—man department. If such policies were advanced in the field of voca- tional agriculture, it would tend to maximize the strengths of teachers and perhaps create better personal adjustment on the job. The positive associations found between several sub- sectional areas Of performance and pre-teaching characteristics indicate the possibility that specific abilities and interests of teachers influence the degree of success in Specific work areas. Teachers having high interests of farmers would be expected to be more success- ful in performance in working with all-day students, young farmers and adult farmers than teachers with low measured interests. C. d. 251 There are some pre-teaching factors which appear to bear no significant relationship to performance of teachers. These factors might be considered incidental in nature as compared to other factors which influence performance of teachers either in a positive or negative nature. Scholastic ability and achievement as measured bear little relationship to the selected areas of performance studied. It appears that persons with just average scholastic ability possess other characteristics which can over- compensate for this one trait. Success in teaching is not dependent on any one trait, but is determined by a multitude of characteristics and their inter- actions with the particular teaching environment. Negative associations found between some pre-teaching characteristics and selected areas of performance indicate the necessity of clarifying such characteristics in the success of teachers. For example, has it been established that a minimum.of two years of farm experience beyond the age of 15 is a prerequisite to success and effectiveness in teaching vocational agri- culture? It appears that some of the assumptions regarding minimum qualifications of teachers might be questioned. e. f. g. 252 Student-teaching marks of teachers were not significantly related to general performance, neither were they related to the 21 pre-teaching characteristics. Since pre-teaching characteristics and student teacher were not significantly related, it is not surprising that measured performance was not highly related to these pre-teaching characteris- tics. Case-study analyses have value in studying the relationship of pre-teaching characteristics and per- formance. Reasons can be revealed, by such a technique, why raters do not agree on some teachers' performance. Evidence presented in the case studies of five teachers, considered jointly, revealed a seemingly positive relationship between pre-teaching characteris- tics and performance. The case-study analyses made of five teachers are longitudinal in nature and should be considered in terms of the objectives of such procedure. A case-study' analysis allows study of the "total" individual as well as study of individual traits. The human element involved in case analysis shows the individual as others have viewed him.without knowing that recorded observa- tions would be utilized in evaluating performance. 30 253 Pre-teaching data studied appear to be insufficient for selection and prediction of success of prOSpective teachers. However, present preateaching data appear useful for limited guidance and counseling of trainees in agricultural education. a. b. C. Fre-teaching data might be used to counsel students regarding minimum qualifications as stated in the state plan for vocational education. The fact that approximately 50 percent of persons trained are not currently teaching indicates that perhap31many of the "poor" performers have been guided from the field. Profile data can enable an individual to view himself objectively and could tend to serve as a stimulus for self improvement. Other factors are needed for successfully predicting teacher performance. Teacher performance was not successfully predicted on the basis of present pro- file factors studied. If the philosophy is held that teaching ability plus several variables actually determine performance, these variables might include: (1) the environmental situation in which the teacher is working, regarding administrative relations, faculty relations, type of farming community, disposition of people in community; (2) work load of teacher or division of work load in multipledteacher departments; (3) personality patterns 25h of the teacher as to whether he is an introvert, extrovert, gregarious, et cetera; (A) mental health of teacher as denoted by his self-concept being compatible with reality such that ability and per— formance can most nearly become synonymous; (5) opportu- pity for professional improvement; and (6) confidence of the teacher in himself and in the job he is doing. Recommendations The recommendations presented are based upon the findings, the philosophy of the investigator, and research cited. They'must be viewed in terms of the limitations of the rating instrument and of the sample, the distribution of performance scores and pre- teaching characteristics, the design of the study, and the tech- niques used in analyses of data. The sample studied is affected by the factor of time. Teachers were studied during a given period of time on a cross-sectional basis. If teachers had been studied longitudinally the statistical significance of the findings might conceivably have been different. It is felt that certain applica- tions can be made, however, from the findings and conclusions. Two of the purposes of this study apply directly to recommendations. They are: (l) to develop suggestions for improve- ment of pre-teaching data related to guidance services of counseling 255 and selection of prospective teachers; and (2) to develop suggestions for methods of continuous study in this area. What, then, are the specific recommendations resulting from this study? 1. In regard to the student profile currently used, several recommendations are made. a. C. The individual‘s classification should be recorded on the student profile at the time ACE Psychological Test, Reading Comprehension, and Interest Inventories are administered. This is necessary for determining if level in college affects scores on these examina- tions. Some measures of personality and social adaptability should be included on the student profile. This:may require the development of satisfactory scales adapted primarily for teachers of vocational agri- culture or improvement of personality and social scales currently in use. This area of personality and adjustment is too important in the success of teachers to be omitted if profiles are to be effectively used for counseling of prospective teachers. Mere comments should be made about each trainee's personal habits and beliefs than is the case at present. Very few comments were supplied on the 62 teachers' profiles. This may suggest that anecdotal records be accumulated and summarized periodically for each 6. 256 individual. Recognizing certain weaknesses in such records, they would, however, supply some additional information which may prove to be very important in teaching success. The use of such records must necessarily be closely guarded and clearly understood by their users. More nearly complete data should be gathered on the mechanical index of trainees. Since it was found that ACE scores and Reading Comprehension were not signifi- cantly related to the performance of the teachers studied, it may well be that mechanical index more adequately measures what is desired in teachers of voca- tional agriculture. A section should be developed on the student profile or on supplementary forms for the recording of collegiate extra-curricular activities participated in by each teaching candidate. Also, any work experiences with young peOple and/or adults should be erecorded, stating the type and amount of such experiences. It may be well to record when the candidate decided to enter teaching and what or who influenced him to do so. Certain profile factors should not be over-emphasized on the basis of the findings of this study. These factors are the ones which were negatively associated g. 2. mendations a. 257 with performance or were not significantly related to performance. Care should be taken for all pre- teaching characteristics to avoid over-generaliza- tions which may prove invalid and dangerous for the future of prosoective teachers. Data included on the student profile should be used for future studies and counseling on a personal basis, not for selection or prediction purposes. Persons with interests that are in conflict to those held by successful teachers or with insufficient farm.experience could be counseled effectively. The data might be utilized in counseling persons who do not graduate to bring about the most personal satisfaction for each individual in accordance to his strengths and weaknesses. In regard to the performance rating scale, two recom- are made. The scale should be revised. A five-point scale could be developed using the same items, but allowing perfor- mance to be evaluated on degree of attainment. The revised scale could be used for self-evaluation of teachers of vocational agriculture and for evaluating student-teaching performance. It is suggested that the revised scale include a section on some aspects of personality of the individual, particularly those aSpects . b. 3. 258 involved in social adaptation. The revised scale could effectively be utilized in future studies and for item analysis of the scale itself. It may, upon sufficient study, be con- verted to a forced-choice instrument for evaluating performance of teachers. In regard to future studies and methods of study in this area, recommendations are made concerning the nature of pro- posed studies as well as techniques suggested. a. C. A repeat study in this area should be conducted after an elapse of three to five years. Any new factors accumulated during this time should be studied with the present profile factors. It is believed that some individuals require considerable lengths of time to become accepted by peOple and to establish performance patterns of their own. A study should be conducted on the profile data of teachers who drop-out from or never enter teaching vocational agriculture. Comparisons of findings should be made with teachers remaining in the field in relation- ship to performance of each respective group. It is believed that some prognostic value of the student- profile factors might be revealed by such a study. A study should be made of the social competencies necessary for a teacher of vocational agriculture as a a e o a a a O 9 o h I 259 preliminary step to construction of a social adaptability and personality scale that will discriminate between potentially "good" and "poor" teachers. Since effective teaching in vocational agriculture entails more than being a classroom practitioner, it is felt that some effort should be made in determining the necessary personality and social - as well as the scholastic, professional, and agricultural - characteristics desirable for teachers of vocational agriculture. Future studies in this area should be longitudinal in nature. The same individuals should be followed over an extended period of time, through youth, in training, in teaching, and in drop—out from teach- ing. To do this effectively, the EEEEQQHEEHE§§2:§EE$Z procedure should pg utilized. Efforts should be made to determine not only what the individual did or is doing, but E21 and the consequences of all activities and habits of the individual. Whenever ratings are resorted to in future studies, careful study and use should be made of forced-choice rating instruments. This, in itself, would require considerable study in the development of valid and re liable instruments . BIBLIOGRAH‘II 261 BIBIIOSRAPHY Books Buros, Oscar K. (Editor), The Third Mental Measurements Yearbook. Rutgers University Press. New Brunswick, New Jersey. 19h9. 10h? pp. Froehlich, Clifford P. and Darley, John G., Studying Students, Guidance Methods g£_Individual Analysis. The Geographical Publishing Company. De Kalb, Illinois. 1952. All pp. Greene, H. A., Jorgensen, A. N., and Gerberich, J. R., Measurement and Evaluation in the Secondary School. Longmans, Green and Company. Washington, D. C. l9h3. 66h pp. Hagood, M. J. and Price, D. 0., Statistics for Sociologists. Henry Holt and Company, New York. 1952. 575 pp. Harsh, C. M. and Schrickel, H. G., Personality Development and Assessment. Ronald Press Co. New York. 1950. 518 pp. Strong, Edward K., Jr., Manual for Vocational.lpterest Blang for Men. Stanford University Press. Stanford University, California. January, 1951. 16 pp. Strong, Edward E., Jr., Vocational Interests pf Men and Women. Stanford University Press. Stanford University, California. 1943. 717 pp. Super, Donald E., Appraising Vocational Fitness by means 9: Psychological Tests. Harper and Brothers. New York. l9h9. 727 pp. Bulletins Anderson, C. S., Pre-emplqyment Records and Activities 2; Teachers pf Vocational Agriculture. Bulletin A86. The Pennsylvania State College, School of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station, State College, Pennsylvania. November, 19A6. 38 pp. Federal Security Agency, U. S. Office of Education, Administration 9f Vocational Education. Vocational Education Bulletin No. 1, General Series No. 1, Revised 1948. 112 pp. 262 Federal Security Agency, U. 3. Office of Education, An_________ Evaluation 9; local Proggam s of Vocational Education in Agiculture. Vocational Division _Bulletin No. 2+0. Agricultural Series No. 58. Washington, 25, D.C. 1949. 75 pp. Federal Security Agency, U. 3. Office of Education, Ar; Evaluation 9;. Q00 I_o__cal Programs 9__f Vocational Education _i_n_ Agi- culture in the United States. Misc. 3233, Vocational .[vgchigan State College Catalog 1256i . Volume #2, Number 16, Michigan State College, East Lansing, March, 1948. 537 pp. fichigag State £1_a_n. £9; W W. Bulletin No. 201. The State Board of Control for Vocational Education, Lansing, Michigan. 1947. 66 PP. Nye, Ivan, The Relationship 9!. Certain Factors 29. County Agent Success. Research Bulletin A98. University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri. June, 1952. 1&3 pp. Summaries 3f. Studies _i_n Agricultural Education. U. 3. Office of Education, Vocational Education Bulletin No. 180, Agricultural Series No. 18. Washington, U. 8. Government Printing Office. 1935. 196 pp. Summaries 9}; Studies i3 Aggicultural Education. Supplement No. 1 Interstate Printers and Publishers, Danville, Illinois. 191+3. 199 pp. Smaries 2; Studies in Agicultural Education. Supplement No. 2. U. S. Office of Education, Vocational Division Bulletin No. 237, Agricultural Series No. 57. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 25, D.C. 191+8. 120 pp. Sumaries 9_f_ Studies in. Agricultural Education. Supplement No. 3. U. S. Office of Education, Vocational Division Bulletin No. 242, Agricultural Series No. 59. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1950. 61 pp. Smmnaries 9; Studies in Agicultural Education. Supplement No. L. Vocational Division Bulletin N . 246, Agricultural Series No. 61. Office of Education. U. S. Govermnent Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1951. A8 pp. 263 Summaries 93: Studies _i_n_. Agricultural Education. Supplement No. 5. Vocational Division Bulletin No. 248, Agricultural Series No. 62. Office of Education. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1952. 62 pp. Summaries 9; Studies _i_n_ Agricultural Education. Supplement No. 6. Vocational Division Bulletin No. 251, Agricultural Series No. 63. U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. U. 5. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1953. 100 pp. Summaries 2; Studies in Aggicultural Education. Supplement No. 7. Vocational Division Bulletin No. 253, Agricultural Series No. 64. U. s. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1954. '75 pp. Swanson, Herbert B. , The; State and the Preservice Preparation of Teachers of Vocational Education (Federally Aided Programs). Vocational Division Bulletin No. 219, General Series No. 6, Federal Security Agency, U. 8. Office of Education, Washington, D.C. 1941. 138 pp. Unpublished Materials Brown, James E., "The Relationship of Personality Traits and Vocational Interests to Success in Teaching Vocational Agriculture." Thesis, 14.8. The Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia. 1940. 88 pp. Clark, Raymond 14., "Factors Associated with Decisions of Michigan Teachers to Remain in or to Leave the Field of Teaching Vocational Agriculture." Thesis, Ed ..D Michigan State College, East Iansing, Michigan. 1950. 190 pp. Coombs, Joseph G., "An Analysis of the Relationship Between Directed Experiences Obtained in Training and First Year Teaching Performance for Teachers of Vocational Agriculture and an Examination of the Procedure Used. " Thesis, Ph .D. Cornell University, New York. 1951. 467 pp. m"— -— q o a o - 264 Efferson, Carlos A., I'Pre--Training Records and Activities of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in Louisiana as Related to Teaching Success." Thesis, M.S. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 1940. 84 pp. Floyd, John C., "Pm-Training Records and Activities of Success- ful Teachers of Vocational Agriculture." Thesis, Ed.D. University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri. 1939. 121 pp. Garner, Raymond A., "Practices of Teachers of Varying Proficiency in Conducting Programs of Supervised Farming in Vocational Agriculture in Michigan." Thesis, BuD. Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan. 1951. 391 pp. Knight, E. E., "The Placement of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture.“ Thesis, Ed.D. University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri. 1938. 212 pp. McLaughlin, J. 0., "A Case Study of Teachers Judged Successful and Non-Successful." Thesis, Ed.D. Leland Stanford Junior University, Stanford, California. 1930. 215 pp. Nelson, K. G., "The Interests of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture as Related to Vocational Satisfaction." Thesis, Ph.D. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 1952. 329 pp. Pierson, Rowland R. , "Vocational Interests of Agricultural Extension Workers as Related to Selected Aspects of Work Adjustment." Thesis, Ph.D. Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan. 1951. 342 pp. Sledge, George N., "Tenure of Teachers of Vocational Agriculture in Nbrth Carolina Including Factors Involved.‘ Thesis, M; of Ag. Ed. North Carolina State College, Raleigh, North Carolina. 1951. 79 pp. Ullman, Roy R., "The Prognostic Value of Certain Factors Related to Teaching Success." Thesis, Ph.D. University of Michigan. The A. L. Garber Co., Ashland, Ohio. 1931. 133 pp. C . - o . o u o . n . . ~ . . o r . O U n e a n . . u D e . a / o o - C o o o e o ‘ ' a v e . o c . s . . o O I o . ‘ v , c . . . o o g . n . . , . . . o . c o u e . o 0 I - c . o . a o I 265 W Anderson, C. 3., "A Rating Scale to Determine a Man's Worth as a Teacher of Vocational Agriculture." The Agricultural Education Magazine. 10:234-5. June, 1938. Angelle, Roy P., "Necessary Qualifications for a Teacher in Vocational Agriculture.“ The Agicultural Education Magazine. 25:228. April, 1953. Barr, A. 3., "Measurement and Prediction of Teaching Efficiency: A Surrmary of Investigations." Journal of Expgrimental Education. 16:203-282. June, 19148. Barr, A.S., "Recruitment for Teacher Training and Prediction of Teaching Success." Review 2!," Educational Research. 10:185-90. June, 191.0. Barr, A. S., "The Evaluation and Prediction of Teaching Efficiency." Journal 91:" Educational Research. 40:717-20. May, 191.7. Barr, A. 3., "The Wisconsin Study of Teaching Ability." Journal 9; Educational Research. 33:671-434. May, 1940. Berdie, Ralph F., "Likes, Dislikes, and Vocational Interests." Journal 9;; Applied stcholog. 27:180-189. February, 1943. Brookover, Wilbur E., "The Relation of Social Factors to Teaching Ability." Journal 21:. Exgrimental Education. 13:191-205. June, 1945. Brown, Manuel N. , "Evaluating and Scoring the Minnesota Multirhasic 'Cannot Say' Items." Journal 9}; Clinical Psychology, 16:180-4. April, 1950. Canfield, Charles R., "A School Administrator's Estimate of a Good Teacher.“ The Aggicultural Educatigg Magazine. 25:221. April, 1953. Cook, W. W. and leeds, C. E., "Measuring the Teaching Personality." Educational and Psychological Measurement. 7 :3994410. Autumn, 191.7. 266 Donovan, Harold, "What Makes a First-rate Teacher?" 1g; Agi- cultural Education Magazine. 25:223,227. April, 1953. Durea, M. A. and Norman, R. D., "The Significance of Weighted and Unweighted Items in Differentiating Between Groups." The Journal 9_i_'. General Pszgholoa. 38:217-27. April, 191.8. Floyd, Arthur, "The Good Teachers of Agiculture." 1133 A i- cultural Education Magazine. 18:228. June, 191. . Gardner, E. F. , "Comments on Selected Scaling Techniques with a Description of a New Type of Scale." Journal 9; Clinical Psmhologz. 6:38-43. January, 1950. Gotham, R. E., "Personality and Teaching Efficiency.“ Journal 21; Exarimental Education. 14:157-65. December, 19A5. Harden, Leigh, l'A Clinical Technique for the Selection and Guidance of Agricultural Education Trainees.“ _Thg Agicultural Education Magazine. 15:106-107,118. December, 191.2. Redlund, Paul A. , "Cooperative Study to Predict Effectiveness in Secondary School Teaching.“ The Journal 9;. Teacher Edpcation. :230-23h. September, 1953. la Duke, 0. V., "The Measurement of Teaching Ability.” Journal 9}," Eprrimental Education. 1h:75-100. September, 19A5. Leavitt, Jerome E., "Personnel Data and Prediction of Success of Student Teachers." _T_h_e_ Journal 9;; Teacher Education. A :19h-l97 . September, 1953 . Magee, Robert M. , "Selection of Candidates for Teacher Education." The Journal pf. Teacher Education. 3:168-172. Mead, A. R. and Holley, C. E. , "Forecasting Success in Practice Teaching." Journal g1; Educational Psycholog. 7 $95-97. October, 1916. Moffie, D. J . , "The Validity of Self-Estimated Interests." Journal _o_1; Applied Psychologz. 26:606-13. October, 191.2. 267 Powell, Margaret G. , "Comparisons of Self-Rating, Peer Ratings, and EXpert's Rating of Personality Adjustment." Educational and Psychological Measurement. 82225-31“ Sumner, 191.8. Raths, Louis, uDangers of Appraising Teaching Efficiency.n Lh_e_ School Executive. 67:55-6. April, 191.8. Rogers, Virgil M. , "Appraising Teaching Efficiency for the Betterment of Schools.‘I Th9 School Exefltive. 67:51.. April, 1948. Rolfe, J. F., I'The Measurement of Teaching Ability: Study Number Two." Journal 9; marmental Educatiop. 1A:52-7h. September, 1916. Rostker, Ieon E., "The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching Ability." Sm _agg Society. 51:30-32. January, 191.0. Ryans, David G., "Statistical Procedure in the Selection of Teachers." Journa pf Educational Research. h0:695-705. May, 1947. Ryans, David G. , "The Criteria of Teaching Effectiveness." Jom'na; 9; Educationgl Research. h2:690-99. May, 191.9. Sarbin, T. R. and Anderson, R. G., "A Preliminary Study of the Relation of Measured Interest Patterns and Occupational Dissatisfaction." Edgcatipnal and. Psychological, Measurement. 2:23-36. January, 191.2. Seagrove, M. V., I'Prediction of In-Service Success in Teaching.“ Journal 9; Educatipnal Research. 39:658-63. May, 191.6. Seagrove, M. V. , "Hognostic Tests and Teaching Success." Journa; p; Edpcational Research. 38:685-690. May, 191.5. Sells, S. B. and Ellis, R. R., "Observational Procedures Used in Research; Rating Technics." Review 93’. Educational Research. 21:1.37-8. December, 1951. Seymour, 0. J ., "Evaluating the Work of Teachers of Agriculture." 1113 Agicultural Education Magazip . 18:15. July, 1915. 268 Shannon, John R., ”A Comparison of Higuly Successful Teachers, Failing Teachers, and Average Teachers at the Time of Their Graduation From Indiana State Teachers College." Educational Administration _ap_d_ Sugrvision. 26:43-51. January, 1940. Shannon, John R. , "Elements of Excellence in Teaching. " Educational Admipistration__ and Suggrvision. 27: 169-176. March, 1941. Snowden, Obed L. , "Selecting Prospective Teachers of Vocational Agriculture." flip, Agpicultural Educatipn Magazip . 25:222. April, 1953. Stuit, Dewey 8., "Scholarship as a Factor in Teaching Success." School and Society. 46:382—84. September 18, 1937. Super, Donald E. , "Vocational Adjustment dinplementing a Self—Con- cept." Occupgtipns - The Vocational Guidance Journal. 30:88-92. November, 1951. Sutherland, S. S. , "Can We Predict Teaching Success?" Th___e Agi- cul__:_}____ura1 Education Magazine. 10 :35,38. August, 1937. Symonds, Percival M. , "Personality of the Teacher." Journal 2; Educational Research. 40:652-661. May, 1947. Tansil, Rebecca 0., "The Contributions of Cumulative Personnel Records to a Teacher-Education Program." Teachers College Record. 41:159, 160. November, 1939. Wilson, Bonard 3., "Guidance of Student Teachers." _T_}_1_e_ Agicultural Education Magazine. 21:105,112. November, 1948. Witty, Paul, ”An Analysis of the Personality Traits of the Effective Teacher." Journal of Edgcational Research. 40:662-671. May, 1947 ."""""" .._...._.... Evaluative Instruments gp, Mime hmeogamed References Byram, H. M. , "Selection and Guidance of Prospective Teachers of Vocational Agriculture - Over-all Aspects of the Problem." Michigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan. (Mimeographod). 269 "Guide for Self-Rating for Use by Teachers of Vocational Agriculture." Department of Education, Michigan State College ani the State Board of Control for Vocational Education, Lansing, Michigan. 4 pp. Nelson, Kenneth E. , "Attitudes of Michigan Students of Vocational Agriculture Toward Guidance in the Schools." Michigan State College East Lansing, Michigan. 1953. 11 pp. (Mimeographeds. Montgomery, R. N., "Check List of Professional Pr0b1ems for Teachers of Vocational Agriculture." Alabama Polytechnic Institute, Auburn, Alabama. 1952. 12 pp. (Mimeog‘aphed). National Education Association of the United States, "Measures of Teacher Competences: Report of Special Group D, The Miami Beach Conference, June 24-27, 1953.” 1201 Sixteenth Street, Northwest, Washington 6, D.C. October, 19530 12 pp. Nye, Ivan, "The Missouri County Agent Inventory." University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri. 1952. 15 pp. Pierson, Rowland R. and Stone, John T. , "The Interest Patterns of County Agricultural Agents and 4-H Club Agents - A Prediction of Success." Michigan State College, East Lansing. (Mimeog'aphed). Strong, E. E., Jr. , "Vocational Interest Blank for Men (Revised) Form M." Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 1938. Legal Reference Public Law No. 347, 64th Congress. Approved February 23, 1917. Re pprts ”Ammal Reports: Agricultural Education." (1950, 1951, 1952, 1953 - From the Office of the State Supervisor of Vocational Education in Agriculture.) Lansing, Michigan. (Typed). APPEN DI CES 271 APPENDIX A The Original Scale and Directions to Jury Directions t_o_ Jug Evaluating t_h_e_ Vocational Agriculture Teacher Rating Scale The descriptive statements included in the acccmpanying form are those which are believed to characterize the performance of teachers of vocational agriculture either favorably or unfavorably. These statements do not constitute all possible characteristics of teacher performance, but are assumed to be primary by the writer. The jury is requested to evaluate each of the items included—first to determine i_._f _i_t_ characterizes vocational agriculture teacher performance; second, to determine :_’L_i_‘ Eng item i_s included it; the appropriate 3,131 _a_ properly naned division; third, to decide on the correct wording of the item that all raters might understand it clearly and without confusion as to its meaning. In performing this service, the jury is requested to make additions or deletions of items as they may seem advisable to assrre the best evaluation of teacher performance. The jury _i_s then asked 33 weigpt each acceptable item by assigning a numerical score comparable to its relative importance in comparison to other items used in rating performance of teachers of agriculture. The jury is asked to asa’gn positive numerical values from {I to {5 to those items characterizing good aspects of performance and negative nmnerical values from -1 to -5 to those items which characterize poor aspects of teacher per- formance. Assign a value of zero (0) to any item that is neutral and irrelevant to teacher performance. For example, Item No. 1 under "A" which reads "Cets along well with other teachers in school system" might be assigned a value of plus 3 (’13) as it is an aspect of good teacher performance; whereas, Item No. 7 under "A" which reads "Makes excuses for failure to dis- charge responsibilities" might be assigned a negative or minus value of 2 (-2) as it is an aspect of poor teacher performance. It is important for the jury to keep in mind the proposed procedure for administering this scale to the raters. The rating form will have three check columns preceded by the question: "Does this characterize the teacher's performance?" Any item that characterizes the teacher's performance will , be checked by marking (x) in the column "Yes". If the item does not describe the teacher's performance "No" will be checked. If the rater sincerely believes that he has absolutely no basis for rating the teacher on any item, he will iniicate this by marking (x) in the column "No Basis For Decision." Items which the rater indicates as having no basis for a decision will be deducted from the teacher's derived performance score and a correction adjustment will be made so as to not penalize the teachers final derived score. Since this performance rating scale is of tremendous importance to the outcome of this study, the writer will welcome and appreciate greatly any improvements that might be made to the items, the scale form, and the tech- nique of administering. 11.. NOTE: 272 VOCATIOI‘JAL AGR CULTURE TEACECR ERFORILUI E RATING SCAIE Rather than including the check columns on the rating form that will be used by the raters, the columns "Retain Item" and "Numerical Weight of Item" are provided f_c_>_r; each member pi; Egg m to indicate whether the item characterizes teacher performance and should be retained and the numerical weight that should be assigned to each iten. If you believe that the item describes teacher performance and should be retained in the rating scale, place a check by the item under the column "Retain Item." For pl; items pp 3.1.2 form, assign a nmnerical weight using the system explained in the accompanying directions. If you have any additional items that you believe should be included under any section, I-rrite the item in and assign it a numerical weight as for any other item. Nmnerical Weight Retain Item of Item Yworking With People 3;; Community 1. 2. 9. 10. Gets along well with other teachers in SChOOlsyStanoooooooooooooooo Very autocratic; makes all decisions himself; submits only to persons above him in position.. Does not respect famers' abilities; does not give farmers opportunity to aid in development Ofvocatiomprogralnoooooooooso 00 Works with all social. and economic groups in commityoeooooooooooooooooe Participates actively in cammmity activities . Attends and supports community agriculture organizations.............o..o Makes excuses for failure to discharge respon- SibilitieS. O O O O O I O O O O C O I O O O O O Serves as a consultant and farm leader to farmpeopleofhiscamnunity. . . . . . . . . . Shoulders his responsibilities and duties freely O O O C O O O O O I O O O O I O O O 0 O Establishes workable relationships with key personSooooooeooooooeoooeco 273 Numerical 7.1 ei ght Retain Item. of Item B. Maintaining Professional Standargs and Relationships 1. Dresses appropriately for all work, pro- fessional, social, and civic occasions. . . . 2. Continues his technical and professional training extensively by attending faculty meetings and workshops, in-service meetings, conferences, summer schools. . . . . . . . . . 3. Remains at his present professional level without improving quality of his instruction . 4. Works with other teachers of agriculture in the area to develop cooperative agriculture programs such as livestock shows and sales . . 5. Supports and belongs to M.E.A., N.E.A., A.V.A., and other professional organizations. . . . . . 6. Keeps up to date on educational thought and practices and technical agricultural practices . 7. Regards instruction of young farmers and adult farmers as a function of the school . . . . . . 8. Cooperates well with other agricultural agencies in the county, such as Cooperative Extension Service and Soil Conservation Service . . . . . 9. Respects local school and community customs . . 10. Works cooperatively with leaders in teacher education, supervision on the state level . . . 11. C. Plannipg _apd Conducting General Activitie§ l. Developsnewclasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Prepares teaching materials and courses of StucvcontinuOUSJ-y.ooooooococo-co 3. Maintains neat, adeaquate, up-to-date files of information necessary in his program . . . . . . h. 5. 7. 9. lo. 15. 16. 17. Sutmits records, information promptly whenrequested..........o... Relies on subject matter previously learned; does not strive to keep 1~relLl~informed on agricultural inf ormation . . . . . . . . . Surveys home farms of students and comrnumity to aid in development of his instructional program-00000000000000.0000 Distributes instructional time equally between all-day, young and adult farmer groups C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Utilizes the summer months effectively for development of local program . . . . . . . . 27h Numerical W eight Retain Item of Item Critically evaluates his progress and improves hisownprogre-m............... Plans and revises long—time community agri- cultural progran periodically with advisory committee, school authorities and local agri- CUltural organizations 0 o o o o o o o o o o Utilizes community as an agricultural class- room; using materials, foods, fertilizers, etc., as sources of teaching materials . . . Utilizes resource persons wisely . . . . . Organizes and assembles references, equipment, visual aids, etc. in up-to-date manner . . {aintains an agricultural atmosphere in the classroom................. Is developing a program which meets most of the needs of all farm age groups in the community................. Puts eff starting new instructional groups for young farmer and/or adult farmers . . . Teaches agricultural information rather than performing agricultural services for Studerlt 0n the fftIYD. . . g g 9 Q o o o o o I I O o i O O o . I Q c o O s o s u o a a 1 o u v w I c a v o c e o o c o I . . . | . v o o y 1 o O O I O Q 0 O 0 v I D C O ' I y a o 1 u o O D O c 5 I Q 0 I t D I O I Q I o I 275 Numerical . 'Ueight Retain Item of Item 18. D. Maintaining :‘tdministrative Relationships 1. Participates in and helps maintain a total schoolprogram.........o...... 2. Supplies information that is complete and useful for the administrator . . . . . . . . 3. Operates the vocational agriculture program as a separate unit from total school program . A. Encourages adninistrator to aid in develop- ment of a good vocational agriculture program incommunity................. 5. Does not keep administrator informed as to his plans, actions, or important phases of prOgram................... 6. Shows outward resentment for administrative suggestions and rebellious towards requests . 7. Assists administrator in areas that his train- ing can prove valuable . . . . . . . . . . . 8. Regards the vocational agriculture pregrsm as his rather than the community's . . . . . 9. Regards himself as being responsible to State Supervisor rather than Superintendent andBoardofEducation. . . . . . . . . . . 10. E. Developing and Maintaining Skill 2.; Teaching 1. Teaches each unit by the method to give greatest assistance to student in carrying outhisfarrdlgprogram........... 2. Teaches instructional units without regard toseasonooooooooooooooooo. 3. Approaches the learner through his interests, experiences, and needs . . . . . . . . . . . 7. 9. 10. 15. 16. 17. Retain Item Uses routine methods in ccnducting, all Classes 0 o o o o o o o c o o o o o o c 0 Provides maximum student participation in eaCh C1358 taught o o o o o o o o o o o o Teaches each enterprise as a separate unit in itself without regard to integration and transfer value from one unit to another . . Follows up instruction on the farm during and after teaching major farm enterprises as a regular and necessary part of effective instruc- tion 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Plans effective teaching methods and materials before teaching each unit to provide the most effCCtiVC inStrUCtiOn pOSSible o o o o o o o o Teaches each unit without developing student and teacher objectives with students . . . . . Makes minimum preparation for each class taught, being satisfied to just get by in class Relies heavily on technical subject matter without concern for needs and problems of StUdentS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Counsels "misfits" and extends pupil guidance at even? Opportunity 0 o o o o o o o o o o o Establishes desirable attitudes, ideals and standards 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Makes assignments, lectures, demonstrations clearly o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Provides adequate teachim equipment and materials, references, bulletins, etc. . . . Keeps classroom, equipnent and materials organized for efficient use. . . . . . . . . 276 Numerical Weight of Item 277 Numerical Weight Retain Item of Item F. Conducting Programs With All-Day Students 1. Knows the needs of all-day students . . . . . 2. Adapts instruction to needs of students, maturity and understanding level of students; makes adjustment for individual ability levels . 3. Does necessary remedial teaching to refresh studaits and emphasize units which may have previously received inadequate attention; supplements classroom instruction with private student consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . A. I—Eaintains good rapport with students . . . . . 5. Provides instruction on the farm to aid studaits in adopting practices taught and to further learning 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 6. Strives constantly to motivate students to highest degree of interest . . o o . . . . . 7. Assists students in planning educational and vocational $0813 0 g o o o o o o o o o o o o 8. Develops teaching plans for all new units taught o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 9. Plans assembly programs for benefit of training vocational agriculture students in leaderShip o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 10. H u. Conductigg Programs With Young Farmers andlor Adult Farmers l. Teaches leading farm enterprises that far- mers are interested in and in which they have prdblems o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 2. Utilizes their experiences and interests whenever DOSSiblS o o o o o o o o o O o o o o 3. Utilizes the best reference material avail— able in instructing these groups . . . . . o 278 Numerical 'Weight Retain Item of Item A. Plans and conducts out-of-school programs with aid from an active, functioning adViSOI'E’ committee. 0 o o o 0 o o o o o I 5. Instructs out-of-school groups when pressed or requested . . o o o o o a o o o o o o o 6. Holds classes when and where it will be most appropriate for farmers to attend . . 7. Keeps fanners informed of latest technical and scientific aspects of agriculture . . 8. Maintains good interest in programs as evidenced by fenders attending a majority of classes held . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. During regular farm visits, provides training appropriate toltype of farming engaged in by young and/or adult fanner . IO. Keeps community informed of programs being conducted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll. Invites interested farmers to join out-of- SChOCl programs 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 12. Has key individuals assist in organization and.recruitment of new classes . . . . . 13. Utilizes agricultural agencies and key personnel in area to assist in instruction OftheSegI‘OUPSQQOO0000000000 lb. Maintains a complete, up-to—date file on anfomBrStUdelltSo0000000.... lS. Provides leadership training in adult activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16. H. wastage 1. Visits with farm fanily or a member of fanily without actually ace “plishing mucheducationally............ J 9 o 0 o C c o o A c I . Q 1 O a O I o o C o I I D I I I o u o c A t 9 I c t I 4 o I I u e o I . s o C O a O Q 1 . a o . a O O I v v o c I v n C I o o o I o c I v I n I n A u o d I I v I v o u o v v e O M I v u 0 n V n a t O Q I U u n I O O 0 ‘ .ledIilIiI...’ .. u ‘ “Ilhrwlfy b I 3. 15'. 5. 9. Retain Item Personally’ views each project, looks for ways of improvement, offers encouragement and suggestions for improvement, gives student incentive to carry out the best possible farming practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Makes farm visits without informing student thatheplanstodoso. . . . . .. . . Makes visits so short in duration that little supervision occurs . . . . . . . Integrates classroom instruction to falmviSitSOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Checks student‘s records of his farming program and evaluates progress being made. Encourages students to increase scope and quality of projects annually as a means to becoming established in farming . . . . I—Iakes farm demonstrations clear, convincing, and interesting. Has student perform operationstaught...o......... Supervising and Developing Farming Programs 1. Explains purposes of supervised farming progrmn to parents at beginning of student's first year in vocational agriculture . . . . Has standards to be met from one year to next; students must maintain within a reasonable degree of tolerance a certain number of production, supplementary and improvement fanning projects. Acceptable projects are those which trainee expects to be engaged in as a farmer . . o . . . . . Can conduct and mrfom any jobs and skills that arise in supervised faming pro- gramsofhisstudents... . ....... 279 Numerical I'Jeight of Item J. 0+0 Quu. Advises students regarding their supervised fanning programs . . . . Relates instruction constantly to pro- blishment in farrnirg . . problems in Demonstrates approved practices in class, students might utilize them 0 O O O O 0 O O O C O 0 Provides opportunity for students to see good farming projects by tours and visita- ti one to outstanding students and famers . in way of farming programs; shows no particular concern over their vocational h. ficiency and e 5. 6. on farms, that at home . . . 7. 8. interest . . . 9. 10. ' ‘Nith o o o o 0 ll. Keeps adequate supervised farming records OfajhlStUdentSQOOOOooooooooo Males as few farm visits as he can get by Teacldng Fam Mechanics l. Keeps up to date on changing trends and needs in farm mechanics . . . . . . . . . 2. Maintains adequate shop supplies to do bestteaching.............. 3. 5. Maintains an efficient systen of tools servicing, checking, and storing . . . . . . Purchases tools and equipment , unenever possible, that are useful to students and fannersofcammmity... .. . .. . . .. Can demonstrate skills and related jobs efficiently in this area and lmows how to teach jobs understandingly to pupils . . . . Allows students to do whatever they desire 280 Numerical Weight of Item 5": ‘1’ ' fvi ‘& 1"» \0 ll. 12. 13. 1?. Provides shop and farm safety education as a regular phase of farm mechanics . . Has shop facilities color conditioned by approved color dymamics principles for school farm-shop safety . . . . . . . . . . Allows students to repair, recondit ion and construct things needed at home on the farm in their supervised farming programs . Requires students to become reasonably s.:illed in perforrm fann mechanics skills and jobs that are normally needed in the comunityinfarrring. o o o a o o o o o o 0 Provides first-aid eqiipment in school-farm Shopoooooooooooooooooooo Arron ges tools, equipment and machines orderly to provide maidmum safety and efficient Operation.................. Organizes farm mechanics classes, insofar as possible, to reduce crowded and hazardous workingcmditions............. Remains in shop during any shOp activity to supervise, teach, demonstrate, and assuremaximmnsafety. . . . . . . . . . . Has established rules and regulations regard- ing student conduct in shOp . . . . . . . . Permits no pranl'jng and "horse-play" in shop, projects undertaken are agricultural . Keeps shop clean and organized . . . . . . . Provides individual instruction in farm mechanics during supervisory visits . . . . Maintains a favorable relationship to industrial arts teacher . . ‘, 281 Numerical Weight of Item Retain Item K. Conducting and Advising Future Farmers 22 W l. 2. 3. 7. 8. 9. 10 . Has students develop goals for them- selves and the Chapter . . . . . . . Provides leadership training to all FoFvo members. 0 o o o o o o o o o Promotes a variety of F.F.A. aetiVitieSo o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Has F.F.A. members attend regularly all chapter meetings held . . . . . Holds at least 2 or more chapter meetingSJmonthly'. o o o o o o o o 0 Has active F.F.A. committees planning and carrying out an approved (by superintendent or principal) program of work 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Sends or accompanies official delegates to State F.F.A. convention . . . . . Strives to advance students in systems- tic degree advancement . . . . . . . . Has chapter conduct and participate in school and comunity improvement programs 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o Understands that F.F.A. is an integral part of vocational agriculture and utilizes it to better instructional program.. o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Provides students Opportunity to train and participate in state- sponsored F.F.A. contests and activi- ties o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o .____ Promotes thrift, scholarship, recrea- tion and sense of camnunity concern in students through F.F.A. aims and ObJeCtives o o o o o o o o o o 0 Numerical Weight of Item 282 13. 15. 16. Retain Item Supervises educational F.F.A. tours, Parent-Son Banquets, recreational 8111 80618.1 aCtivities . o o o o o o o Supervises school farms, school forests, buying and selling projects, StCooocooooocoooooooo Aids students in making degree advance- ment applications, F.F.A. reports, etc. Numerical We ight of Item 283 281+ APIEIIDDC B Revision of Original Scale (Used in Trial Test) VOCATIONAL AGRICULTIRE TEACHER HZRFORlMNCE RATIBB SCALE DIRECTIOI'B: For any item describing the teacher's performance, check by marking (x) in the column "YES". Check under the column "NO" if it does not describe the teacher's performance. If you have absolutely no basis for a decision on any item, mark (I) under the column "?". Omit no items and make only one check for each item. ‘ ms. 229. .3.. as. s. .2. A. Worgg With People _i_n_. 2. Remains at his Communi I present professional 1. Gets along well with level without im- other teachers in proving quality of school system. . . . __ __ his instruction . _____ 2. Does not reSpect 3.8upports and be- famer's abilities; longs to M.E.A., does not give farmers N.E.A., A.V.A., Opportunity to aid M.A.T.V.A. and in develoment of other professional vocational program . __ organizations . . . 3. Participates actively h. Keeps up to date in conmmity activi- on educational ties o o e o o c o o _ ____ thought and teCh- 1+. Makes excuses for nical agricultural failure to discharge practices . . . . ______ reSponsibilities . . __ __ 5. Regards instruc- 5. Serves as a consul- tion of young and tant to farm people adult farmers as a in community . . . . __ __ __ function of the 6. Accepts his respon- school . . . . . . ______ sibilities ani duties 6. Cooperates well freely o o o o o o o _ ___. With other agri- 7. Establishes good cultural agencies working relationships in the county . . with key persons. . Respects local school and com- _ _..__.7. 8'. Maintw' ’ Professional munity customs. . ___ Standards and Relation- 8. Works cooperatively shiE with leaders in l. Continues his technical teacher education and professional train- supervision on the ing by attending faculty state level . . . meetings, workshops, in-service meetings, con- ferences, summer school __ ___ C. £323. 2% 2m. ______iaaConduct v General Activities 1. Maintains neat, adequate, up—to—date files of information necessary in his pro- gram 0 o o o o o o Submits records, in- formation promptly. Relies on subject matter previously learned; does not strive to keep well- informed on agri- cultural information.— Critically evaluates his progress and im- proves his own pro- graln o o o o o o o 0 Plans and revises long-time community agricultural program periodically With such organizations as advisory committee , school authorities and local agricultural organizations . . . ._ Utilizes community as an agricultural classroom; using fertilizers, etc. as sources of teaching materials . . . . . .___ Utilizes resource persons effectively. __ Organizes and assembles references, equiment, visual aids for effective instruction . . . . ._ Maintains an agri— cultural atmosphere in the classroom . . _ Is developing a programuwhichzmeets most needs of all farm age groups in the community. . . Puts off starting neW'instructional groups for young and/ or adult farmers. . 2. 3. h. 5. 7'. 8. 9. 10. 11. , singing 285 '5 Is Administrative Relationships 1. Cooperates in maintaining a total school program 0 0 Supplies in- formation that is com- plete and useful for the adminis- trator . . . Works with administrator in develop- ment of a good vocational agriculture pro- gram in com- munity . . . Shows outward resentment for administrative suggestions and rebellious towards requests“ Regards the vocational agri- culture program as his own rather than the community . . Regards him- self as being responsible to State Superirisor rather than Superintendent ani Board of Education . . __ 7. 3. 1+. 5. Accega- ble Methods p_f. Teaching 1. Teaches each . unit by the method which gives greatest assistance to Utilizes the summer 2. 3. h. 5. 7. 9. 10 . student in carrying out his farming program 0 o o o o o Teaches instructional-_- units without regard to 3888011 0 o o o o Approaches the learner througl his interests, experiences, and needs 0 o o o o Encourages maximm student participation in each class taught.__ Follows up instruc- tion on the farm dur- ing and after teaching asaregularand necessary part of effective instruction. Plans effective teaching methods and secures materials be- fore teaching each unit to provide the most effective instruc- tion magible o o o . Teaches each unit without considering objectives with StUdGUtSOOOOQO.-_ Teaches desirable attitudes, ideals and staniards . . . Keeps classroom, equipment and ma- terials organized for efficient use. . Prepares teaching materials and courses of study as neededoocooco Surveys home farms of students and com- munity to aid in develoment of his instructional pro- gram 0 O O o 0 o o 0 months effectively for development of local program . . . Conduct ingProggams With All-Day Students 1. Knows the needs of all-day students. . 2. Adapts instruction to needs of students, maturity and under- standing level of students; makes adjust- ment for individual ability levels . . Does necessary re~ teaching to refresh students and empha- size units which may have previously re- cs ived inadequate attention 0 o o o o Maintains good rapport with students 9 o o o o o Prmrides instruction on the farm to aid students in adopting practices taught and to further learning. Motivates students to a high degree of interest. 0 o o o o Assists students in planning educational 3. 1+. 7. and vocational goals. 8. Develops teaching plans for all new units taught . . . ———G-§.oadsatma ams With Yogg Farmers0 and or M__ Farmers 1. Utilizes experiences and interests of farmers whenever possible 0 o o o o o 2. 3. A. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10., Bases teaching on needs of individuals as determined by' surveys and observa- tion........ Utilizes the best reference material available in instruc- ting these groups . Holds classes when and where it will be most appropriate for farmers to attend . Keeps farmers informed of latest technical and scientific aspects of agriculture through classes, radio, T.V., etC. o o o o o e o o Maintains good in- terest in programs as evidenced by farmers attending a majority’ of classes held . . During regular farm instruction, pro- vides training appropriate to type of farming engaged in by young and/or adult farmer . . . . . . ..___ ._____. Keeps community’ informed of programs being COMUCted o o Encourages all farmers to join out- of-school programs. %__. Has key individuals assist in organiza- tion and recruitment of new classes . . . __ __ Utilizes agricultural agencies and key per- sonnel in area to assist in instruction of these groups . . a__, 12. Maintains a complete, up- to—date file on all former students for potential membership in instructional programs. . . H. Progiding On—Fggm Instruction 1. Personally views each farm program, looks for ways of improvement, offers encourage- ment and sug- gestions, gives students incentive to carry out the best possible farming practices.___. 2. Integrates class- room.instruction to farm visits. . 3. Checks student's records of his farming program and evaluates progress being made 0 e o o o o h. Encourages students to‘ increase scope and quality of projects as a means to becoming established in farming . . . . 5. Makes farm.demon- strations clear, convincing, and interesting. Has student perform operations taught. o o o o 1. YES W and Develc J- i l. 2. 3. A. 5. 7. 9. Farming Programs Explains purposes of supervised farming program.to parents before student enrolls for vocational agri- CUltureooooooo Has standards to be met from one year to next. Acceptable projects are those which trainee expects to be engaged in as a farmer . . . . . . Can conduct and per- form.jobs and skills that arise in super— vised farming progrmns of his students . . ..___ Counsels with students regarding problems in their supervised fann- hgzrqwum. ... Demonstrates approved practices in class, on fanns that students might utilize them at harnesses-coco— Provides opporsunity for students to see good farming projects by tours and visita~ tions to outstanding students and farmers. __ Keeps adequate supervised farming records of all students . . . . . . Encourages production standards for students on basis of student's fann and student’s amutyoooooeo Teaches students to use records of fanning programs to improve their programs . . . r: C) be J. Teaching Farm Mechanic 3 l. A. 5. 7. Keeps up to mmeon changing trends ad needs in farm mechanics. __ Requisitions adequate shop supplies to do best teaching. Recommends pur- chase of tools and equipment that are useful to students and farmers of com- Infinity. O O 0 Provides shop and fans safety education as a regular phase of fem mechanics. Provides first- aid equipment in school-farm shop . . . . . Arranges tools, ecpzipment and machines orderly to provide ma:-:i.mum safety and efficient operation . . Organizes farm mechanics class- es to reduce crowded and hazardouS‘work- ing conditions. Remains in shop during any shop activity to supervise, teach, demonstrate, and assure‘maXimum $31.81;}, 0 c o 0 Has established rules and regu- lations regarding student conduct in Sh Op 0 O O O 10. Permits no pranking and "horse-play" in Sh Op 0 O O O O O O 0 11. Projects undertaken are agricultural . . 12. Keeps shop clean and organized. o o e o o 13. Provides individual instruction in farm mechanics during on- farm instruction . . la.'Maintains a favorable relationship to industrial arts teaChero o o o o o o 15. Evaluates fans shop activities and objectives continu- OllSlyooooooo Conducting and Advisinr Future Fenders.g£ America 1. Has students develop goals for'themselves and the Chapter. . . 2. Provides leadership training to all F.F.A. members. 0 O O O O O 3. Promotes a variety of F.F.A. acti 'ties. A. Encourages F.:.A. members to attend regularly all chapter meetings held. 5. Holds at least 2 or more chapter meetings monthly 0 o o o o o 6. Has active F.F.A. committees planning and carrying out an approved (by superin- tendent or principal) progran of work . . . 7. Strives to help students in systematic degree advancement. . Is 9. 10. 13. Has chapter conduct and participates in school and community improve- ment programs. __ __ __ Understands that F.F.A. is an integral part of vocational agriculture and utilizes it to better instruc- tional program. __ __ __ Promotes thrift, scholarship, recreation and sense of com- munity concern in students through F.F.A. aims and objectives. . . Supervises educational F.F.A. tours, Parent-Son Ban— quets, recrea- tional and social activities. . . Aids students in.making degree advancement applications, F.F.A. reports, etc. 0 O O O . U588 FgFoA-o activities to strengthen Supervised Farm- ing Programs of students. . . Encourages student partici- pation through organized committee work. APPENDIX C 290 Final Revised Copy of Scale with Official Weights VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE TEACHER PERFORMANCE RATING SCALE DIRECTIONS: For any item describing the teacher‘s performance in a majority of cases, check by marking (x) in the column "YES". Check under the column "I‘D" if it does not describe the teacher's perfor- mance. mark (I) under the column "?". mm; A. Working With Peeple g:- Comnmnity 1. Gets along well with other teachers in school system..... M _— 2. Does not respect farmer's abilities; does not give far- mere opportunity to aid in develop- ment of vocational program 0 o o o o .M__ 3. Participates actively in com- munity activities. 1.1 __ _ 4. Makes excuses for failure to discharge reaponsibilities.. ~1A __ _ 5. Serves as a con- sultant to farm ”Cpl-3. o o o o 0 0M__ 6. Accepts his respon- sibilities and duties freely. . . £93_ __ 7. Establishes good working relat ion- ships with key per- 30n3000000002:2_ B. Maintains Professional S_tendards and Relation- ships 1. Continues his tech- nical and professional training by attending If you have absolutely no basis for a decision on amr item, Omit no items and make only one check for each item. Your rating is strictly confidential. ‘ “ ".”“‘0' 23.322... faculty meetings, workshops, in- service meetings, conferences, summer 8Ch0010000000000003£ 5's; . 2. Remains at his 3. 5. 6. 7. present professional level without im- proving quality of his instruction.. :ZJ__ __ Supports and belongs to MEvo, N.E.A., A.V.A., M.A.T.V.A. and other professional organi- zations.......... 1E2. Keeps up to date on educational thought am tech- nical agricultural practices....... .122. g_ _ Regards instruc- tion of young and adult farmers as a function of the 8011001000.. $32-— Cooperates well With other agri- cultural agencies in the county... 1,3 __ __ Respects local school and com- munity customs. . L2 C. 8. 9. Pl 1. 2. 3. h. 5. 7. 8. Works cooperatively with leaders in teacher education and supervision on the state level... .2 am General Activities maintains neat, adequate up—to-date file of necessary information. o o e lag—...... Submits records, information prompt1y33;9__u_. Relies on subject matter previously learned; does not strive to keep well-informed on agricultural infor- 1118111011. 0 o o o O O.M—— Critically evalua- tes his progress and improves his own prongn...... M_— Plans and revises long-time community agricultural pro- gram periodically with such groups as agricultural advisory committee and school authori- ties............... 282—— Utilizes community and its resources as an agricultural classroom.. 0 e e m...- Utilizes resource persons effectively.3_,i _ _ Organizes and assembles references, equiyment, etc. for effective instruc- tion.......clg_3. D. 10. 291 2.3.52.2... 9e Maintains an agricultural atmosphere in the classroom.2_,_l __ __ Is developing a program which meets most needs of all farm-age groups in the community. . . m____ Puts off start- ing new instruc- tional groups for young and/ or adult far- mers. e o 0 0'2 _- Maintaining Administ rat ive Relationships 1. Coonerates in maintaining a total school program. . . 5.43 __ __ Supplies information that is com- plete and use- ful for the administrator 0M Works with administrator in develoment of a good voca- tional agri- culture program. 3,5___ Shows outward resentment for administrative suggestions and rebellious towards requests._-_Ji_,_2__ _ 5. Regards the vocational agri- culture program as his own rather than the COWitYe o o o 2. 3. h. :3.:3... _. E. 23.322... 6. Regards himself as being responsible to State Superfisor rather than Superin- tenient and Board of Education . . . . .-l,_1___ Utilizing Acceptable Methods of Teaching 1. h. 5. 7. 8. Teach-g; each unit by the method which gives greatest assistance to students in carrying out his farming program. . 93.2....— Teaches instruc- tional units with- out regard to 893501190000. Approaches the learner through his interests, experiences and needs....... Encourages mathmn student participa- tion in each class taught. e e o e 0 Follow up instruc- tion on the farm during and after teaching as a neces- sary part of effective instruction . . . . M...— Plans methods and secures materials before teaching each unit to provide for effective instruc- tion........2_._2 Teaches each unit without considering objectives with students. . . . . . il____ Teaches desirable attitudes, ideals and standards. . . :3.-... F. All..- 292 EEL 9. Keeps class- room,equipment and materials organized for efficient use.2,2 lO. Prepares teaching materials and courses of study as needed .J‘6_ __ ll. Surveys home farms of students and community to aid in development of instructional program. 0 e e o M_- 12. Utilizes the summer months effectively for development of local program. . M __ __ Conducting Programs 21.4.1221. ill-£32 l. Knows the needs of all-day students. . . . Adapts instruc- tion to needs of students, maturity, ability and understanding level of students._lg_._& Does necessary re-teaching to refresh students and emphasizes units which may have received inadequate attention. . . . 3_._§____ Maintains good rapport With students. . . . vaides instruc- tion on the farm to aid students in adOpting practices taught and to fur- ther learning.... itaé £33.... 2. 3. 1+. £2}...— 5. G. 6. 7. 8. semi. Motivates students 3, to a high degree or intereSto e e o 502 *- Assists students in planning educa- tional and vocational 3031.59.00.00 LII-..- DeveIOps teaching plans for all new 10. Limits taught o e o L_.__ Conducting Proggams L_ith _i_nsYO' w and] 22. 1. 2. 5. 7. Adult Farmers Utilizes experiences and interests of farmers. . . . . . 1.33___ Bases teaching on needs of individuals as determined by surveys and observa- tionoeeeooer-gé__ Utilizes~the best reference material available in instruct— ing these groups... 1,1__ Holds classes when and where it will be 293 _mmz. Keeps community informed of programs being conducted. . . 1,2 Encourages all farmers to join out-cf- school programs. . Has key indi- viduals assist in organization and recruitment of new classes. M Utilizes agri- cultural agencies and key personnel in area to assist in instruction of these groups. . L§___ Maintains a complete, up- to-date file on all former students for potential membership in instructional pro- graIDS......2.} _ most appropriate for H, m 9m farmers. o o e e e M__ Instruction Keeps farmers informs l. Personally'views ed of latest tech- Aand studies each nical and scientific farm program, aspects of agriculture offers encourage- through classes, radio, ment and suggestions, T.V., etc. . . . . . 1,3___ gives students NBintains good incentive to carny interest in programs out the best as evidenced by farmers possible farming attending a majority’ practices. . . . .dL. of classes held . . . 5,},__ 2. Integrates —— During regular farm classroom instruc- instruction, prOVides tion to farm visitsaggz training appropriate 3. Checks student's _— to type of farming engaged in.by young and/' or adUlt farmer. e e e _i___ records of his farm- ing program and evaluates progress being made. . . . :3.} __ I. h. 5. re 29. 2.. Encourages students to increase scope and quality of pro- jects as a means to becoming estab- liShed in fanning. u _ _ Makes farm demon- strations clear, convincing, and interesting. Has student perform Operations taught. 1g _ __ Sune: rvisigg' and Developing Famgg ngrams l. 2. h. 5. Ecplains purposes of supervised farm- ing program to parents before students enroll for vocational agriculture. . . . Has standards to be met from one year to next. Acceptable wojects are those which trainee expects to be engaged in as a farmer. e e e e 0 Can conduct and perform jobs and skills that arise in supervised farm- ing programs of his students. . . Counsels with students regarding problems in their supervised farming programs. . . . . ..lg_6,_____ Demonstrates ap- proved practices in class, on farms that students might utilize them at home........ _l; M...— J. ii...— 3.21.... 291+ IE '5 l"’ Provides opportunity for students to see good farming pro- grams by tours and visitations. Lfi___ Keeps adequate super- Vised farming records of all Stadentso e e 2&6. Encourages production standards for students on basis of student's farm and ability . ._l‘;;2__ _ Teaches students to use records of farm- ing programs to improve their programs. . . “_— Teachigg Farm Mechanics l. Keeps up to date on changing trends and needs in farm mechanics. . . M____ Requisitions adequate shop supplies to do beSt teaChir‘go M Recommends purchase of tools and equip- ment that are useful to students and farmers of community . . . L}, 7. 8. 9. 2. 3. h. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 15. 115.3. 919. Z. vaides shop and K. farm safety educa- tion as a regular phase of farm mChaniCSo o e o o L__ Provides first- aid equipment in school-farm shop. . 5:31 _ _ Arranges tools, equipment and machines orderly to provide maxi- mum safety and efficient operation. Li __ Organizes farm mechanics classes to reduce crowded and hazardous work- ing conditions. . . 3_._6,___ Remains in shop during any shop activity to super- vise, teach, demon- strate, and assure maximumsafety. . . .1}...— Has established rules and regula- tions regarding student conduct in 8h0p......._l}___ Pormits no pranking and "horse-play" inShOpoooooei-__ Projects undertaken are agricultural . A, __ Keeps shop clean and organized. . . 3.8 __ __ vaides individual instruction in farm mechanics during on- farm instruction . . 10.8_ _ Maintains a favorable relationship to indus- trial arts teacher. . .2 __ __ Evaluates farm shop activities and objectives continu- OUSly......._L__ andgcting a was £921.22 ...—Mame” 2.1.1 W l. 2. 3. A. 5'. 7. 8. Has students develop goals for themselves and the Chap- ter. 0 o e 0 Provides leadership training to F.F.A. members alt—0.1:. Promotes a variety of F.F.A. activi- ties. o o 0 &_~ Encourages F.F.A. members to attend regularly all chapter meet- ings held. . Holds at least 2 or more chapter meetings _ 1110th o e o 1"- Has active F.F.A. com- mittees plan- ning and carry- ing out an approved (by superintendent or principal) program of Work 0 O O O Obi-fl Strives to help students in systematic degree advance- mm 0 O O O M u - Has chapter corduct and participates in school and com- munity improve- ment programs. 3J2 __ M...— .1...— e o 0 O s e o O c o l I I I u v o e I u . , . I O O M a c v o o o o o o . . C o o . 0 v I o ... —. I O . . ‘ C . O o v Q I 9 O -- Q o o ._ o u o 1 n o c ' s I 9 s o e V v v e D 0 C C O U -. -.. ‘l l 9 o I C O O O v C . . I I I U D Q C o o 9. 10. 12. 296 Utilizes F.F.A. as an integral part of voca- tional agriculture to better instruc- tional program . 5:2. _ __ Promotes thrift, scholarship, recreation and community concern in students through F.F.A.. . . . . . 2:2___ Supervises educa— tional tours, recreational and social activities. 1L6._ __ Aids students in making degree advancement appli- cations, F.F.A. remrtso o o e o o _2-__ Uses F.F.A. activities to strengthen Super- vised Farming Pro— grams of students. ._l_}____ Encourages student participation through organized committee WOrkeooeoeo&__-. 297 APPENDIX D Follow-Up letter on Teacher Performance Scale in Trial Study 206 Merrill Hall Michigan State College East lansing, Michigan August 3) 1953 Superintendent of Schools Dear Mr. : On July 13, you received a teacher performance rating scale from our department to be completed for your teacher of agriculture mentioned. It is of great importance to get a rating of teachers who were graduated during the past 5 years. You probably were on vacation and not in your office when the form was mailed. However, your participation in this research should contribute to better guidance and selection of teachers of agriculture in Michigan. In case your form was lost or miSplaced, I would be glad to supply you another. I appreciate your cooperation and thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, George W. Sledge GWS/d s 298 APPENDIX E letter to Administrator and Endorsement of Study 206 Merrilerall Michigan State College East Lansing, Michigan July 13, 1953 Superintendent of Schools Dear Mr. : I am.making a study to determine the relationship between pre- teaching characteristics of prospective teachers and their subsequent performance in teaching vocational agriculture. This study should serve to improve the guidance and selection of future teachers of agriculture. You are, I am sure, interested in helping to continuously improve the quality of teachers in our state. As an administrator, you are acquainted With the performance of'your teacher of agriculture and could contribute greatly in the improvement of our program.of selection and guidance by’ objectively completing the enclosed teacher performance rating scale. Each teacher of agriculture is to be checked on performance by' three sources: his administrator, a state supervisor, and a teacher-trainer. As you are more closely associated with Mr. . I am very frankly most interested in receiving your rating of him. The rating form is coded, and no names need be written on it. The information you supply is strictly confidential. For any item that describes your teacher in a majority of cases, check the item.under "yes". Other directions are provided on the scale. For your convenience, I am enclosing a self-addressed, stamped envelope for use in returning the completed teacher performance rating scale by July 31, 1953, if possible. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Yours very truly, George W. Sledge Dear Mr. : We wish to heartily endorse this important inquiry Which should be of value to us in teacher education. We hope you will find it possible to cooperate with Hr. Sledge in this study; Sincerely, H. M. Byram, Head Department of Vocational Education Michigan State College 299 ALPENDIX F Followeup Letter to Administrators (First Follow-up letter) 206 Merrill Hall Michigan State College East Lansing, Michigan October 16, 1953 Dear nr. Superintendent: On October 1, you received a teacher performance rating scale from our department to be completed for your teacher of agriculture mentioned. It is of great importance to get a rating of each teacher who has graduated during the past 5 years. As this phase of the study is most important to the final outcome, I would appreciate receiving your rating at your earliest convenience. Your participation in this research should contribute to better the guidance and selection of future teachers of agriculture in Michigan. In case your form was lost or misplaced, I am including another one that is coded for your teacher of agriculture mentioned in the previous correspondence. If you.have returned the completed scale during the lapse of my writing, please disregard this letter. I appreciate your c00peration and thank you kindly for your consideration. Sincerely'yours, George w. Sledge 300 Second Follow-up letter 206 Morrill Hall Michigan State College East lansing, Michigan October 26, 1953 Dear Mr. : I am sure that you are extremely busy with the administration of your school, but may I ask for your c00peration in completing the teacher performance rating scale. I am sincerely trying to contribute to the betterment of the teacher-training program in Michigan in this doctoral study. I thoroughly appreciate the wide support and cooperation that school administrators through- out the state have given me. With your return I will be able to compile the complete data that will compose the body of this study. Will you contribute a few minutes of your time to this effort? Thank you so much. Sincerely yours, George W. Sledge HHHHArDG Mdzomxmm Am_mcoppmv OH000000..Q00.F00 @0..W00.4000M00.N000H000 EGEhwh m MO m9m®thQH 301 nwmhfioo ¢.000...000m. .00.,0000....Q000000000h .th =OONIOOH: Cfl xhdfi ov>¢ 0H00000.0m00.50000000 . 00.M000N000H.0.O Amhwmhv “03862 DSHO mid #00.000.00 ‘ 0000..N00000...H000000000O Amhd¢hv mH5HH50HFM¢ .W0m h¢00000000hm000000 \rz0000000mU0000.0000 Axgdmv 0¢0h0b _ Ahpowno> €0...0.0. u00..0.0.0O00000...Q00000.00.& US“ OQOOWV OMGH$>OO #0000... 0M000000000N00000000H0.00000.00 AMmehv PC5054 oonowpomxm Show GZHEwmm 2H m20HB40HmHAmDU w.........m.0 00.000<0.00....Q..00.....D A.mv @flflQOQEUO nmnwpmm m.noposnpwcH OH000&000Q 0 0.00.0.m...4000M00.N..0H0.0 COHfiomeHPwm l “£0609 OH000®00.w000V 0.®000m..040..m...N..0H... Afl-WCOhfiwv mhmflodmfi W¢IO> umQMTPGH ¢0000000. . 0.00000.U...000.0Q0.000.0..h MOM COHQQOSUW d0..000.00m0000.00 .0000000.Q0000000.0h NON COfifidOfiUm 4.00.00..0m0...000 0.00....Q000000.0.h HON hmOHOQOhmm ¢00000..00 .00000000000.00Q.0.0.000.h NON COHpmuzflm pnonm>owgom mOHemHmmBommmmo QmHOHmmmmomm 4....00000 00.0.000N00000.0.H000....000 Smflflmcm Oflmwm unfiflwfiaOO 4000000000M000 000.N00000000H000.00000O mOHmwm Qbflb ¢000..000.M00. 0000.N...0....H0000000000 .hh Uh“ Oflflwm #GHOQ Hocom UQUflmfipm NUQHHOO d0...0000.m00... 00.N0.00.0.0H000.000.0o .hh UCN OHPGM QGfiOR QOCOE 40.0000.00M000.0. 00N00...000H..0.00.00O .Hh #MH Ofipdm #:HOQ hogom emanate Hoofim swam 0.88523 COprHUOthQE MO QNGQ OH000®000®00ob0 0...“...400.M000N000H..0 0vsfiflfiad HdOHCflSOOZ QH...®..0@000F00.000 Q .040.0m00.N0.0H000 QOflflcwnthEUU wQHUdOW gfinfip 0H0 09mm OH000mOOOQOOONsOOO©00 “OOOJOOOmOOONOOO-HOOO pmoy mogmmflflfloer “Ode Samoa oEez mammal... omen HMDDQDQqud AdzOHBdoOb_mO mmfimodma MbHEommwomm LU mHHmOmm U NHszmmd 302 can n.9,. t. 8H 0.3 t. was 03 con man :3 0.3 new NS 02 3. 8H 8H stem m .3 eds 8H «28 8H 8H .mé e o. mm 03 , 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8a 8a 03 H . a .53. 8H 8H 8a 8a 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H .asm a .3 8H ... 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 02 m . t. 8H . a . a. m no. no: sea 44m 8H 8H 8H . 8a 8a.. 8a 8H 03 o. 3 was 8H .35 mam «.2. do? 02 so. 09.. is .3- 02 «in 8H and. dd. a CNN. «.8 8H QR 8s 8d. 8.” new 02 don mama 8H sea Ema 8H 8H 8a 8a new 8.“ was 9% 8H 8H 02 new 3a 8a was 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 02 .md. m 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8." as... 0.3 8H t. 8H 8H t. 8H .13 was H33 ads .13 new a . om. 8H i 02 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8a is. m .m.. .m . a m a .S 03 i 8H 02 H .3 8H 8H 8H m . m a 8H 02 see tr; it”. dam has 02 t. 8H 8a was 03 use one 02 are con .mé H 8H 8H s 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 8H 53 some a H. H m o a a a o m a "am 3952 .aa H38 seam 88 amenable monsoon. znlcmeOHE 2H MNSBADOHmUaa AdZOHBl...oO> .mo w§o¢me mm 20 B< venom genomes 304 0 .00 000 09” 000 0 .00 00H 0 .00 000 4.00 000 000 0 .«0 .000 4.0.. 0.00 0.0«.. 0.«? 00.7 0.40: 0.04. 4.00 0.0 0.2.. 0.0.. 0.40 :00. H« ..o. no: .000 0.00 00H .. 0.00 000 ... 00H 00.0 000 000 000 00a .000 0.00 03 0.«0 00H 00H «44 000 00.0 «.3 0.0 00a 00a .00. 0« 0.00 000 0.00 00H 000 0.00 000 000 00.0 0.40 00.0 000 .000 eve *** .dsm H.00 000 0 .00 000 00H 000 000 00.0 000 0.3 0.00 000 .010. 0a 0.00 00H 00H 000 02 .0. 000 000 02 0.40 000 00H .03 0.00 000 00a 02 8a ... 000 0.00 03 0.00 8H 03 .000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 00.0 000 00a 000 00H .04. 0H 0 .00 00H 00H 000 00H 000 00a 000 0 . H0 000 000 00a .000 ass ass .anm 0.00 00H 00H 0.00 000 000 000 00H 00H 0.00 0.40 000 .00 5 000” 000 00.0 000 000 .... 000 8a 000 000 00H 80 .000 0 . 00 000 00a 000 000 000 0 .«0 000 000 000 000 00H .000 0.0« 0.00 ... 0.00 0.00 80 0.00.. 0.00.. 004. 0.00 H.0« 00H .00. 0a 4.04 0.00 H.00 0.00 0.0« 0.00 0.0« «.3 000 0.« 0.40 000 .000 0 .00 000 000.. 03 00a .. 000 000 000 0 .00 00H 000 .000 0.00 000 00H 000 000 00a 00a 4.0.. 000 000 02 03 :00. 3 0.00 4.00 0.«0 000 00..” 80 000 0.00 0.00: 00H 000 0.00 .004 4.0 000 .. com 000 ...... 08 0.00 000 0.00 000 8a .000 0.04 00H 0.00 «.44 0.0« .0. 0.07 0.00.. 000 0.3.. 0.04 00H .00 4a 0 .0 0 00H 00.“ 000 000 .... 000 000 000 0 .00 02 000 .000 00000 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 1.05 000002 .80 0300 00000 008 omenobd penance 305 0.00 00H 00H 00H 0.0« 0 0.40 H.0 00H 0.00 0.00 00H .000 0.00 00H 93 4.00 0.00 0.«4: 00H 0.«0 00H H.00 0.H.. 00H .00. 0« H.00 00H 0.H0 00H 00H 00H 0.H0 00H «.00 H.00 0.00 0.40 .000 0 .H0 00H ...... 00H 00H .0. 00H 00H 00H 0 . 04 00H 00H .000 0.40 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 8H 4.00 0.«0 4.3 0.04 4.00 .00. 0« 0 . 40 00H 0.00 00H 00H 0 . 00 00H 00H 00H 00H 8H 0 .00 .500 0.00 00H 00H 00H 00H 0. 00H 4.00 00H 0.«0 4.00 00H .000 0 . 0 0 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 0 .«0 00H 00H H .«0 .020. 0« H .00 00H 00H 00H 00H * 00H 00H 00H 00H 0 .40 0 .«0 .00... 0.00 00H 00H 00H 00H 0.00 00H 00H 00H 8H 00H 00H .000 0.00 00H 00H 00H 00H 4.00 00H 00H 00H 0.0« 00H 0.00 0.0 0« 4.00 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 0 . 00 00H . 000 0.H0 00H 00H 00H 00H 0.00 00H 00H 00H 00H «.04 SH .000 «.00 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 0.00 0.«0 00H 00H 00H :00 4« 0 . 00 00H 00H 00H 00H 0.«0 00H 00H 00H 00H 0 .00 00H .000 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H ... 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H .000 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H .03.. 0 « « .00 00H 00H 00H 00H « .40 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 8H .00... 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H .000 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H .0 .0. «« 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H 00H .000 00000 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a :3 000002 000 H0000. 000.00 0000 owmno>< 3:003. 306 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH .Qdm 0.40 000 000 000 000 0 000 0.00 000 000 0 0.00 000 .030 00 0.00 000 000 0.00 4.00. 0.00 000 0.40 000 0.00 000 000 .000 0.00 000 i 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0.00 .000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 . m . .0 0 0 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 . 000 000 000 .000 m 0 . 00 000 00.. 000 000 0 000 000 000 0 . 40 000 000 .000 0 .00 000 000 000 000 0000 000 000 0 .00 000 000 000 .00 40 0.00 000 *0 000 .0 0.00 000 000 000 000 000 000 .000 0.00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0.0.. 000 4.00 0.00 .000 0.00 000 000 000 000 0.00 000 0.00 000 000 000 000 .030 00 0 0.00.. 0 000.. 0 .... 000.. 000.. 000.. 000.. 000 0.00.. 000.. .000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 .000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 . m. 0 00 0 .00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 .0. . 04 .000 0.00 000 *0 000 000 00. 000 000 000 0.00 0:00 0.00 .000 0.00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0.00 .000 000 .00 00 0 .00 000 *0. 0 .00 000 *0 000 000 000 0 .04 000 000 .000 0 .00 000 0* 000 000 0* 000 000 000 0.0 0 000 000 .000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 . m. 0. 00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 .000 4.00 000 0.00: 000 000 0.00 0.0 0.0.0. 000 0.00 000 000 .000 0.04.. 0.00.. 0.00.. 0.00.. 000.. 000.. 0.40.. 0.00.. 0.00 000.. 0.00.. 0.00.. :04. 00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.40 0 0.00.. 0.0 0.00.. 0.0.. 0.00.. 000 0.00 .000 00000 00 0. 0 m 0 0 .0 0 0 m 0 :00 000002 .000 0.00.0.0 000.00 0000 mmmhm>¢ 0030009 307 0 .0 0 000 000 000 000 000 000 0.00 000 0.00 000 000 .000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 . m . 0. 04 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 .000 0 . 0 0 000 0.0 000 000 0 000 0 . 00 000 000 000 000 .000 4.00.. 000.. 0... 0.00.. 000.. 000.. 000.. 0.00.. 000 4.00.. 0.00 0.00.. 00.0. 04 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 . 000 000 000 0...... 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 .000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 . m . 0. 04 0.00 000 000 000 000 0.00 000 000 000 000 000 000 .000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 .000 4.00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0.00 000 000 000 00.0. 04 0.00 0.00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 .000 000 000 0.0 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 . 000 4.00 000 000 000 000 000 000 0.00 000 000 000 000 .010. 00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 .000 000 000 0.... 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 .000 4.0 000 0.00- 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00. 000 0.00 .0.0 00 0.40 .0 000 000 000 0.00 000 000 000 000 000 0.00 .00... *** *** .msm 0.00 000 .0 000 000 0.... 0.00 0.00 000 0.40 000 0.00 .010 00 0.00 0.00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 .000 00000 0 0 0 m 0 0. m 0 0 m 0 :00 000000 000 00000 00000 0000 mmmhm>< pmnomme 308 0 . .00 000 000 000 80 80 80 80 0 .0 80 80 80 .000 80 80 80 80 80 000 80 000 80 80 80 80 .0 . 0 00 0.00 000 80 80 000 80 80 80 80 80 0.00 80 .000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 .000 0.00 80 0.00 80 0.0.1 80 80 80 80 80 80 0.00 ..0.0 0.0 0 . 00 80 80 80 80 000 000 .0. 0m 80 80 80 80 .000 80 000 .00. 80 80 000 000 80 000 80 80 80 .000 0.00 80 80 80 80 0.00 80 80 80 80 80 80 .00 00 80 000 000 80 000 80 000 80 80 80 80 80 .0000 0.00 80 000 0.00 80 .0 000 0.00 80 0.00 80 000 .000 0.00 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 0.00 000 .0.0 00 0 000 0 000 80 000 80 000 . 00.0 80 000 80 000 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 000 . 00m 0.00 80 0.00.. 80 80 0.00 0.00 0.00 80 000 000 80 20.0 00 000 000 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 . 000 80 80 0.0 80 80 ... 80 80 80 80 80 80 .000 0.00 0.00.. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00: 0.00 0.00.. 0.0 0.00 0.0 3 80 80 ...... 000 80 .00 80 80 80 80 80 000 .000 m .00 80 80 80 80 .00 80 0.00 80 0.00 0.00 m :00 .000 0.00 80 80 80 80 0 .00 000 000 80 80 80 80 .0 .0 .3 m .00 000 80 80 80 *0 80 80 80 80 0 . 00 80 .000 00000 0 0. 0 0 0 .0 0 0 o 0 0 r3 000050 .000 00000 000.00 0000 300.0950 0050.009 309 0 0.00 000 80 80 000 000.. 80.. 0.00 80 0.00.. 000 0.00 .000 0.0mr 000: 0 0.00: 000: 0 0.00: 0.00: 000 0.00: 0.40 0.00 .0.0 00 0.00 0.0.0 0.00 80 000 0.0.0 0.0 0.00 80 80 0.00 80 .000 0.00 80 0.0 000 80 000 000 000 000 80 m .00 000 .000 0.00 80 .00 80 80 0.00 000 80 80 000 80 80 .00 00 80 80 00 80 80 80 000 000 000 80 000 80 . 000 0.00 000 000 000 000 0.00 000 000 000 0.00 000 000 .000 0.00 000 0.00 000 000 0 000 000 000 000 000 000 .0.0 00 .010: 10:0: .000 0:00 80 0.0. 000 80 0.0 80 0.00 80 80 80 0.00 .000 0.00 000 0* 0.00 0.0: 0.00 000 0.00 000 000 0.0m 000 .0.0 00 000 000 000 80 000 80 80 000 000 000 80 80 . 000 80 80 000 000 000 000 000 80 80 80 000 80 .000 0.00 000 00 000 000 0.00 000 0.00 000 000 000 000 .0.0 00 000 80 0.... 80 80 000 80 80 000 80 000 80 . 000 0 . 00 80 0.... 80 80 0.0 000 80 80 0 . 00 80 80 .000 0.00.. 0.00 0.0 0... 0.0.0: 0.0 000- 0.0.0.. 0.00 0.8.. 80 0.00 .00 00 0.00 0.00 0 m.m0 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 000 0.00: 0.0m 0.00 .000 80 80 000 000 000 80 80 80 80 80 000 000 .000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 .0.0 00 0.00 000 80 80 80 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 80 000 80 .000 000.00 0 0. 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 :00 000050 000 000.00 . 00000 0000 ow000>¢ 0020000 310 80 000 0 000 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 .000 0.00 000 000 000 000 000 000 0.00 000 000 000 000 .0.0 00 m .00 80 000 000 80 80 000 000 80 000 0 .00 000 .0000 000 000 80 000 80 80 000 80 000 80 000 80 .000 0.00 000 000 000 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 000 000 000 000 .0.0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80 80 80 000 000 000 000 000 000 .000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 80 80 80 000 000 .000 0.00 000 000 80 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 000 0.00 000 .00 00 80 000 80 80 80 80 000 000 000 000 000 000 .0000 0.00 80 .0. 0.00 0.00 .0... 80 0.00 80 0.00 0.00 0000 .000 0.0 000 0.00 0.00 0.00.. 0.0 0.00.. 0.00.. 0.00 0.00.. 000.. 0.00 .00 00 0.00 80 0.0 0.00 80 0.080.. 80 80 000 0.3 000 0.0.0... .000 0 .00 80 0 .00 000 000.. 0.0. 000 80 80 0.00 000 000 .000 0.00 000 000 80 80 0 000 0.00 000 0.00- 80 0.00.. 2.0.0. 00 0.00 0.00 000 000 000 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .000 0.00 80 .0. 80 80 0.00 000 000 80 0 .00 000 0.00 .000 0.00 0.0- 0.00 0.00 0.0.. 0. 000 0.00 80 0.00. 0.00 0.0 2.0.0 00 0.00 80 80 80 80 000 000 0.3 0.00 0.00 80 0.00 .0000 0.00 000 80 000 000 000 000 80 80.. 000 0.00 0.00.. .000 0.00 000 000 000 000 0.00 000 000 000 000 0.00 000 .0.0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 80.. 0.00- 0.00.. 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0000 000.00 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ".00 000000 000 000.00 00000 0000 ommnm>< nmnomoe 311 .¥¥* *** .msm m.4 H.m4 4.mm O.H0 N.H OOH O.~: O.Hms OOH m.Om OOH OOH .m.e H0 0.00 OOH OOH H.4O OOH O.44 0.m0 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH .eO4 4.4m O.00 OOH OOH OOH OOH 0.00 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH .Osm ~.mm OOH 0.0mn 0.0m m.0m 0.0H O.Omu 0.0 OOH 0.0« OOH OOH .m.a O0 2: OOH . OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH .54 O.mm OOH 0* OOH 0.04 m.mm 0.4m 0.0 OOH O.mu OOH 0.00 .050 O.NO OOH *0 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH 0.00 0.0m OOH .m.0 OO 4.00 OOH *0OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH «.00 OOH OOH 0.00 «.mu .aOH OOH OOH .0... OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH dam H.OO OOH OOH OOH _OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH 0.00 OOH .m.a OO OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH .064 0.mm OOH 0.«0 m.m0 0.04 OOH OOH OOH OOH ~.O0 O.m4 OOH .Osm 0.0 0.44 «.00 0.: OOH: 4.44 4. 4.04: OOH: 0.0 O.4Ou m.Hm .m.a 00 0.0m OOH OOH ,OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH «.00 OOH .aO4 H.HO OOH OOH OOH OOH 0.00 OOH O.4O OOH ,0.00 OOH OOH .Ozm O.HO OOH * OOH OOH OOH O.~O 0.«0 OOH OOH OOH 0.O0 .m.a OO OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH 8H OOH OOH .53. 0.4m OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH H.0O OOH 0.0m OOH OOH .Osm c.0m OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH 0.00 O.O0 0.00 .m.e 0O 0.0m OOH OOH OOH 0 m.mu OOH OOH n.0m OOH OOH O.mmn .aOH. pome 0 O H 0 O 0 O O O m 4 ”00 000952 000 H0009 Oopam OOOO mmmnm>< Amaomma 12 3 O...” OOH OOH OOH OOH ...... «40 OOH OOH .050 OOH OOH dam O.N.. N40 HON. 4.0.0... OOH- .... 00.40... N.,“? OOH 0&0“: OOH 0:: .0030 O... O.4m m.OH. 5.000 O.4H. OOH 4. «.8 «.mm OOH 4.00 4.0.4 O.m4 .54 0.«0. OOH 0.3 OOH OOH OOH 0.H0. OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH .Osm N.OO OOH OOH OOH OOH 0 OOH OOH OOH O.Hm OOH OOH .m.e 00 0. .3 OOH OOH OOH OOH .0 OOH OOH OOH H . OH. OOH OOH .53. m . 0 O OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH N . m0. OOH OOH OOH 0 . 40. .020 0.4m OOH O.HH OOH OOH .0 OOH OOH OOH 3:. 0.0.0 OOH 40.0. O0. 0.00. OOH OOH OOH OOH .. OOH OOH «HO OOH OOH OOH .84 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH .OOO O5. OOH O.H- 4.0m OOH OOH 00.40. 4.HO OOH 03m OOH 4.00. :04. 00. no.0. no»? .23. OOH OOH 0 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH .Osm H.000 OOH * OOH 0.0m OOH 0.0m 9mm OOH mOm 0.0.0. OOH 40.0. 40. OOH OOH .0 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH .54 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH dam O.mO OOH O.mm OOH OOH 4.NO OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH 0.00 .O.e 00 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH . e3. .xvxxx. .xlxvx. ogfim 0.00. OOH OOH OOH OOH 00.000 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH ...; m0. 00.0.0. OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH m .3 OOH OOH OOH .54 03.00 0 0. H n O .0 ..0 O O m 0 :5 $952 .Hmm Hmpom. Umfiwm 0600 wmmnm>< pm£owm9 313 OOH OOH 0.0 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH .05 0:00 OOH 0.0 OOH 0.04 OOH 0.3 H.00 OOH OOH OOH O.OO ...: OO OOH OOH i OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH . an... O.H0 OOH OOH OOH OOH 0.00 OOH OOH OOH 0.0.0 OOH m.m0 .020 0 . 00 OOH O . m OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH . O . .0 0O OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH .23. O.OO OOH .... OOH OOH OOH OOH 4.0m OOH 0.00 OOH 0.40 .95 0.8 O00 x. 0.0m O.Omu 0.00.. m.NN.. «6.0.. O.OO O.O 4.00 OOH 0.0 .400 \ \ .54 0.00 OOH OOH OOH OOH ...... OOH OOH OOH 0.0m OOH OOH .Osm 0&0 OOH .. O.$ O.O .0... 0.O0 O.m0 OOH 0.4m O.4O 0.00 :04. mm m .40 OOH OOH OOH OOH .... OOH H .00 OOH O .0 0 OOH 0 .0 0 .5... *3. 0010* .36 O.O4 OOH .. O.O.H O.Om .... 0.0? 0.3 OOH 0.HH OOH 4.00 .O..H. mm 0.00 OOH 0. OOH OOH 0.00 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH .84 4.3 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH 8H 0.00 OOH .96 0.00 OOH OOH OOH O.Hu OOH 0.0H- O.OH OOH 4:00 O.O4 OOH O.O. HO O.OO OOH OOH OOH OOH 0.H0 H.H0 OOH OOH O.HO OOH 0.04 .54 OOH OOH .... OOH OOH ... OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH .95 0.000 OOH OO OOH OOH ...... OOH OOH OOH O.H0 OOH OOH .0; OO H.00 OOH O.OO O.H0 OOH .0 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH .53. 0.3 OOH 0.... OOH ...OOH .... OOH OOH OOH 0.8 OOH OOH .05 0.00 OOH .0... OOH O04 .... OOH OOH OOH .060 0.00 OOH 30.0. 00 OOH OOH .0 OOH OOH .. OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH .33 .0300 0 O H O O .0 O O O O 4 "NO 8.052 .800 H.309 vmflmm mvoo $295 Amnomma 31A hosedmp pmzpoqm pom Oopmameco pan Oochdpmh mamom \ Oopmamfioo no: pun UOQASpmA mawom unwpmm IOIOI umcpdpmh pom OHOom wawpmm IOI Shem mcflpmm mo povcflmewp opmamsoo pom can @ Onwu op smzocw Hsz ponommp_3ocx poa OHO pwamm *** Amamom msflpwm co mpsflom mo ROmV mpcfiom O.HON can» mama so Oopoom w Anommp no: mvoav sdpmoam oz ** :onHOOO now mfimwn oz * O .OO OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH .H . Om OOH OOH OOH OOH .05 O.Hm OOH O.m0 0.0m O.mmn 0.0N O.mm m.¢ws OOH m.0 0.0: 0.00 .m.0 mm O. OO O .NH O .0O H .O0 O.HO 0. OO 0.0m 0 .000 OOH: O .ON 0 .HO OOH .53. H H.m0.. .. OOH: H.00: OOH: Om. O.H0: mtaa H.0O: 0.00u OOH: m.H 0% O.OO OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH 0.00 .3.. OOH O.Om 00.0.0... 00.0? .0; 0O H.0O OOH OOH O.HO OOH 0.00 OOH 0.0.H. OOH 0.0H- O.Hm H.0... .33. 030.0 0 0. H 0 O .0 H0 O O m 0. “an 8.0052 .80 H300 H.300 OBO Omanm>< umnomoe 315 APIEMDIX I Procedure for Determining "Coverage of Farm EXperience" 235512 £93; Ia 'n a My; Evaluation 9; Farm Experience: A. B. D. Excellent farm experiences. Has lived most of life on farm,- has operated a farm for himself (at least one year); or has served as farm manager or has farmed on a partnership basis with someone else. Well qualified in nearly all skill areas. Nearly all skill areas double checked. (Except sheep, horses.) Good farm experience. Quite a few skill areas double checked; nearly all single checked. May have farmed, but experienced no managerial ability. May possess general farming experience, but not to the excellent degree as in "A". Lacks experience perhaps in horses, beef or sheep areas. EXperience good to excellent, but will limit individual in placement to those specialized areas in which he is experienced. Quality of experiences fair. May possess average or below experiences in one major area as dairy, farm mechanics, swine, crops and soils. Most skill areas single checked. Student needs additional skills ability but it is reasonable to assume he will get these skills in his college training. Quality'of experiences mediocre to poor and major areas definitely weak. He has had limited experiences, and this eXperience may have been on small farms. Noted absence of experiences in major areas. This student not a good risk and should be guided into-some other field. Will not be eligible for certification unless additional skills are acquired. Not acceptable. Has had occasional employment on farm, but has little or nothing to offer by way of farm experiences. May have resided on a highly specialized farm (onion farm) where few if any good experiences could be acquired. Experiences so lacking as to be a definite handicap. Absence of skill checks warrant no n-approval. 316 fl Guide for MakianQ Cuantitative Evaluation‘gf Farm experiences: 3. __l Faun experience after age of 15, and before graduation from high school is determined by taking the number of months and dividing by two. (If the person were over 18 at graduation, this might result in more than 18 months in some cases. a. If summers only are spent on fans during high school years, count suimer months at full value, but person.must get at least nine months more experience at times other than summer. b. If a person moved off the fann before graduating, usage at leavirs fare. For persons who have lived and worked on a farm until high-school graduation (i.g., who have equivalent of one and one-half years experience since age of 15, six.months more are required. This may be in summer if quality is acceptable). The following jobs related to farming may be counted as farm experience, provided the person also has one year of year-round fa rm experience: ije'gg'Work Value Maximum Credit D.H.I.A. ester Full 1 yea h-H Club Agent Full 3 months Greenhouse Worker 1/2 3 months .C.S. Aids Full 3 months Fann.Account Checker, F. Mgt. Dept. Full 3 months Fertilizer, feed, etc. Salesman 1/2 3 months Farm Elevator worker 1/2 3 months Fruit Inspection 1/2 3 months Farm Custom WOrker 1/2 3 months Work on College Farm a. While enrolled as student 1/2 3 months b. While not enrolled Full 317 APPENDIX J Teacher No. Computation Table for Speanman's Rank Correlation Coefficient for Teacher Performance Scores by Teacher-Educators (T.E.), School Administrators (Admin.) and State Supervisors (Sup. . Sub- Rank Rank 9 Rank Rank 2 Rank Rank 2 Section by by. DD~ by by DD by by D D T.E. Adn1n T.E. Sup. Admin. Sup. "11 :20 J Total rr t **Significant at the 5% level; *Not significant at the 5% level of significance. 318 .oHeoo onspHsOHnm< Ho:OHpoOo> mo nonomoe one now me gonads oEom one cw oopondsopcfl one mohoom one .omoHHoo Headpasowsmo no mo mopospesm one on: whoOSOM Hemmmooonm .ooocoflsodxo mo omonp op mpmonopoa m.oqo mosoano ..odoom .HoELom one. am oHoom $50qu .4 2.3. .00 omoo onp 5“ mo ohdm no on #0580 o3 p.05. £58m 3:5 mo mpmonopcw on» we: Nwmmmmmm oco peep memos m mo weapon 4 .mpmosoecfi noon obs: mum mooo ooo meson non can» mood mo mopoom osmonspoV 0 mo mcfipos o oaflnz .msonm was» no opoopopGH onp mmm one non» memos Aposo one m4 mo oaooo epoocOpoV < mo weapon < .onsvHSOHsm< Hosowpooo> mo muonooop Hammmoooso qoooeofisogxo mo omonp new: oudeoo memosopcfi m.oco ooswoo one moueoaoufi onoom on» .oHoOm othHSOflsm< Hocowpooo> mo nonoooe onp .H oaeow no .ohansOstd HeGOHpooo> mo muonooop nonspm Homecoo sphoz Hammoooosm .poocowquXo NON mo macaw anon 8 some women one mohoom oafipcoouom one osooasvm omons .ocwH do» oSp so moamoo one mafia: hp monoom odes Iooonom no osmooopm .poppoa Op sopho>ooo on one monoom sou omoss .o>opo ooxsoe one oHooo nonnsm on» Amv one .oHoomlpsm nowposmwfipom wcwzoeoa on» ANV .oaoom osspH:OHpm< HOCOflpooo> mo nonoeos one Adv so oohooo snow _ u - q — 11 u. n q d d - a O.HH 8H OOH 8 OO O4 8 O 8.: Os: 8. 8| OOH: $50.05 . . . H _ . 4 4 H . J onodlnHHn £03.06.“ 8 OO Os 8 O 8: 3.. OO: 8- OOH: ONH: IOSOW OOEQOOORO \4‘ . _ . . . l . H H . a . . 4‘ . . onmw SOHhm: .oo O.H0 8N o8 8H OOH 9.2 8H OOH 8 OO O4 8 O 8.: 3.. 8: 8: WM sesame?” 0.0 m0 8 O40 Ow Om 0.0. O.H m 8.88 333030 8 O0 0. 8 O0 3 m 8 8 O OH O $.88 0.3830 . s _ . . lp . p . mz wzomem flue mom Exom Hmommm mmDBADonU< 4420H8400> mo mdmo mcflnooop mo Qofi onp cw powwowpoo Ham: on HHHS on ousm hanecooooh on coo oco «coapoommflpoo new #oommo mpmonopcw paonxo one on .ponp mopooaosfl « mo MCHpms o veep .osomononp «oozaoooo pnmfle o3 .xpoz_ooo nofi nfionp new: Ooflmowpemmflo no psono00floofi one; Omcfipop o nods muonoeop one we mam. .ooflmowpoomflo so pooHoMMHOGH ops; awn mafia? «now one xnoz Aflosp new: poamoapoo Haoz osoz wmo oaoomlndm opp no uncanny m £903 muozooop one mo .oonOflpOOOOU so noosom Imaoca onoz med oaflnz .mnon paonp Odo xnoz swoop news OoHMOOpom HHoz opoz mow oaoomlndm on» no mmcflgos d npwz msozoooa osp mo .COHpOposQuopcfl ova op osao osom mo>fim adosw shoe one ma oopsaocfl muonooop hum one you oHoom undo COHpOOMOHpOO mcfizooon o:p do mosooo one GOHpOOMOonm non mo owzwpos MHoo one mo somHsomEoo 4 .dOHpOOH Iowpoo 90h sea one gmfls new: osocooop mo opoopopcfl wcwpoonpnoo one com: women ofl N oHoom .AH oaoom so mcfl upon m no 4 so an oopOOHOGHV ohdesOHnm¢.Honowpooo> mo msonooop mo mpmopovcfl one no: HOsOH>HOCH no open hano Icomoos sons haoo pond on cadozm one A oHOom mo oHOooIQSO o ofl .oHeom Goapoomowpow mcflnoooe ozp «N oaoom 320 mono onp cum mmodpmdp op hapopnpm poonoe x903 op opoucoo oaoflmoom opompoppco op oosoom haaaopoo Ooxnoz .3.?de mcoppodpflm 3o: 5” pawsHOp coon no: pop: inflame pom Ema-Ill. moGHSOdE so mososm hpommm o£p on: poo UHQ ocoppooppm_3od op Oocsooa on pop: oowamae oaoop meson ho3.pho: ozp.xsoz opmhlll. mo oms ozp ow mooppomsd hpomom pobnompo hauooao mmoflnp.amowconooa onshomoo OHdouIIII. ammoCOSOHomcoo hpomem oomoooosm Hoopcmnoos wCHOCOpmaoOdd ca mpasopmmpo OomWIII. haemoo oeoaposm Hmopconooe Uobaomllll soap hanoom Muoz.oonpcomsOIlll. nonpocofioo 8 now OopmspnopCp on op popooHQIlll oafip oco pm Eonp ponsooo EH: poopomo poo: poo maepnopoa one oHoOp.som moooc oopoapOflpcdllll secs dogs nomsop pop 8 oomeadopo.copMOIlll. oozmss smoonp "pzuflmefi Hoopoogoom so>o ego: mo hpflamso nape O OoGfiOchmzllll oedemosd soon: mp hao>ppoommo x903 p.dOHdouIIII. xsoz poonooo we hapmoo no xno:.ompoonm Homouoo ope v0.83 mono Gun Uopooo morpoao poo: pod OHQIIII. v0.09» mo monk... pooe no hapoopopmmo bob ooxsozl 0“pr pom op ofifimo pane?! medics» op mpcoEoboE .fiemmooog odes-ill. HMO: .HHHOHEo moon”... 8 Ga so ocoao v0.83 odeoolll. penicillin 0330.3. OHSHOOHO 300. .8 that 20.0 030': 93$... sense. 228 in. Bengali .3003 80 OHOOHZHO .....oa as OHO "NOoAOSOoo so Handponv doppmoo< "Awaawxm sepomv_hpfiappo no hpfloomoo .pmoozpo ozp pom onooo m opsmaoo op woos pom on now .mCOHpoom osp mo onm mp ooxoono op Hawz mpdofiopdpm on ponp on has pH .Uopeh MCfiop comhom osp opflpomoo gong: opcofi Iopopo omonp haco xoogo .oapeppooosd hpo> one whogpo one moppmflpopomseno oapopflmoo hhob ohm oEow .moommao mono CH meoOSpm mo zen? onp onppopOOpono gown: mpcofiopepo o>ppmppoooo mo hopes: 8 one zoaom "mCOHpoonHQ sopodnpmcH pooh Euoe one: m.pcopzpm MoOCH Hooficozooz m.p:oOSpm op quCHopnom mpcosopopm o>flpappomoa A NHQZHmmd 321 hapoppo one anode mono moox op Ooprllll ego: man up oopsm mod o>en poo ppm 59 pom op Qusoso poow push xhob ppm O30: hppfioso popcomonaon p853 mo mopocdpmnooad ooom pom Xhoz hppaeso pow monopcopm Ooom o>ox p0: opQIIII manpsopos o>om op mass poo ohnmpm op oEHp pcomm manpnopoa Oopooz xs03 op: op oponno ooos dopmo xpoz pomXo hpo> ppm uxh03 mo mopsosopm nonpnooa Undone he: onp op mos noppo mqpnpoaollll oHoop Spam: mmoaonool 900 one too Hoop OOOHO one OOOOIIII oaoop sozom so mzflxuoz Cog: ooppmp> copmo "o.pcoo I moonSOpomcoo hpomem maapxm mono opfldooo op pnowmo Hepoomm oO8w oopsom ogp mo Odo onp Apps: ppm; haossg OHdoo xpos.ppsv op oopom mono opp CH xpoa mp: oohOmcm stos.aoem OOxHHmHO xpoz mono op oopmonoch momoOHo @038 CH oopom "poopopoH ' l mommooosm Hepooaopnsm mo owooazoox ooxoop hapooppoo oHOOp ooEEoo on: pom ppm oommooosa Hoopsosoofi mopppsoooo op oefiop pooppoo pom: mocpsoos mo mpsmm one mHoop pmoE pom moEo:_3osx "NoCSOhmxoopv omocflomom opooOSpo ponpo song aHOO Ozonspz.OOHOOssOmeH eOHHOO O.:OHOOO pawsop one: gopnz.ooAOOooona no oosno sooaom oopmo ondpooond so oopoonpoo op op ooOooz :30 mp: do QOn o on one pooco om op oocoOHmooo ooxooq hapnosoosm oop Ado: no oow>oo.uom ooxo< ooooon nos: 05o: wfixoom p523? poops oonoogamlll ”MMHOGOpmpona: mo moosxofind r" “f V ' "f. 1:2. 1‘5!" :1“ ;§ $155K} {J-. ‘a. ‘ ‘u [HER-1.33352? LEAN FFRA—QSL—v- . s: «0.0.0.- _ ... n .-.... v ‘ ~-.§ e : ..v ...s-lUN. 21mm; .‘E .fi-§.;._+_ _ . .~.-— . . A trees / so ' w l t 7 .' T! u ..I L