1 AN iNVESTIGATION OF ‘1 VISITATION. EXPERIENCES IN AN :e EDUCATION PROGRAM FUR _‘ PROSPECTWE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS 7* Thesis for the Degree of Ph‘. D MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY GEORGE ROBERT SCHNECK ~ 1972 '7 V, ' r ’1” u" ",J "’ - ....."’,. < - e; "rum.““uh...” 1‘ -”'a‘}""’-r:- T. .. . ... ,. .., _‘nc‘..n- “I? .v, ."-, Mn :.'57‘ 1‘”, }{f‘ 1"- ' 1 iv: - . :i'pr..n.‘,.-7, ,'._3. (NJ-:7 ”2:2,, 2/7: ”1"” This is to certify that the AN INVESTIGATION OF VISITATION EXPERIENCES IN AN EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR PROSPECTIVE thesis entitled ELEMENTARY TEACHERS presented by George Robert Schneck has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for 911.9 degree in Education 0 Date Februarx 11, 1972 0-7639 Major professor LIBRARY Michigan State University ‘ w 1:..- FINDING BY ‘7 I “DES &1msh -2' 800K BINDERY mot L'PQAP‘T' BIT‘OE ”Q -‘Jn SPRTPTGPORT, MICK-1.2} i . ”—4 - ».-.-_-. l'l TI} II, III, I. ll ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION OF VISITATION EXPERIENCES IN AN EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR PROSPECTIVE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS BY George Robert Schneck Problem investigated. The purpose of this study was to compare an existing half day per week per term pre- service school visitation program at Michigan State Uni- versity fall term 1968 to the full day per week per term pre-service school visitation program initiated winter term 1968 for prospective elementary teachers. The bases for the comparison involved: the expectations and desires of students relative to their school visitation experience and the extent to which these expectations and desires were fulfilled; and, the nature and extent of the observation and participation experiences encountered by the students. Descriptive features and treatment of data. Pre-service students concurrently enrolled in Education 321-B Teaching Science and Mathematics at the Elementary Level and the half day school visitation program fall term 1968, and pre-service students concurrently enrolled in 321-B and the full day school visitations program winter .e ‘- ’1 George Robert Schneck term 1969 provided the study population. Each population responded to five questionnaires designed by the investi- gator to gather data relevant to eleven hypotheses isolated for investigation. The questionnaire responses were analyzed for sig— nificance through the implementation of a two-tailed "t" test technique. A criterion level of significance was established at 0.05 for data analysis relevant to each variable. Findings. The following findings resulted from an analysis of the data of the study. 1. Students in the half day school visitation popula- tion expressed a significantly greater number of expecta— tions of the program than students in the full day school visitation population. 2. There was no significant difference in the number of desires, with respect to the school visitation program, identified by each pOpulation. 3. Students enrolled in the half day school visita- tion population realized a significantly greater prOportion of their expectations and desires than students in the full day school visitation population. 4. Students in the full day school visitation pOpu- lation encountered a significantly greater number of participation and observation experiences than the students in the half day school visitation population. George Robert Schneck 5. Students enrolled in the full day school visita— tion pOpulation encountered a significantly greater variety of participation experiences than the students in the half day school visitation population. 6. Students in the full day school visitation popu— lation participated in a significantly greater variety of subject matter areas than the students in the half day school visitation population. 7. Students enrolled in the full day school visita— tion program spent a significantly greater amount of time in participation activities than the students in the half day school visitation population. 8. Students in the full day school visitation pOpu— lation acquired a significantly greater number of behaviors considered desirable as preparation for teaching than stu- dents in the half day pOpuIation. 9. A high percentage of students enrolled in the full day visitation program indicated an expectation and desire to be prepared by the methods instructors for the experiences they should get in the school visitation experi- ences. 10. A high percentage of the students enrolled in the' full day school visitation program indicated that an oppor— tunity to discuss in methods classes questions that arise as a result of the school visitations was important. AN INVESTIGATION OF VISITATION EXPERIENCES IN AN EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR PROSPECTIVE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS BY George Robert Schneck A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1972 (9 COpyright by GEORGE ROBERT SCHNECK 1972 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer expresses a sincere appreciation to Dr. John M. Mason, Chairman of his doctoral committee, for his interest, guidance and support, throughout the identi- fication, development, and completion of the study. Appreciation is extended to the other members of the doctoral committee, Drs. Jane Smith, T. Wayne Taylor, and, George Meyers whose assistance in the design of the study and constructive criticism throughout its completion was invaluable. He also expresses gratitude to Roy Gabrill a research consultant in the Office of Research Consultation for his aid in the implementation of the statistical analy- sis of the data. Appreciation is expressed to Dr. William V. Hicks Chairman of the Department of Elementary and Special Educa- tion and the staff for approval of the study and for professional assistance. Finally appreciation is extended to his mother, sister, and brother for their support and prayers throughout his doctoral program. iii CHAPTER TABLE OF CONTENTS I 0 INTRODUCTION. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Recognition of the need for school visita Need for the study . . . . Purposes of the study. . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . tion experiences in the training of prospective teachers. . . . . . Design of the study. . . . . . . . . . . . Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Source of data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identification of terms. Treatment of data. . . . Assumption of the study. 'Limitations of the study Organization of the dissertation . . . . . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . l. 2. Surveys of institutional practices as related to laboratory programs. . . . . Influences of laboratory programs with respect to the modification of atti— tudes and understandings of pre-service students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Influences of laboratory programs on anxieties about student teaching and teaching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Influences of laboratory programs on success in student teaching or teaching Professional programs emphasizing laboratory experiences. . . . . . . . . The implementation of modern technology in laboratory programs. . . . . . . . . The status of research relative to pre- service laboratory experiences. . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page 24 25 26 28 30 32 TABLE OF CONTENTS——continued CHAPTER Page III. DESCRIPTIVE FEATURES OF THE STUDY . . . . . . 36 The design of the study. . . . ... . . . . 36 Students in the study. . . . . . . . . . 37 A brief description of the ”Block" program at Michigan State University. . . . . . 37 Background of the study. . . . . . . . . . 40 The construction of the instruments used in the study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Pre-service Student School Visitation Questionnaire I - Student perceived goals of the school visitation experi- ence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Pre-service Student School Visitation Questionnaire II - A summary of the-par— ticipatory activities engaged in by "Block" students during the first seven weeks of the school visitation experi- ence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Pre- -service Student School Visitation Questionnaire II—A. A summary of the participatory activities engaged in by "Block" students during one visitation experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Pre-service Student School Visitation Experience - "A summary of the observa- tional experiences during the school' visitation experiences" . . . . . . . . 51 Pre—service Student School Visitation Questionnaire III ~ "Goals attained by the students as a result of the school visitation experience . . . . . . . . . 54 Administration of instruments - general features. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Administration of Questionnaire I, fall term 1968 and winter term 1969. . . . . 56 Fall Term 1968. . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Winter term 1969. . . . . . . . . 57 Administration of Questionnaire II fall term 1968 and winter term 1969. . . . . 57 Fall term 1968. . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Winter term 1969. . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Administration of Questionnaire II A, fall term 1968 and winter term 1969. . . . . 58 Fall term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Winter term . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Administration of the Observation ques- tionnaire and Questionnaire III, fall term 1968 and winter term 1969. . . . . 58 V TABLE OF CONTENTS——continued CHAPTER Fall term 1968. . . . . . . . . . . . . Winter term 1969. . . . . . . . . . . . Collection of data . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of data . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. Questionnaire I and associated hypotheses. Questionnaire III and associated hypothe- ses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire II and associated hypotheses The Observation Questionnaire and associ- ated hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire II-A and associated hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data not subjected to statistical analysis SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . Results and conclusions. . . . . . . Summary and discussion of the results and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for teacher training insti- tutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identification of problems for further research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. B. Explanatory letter to the Director of Elemen- tary Education of the Lansing Public Schools. Pre-service Student School Visitation Ques- tionnaire I as administered fall term 1968 and winter term 1969. . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-service Student School Visitation Ques- tionnaire II as administered fall term 1968 and winter term 1969. . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre—service Student School Visitation Ques— tionnaire II-A as administered fall term 1968 and winter term 1969. . . . . . . . . . . . . vi 66 7O 74 75 78 80 81 84 89 9O 93 94 98 101 119 131 TABLE OF CONTENTS--continued Page APPENDICES E. Pre-service Student School Visitation Experi- ence Observation Questionnaire as adminis— tered fall term 1968 and winter term 1969 . . 149 Pre-service Student School Visitation Experi— ence Questionnaire III as administered fall term 1968 and winter term 1969. . . . . . . . 168 vii TABLE 1. 10.. LIST OF TABLES The schedule for the administration of ques- tionnaires fall term 1968, and winter term 1969. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of the number of expectations recorded by the half day and full day school visitation populations. . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of the number of desires recorded by half day and full day school visitation popu- lations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of the achieved expectations recorded by the half day and full day school visitation populations. . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of the achieved desires of the half day and full day school visitation popula— tions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of desirable teaching behaviors acquired by half day and full day school visitation populations. . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of the variety of participation activities engaged in by half day and full day school visitation populations during the first seven weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of the number of participatory activities experienced by half day and full day school visitation populations during the first seven weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of the amount of time spent in par— ticipation experiences by half day and full day populations during the first seven weeks. Analysis of the number of observation activ— ities experienced by half day and full day ,school visitation populations . . . . . . . . viii Page 55 64 65 67 68 7O 71 73 75 LIST OF TABLES--continued TABLE 11. 12. 13. Page Analysis of the variety of participation experiences during one school visitation by half day and full day populations. . . . . . . 76 Analysis of participation in a variety of subject matter areas by half day and full day school visitation populations. . . . . . . . . 77 Achieved interactions between the methods courses and the school visitation experience winter term. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 ix k1 Du ‘- L,’ CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This study was concerned with the expectations and/or desires of two groups of prospective elementary teachers relative to their school visitation experiences, and the extent to which these expectations and/or desires were fulfilled. The study also identified specific observ- ational and participational experiences that these students encountered. The data collected relative to these antici— pations and experiences were used to compare a half day per week school visitation program to a full day per week visitation program for prospective elementary teachers. Recognition of the need for school visitation experiences in the training of prospective teachers. From the inception of teacher education programs in the United States, the desirability of blending elements of theory and practice has been recognized. The regulations governing the first public normal school in the United States, which Opened in 1839 in Lexington, Massachusetts, indicated that the curricula should be designed to effect the following two Objectives: First the attainment of a more thorough and system- atic acquaintance with the branches usually taught in common schools, and an adequate foundation in other parts of knowledge highly useful to the skill- ful teacher; and secondly, the art of imparting instruction to the youthful mind, which will be taught in its principles and illustrated by oppor- tunity for practice, by means of a model school.1 Two decades later, in 1859, these objectives were re- emphasized in a resolution adOpted at the First Annual Con— vention of the American Normal School Association. The resolution read as follows: Resolved: that this education of teachers should not only be theoretical but also practical; and that, to this end, there should be either a school of observa- tion and practice in immediate connection with the normal school, and under the same Board of Control, or that there should be in other ways equivalent opportunities for observation and practice. The position taken by the American Normal School Association regarding the desirability of practical training for the education of pre-service teachers influenced the organiza- tional patterns and curricular offerings of the normal schools. Observation of techniques in teaching and managing a school, participation in grading of papers and working with individuals, and the teaching of small groups or iso— lated lessons were features of the experiences provided for pre-service teachers in the normal schools. However, in 1Vernon L. Mangun. The American Normal School. Baltimore: Warwick and York, Inc., 1928. p. 120. 2E. I. F. Williams. The Actual and Potential Use of Laboratory Schools. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1942. p. 10. general, practical experiences varied greatly both in variety and in time allotment in normal schools throughout the United States. The main type of program for pre-service teachers in which such activities as the observation of teaching tech- niques and actual participation in classroom practices were experienced was the so-called "student teaching" requirement. While the "student teaching" experience has since become a requirement for teacher certification, many educators have also contended that individuals preparing for teaching should have more experiences in the classroom than those normally provided by the usual student teaching programs. In an effort to provide additional experiences, several col- leges and universities have initiated pre-service school visitation experiences prior to student teaching as an integral part of the elementary teacher education program. While the need for definitive standards for the governing of the professional laboratory and student teach- ing experiences was recognized early by educators, no specific recommendations were made with respect to pre— student teaching experiences until the report of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education in 1948. This report is commonly referred to as "the Flowers Report." The report was the work of a sub-committee of the Committee on Standards and Surveys of the American Associa- tion of Colleges for Teacher Education. Within the framework of the report, mandates were set forth for the inclusion of extensive pre-student teaching laboratory experiences. The report not only outlined the functions of pre-student teaching laboratory experiences, but also emphasized the need for early and continued experiences in such training. The report reads in part as follows: The need for direct experience, to give meaning to ideas and to develop functional understanding that leads beyond verbalization to the ability to imple— ment ideas in action, applies equally at all levels of maturity. The nature of the student's pre- ceding experiences in a given area, rather than the age of the learner or his position in the educa— tional ladder, is the criterion for determining the amount and place of direct experience. Direct laboratory experiences, therefore, should be an integral part of each of the four years of college.3 The "Flowers Report" had a significant impact upon teacher training institutions throughout the United States. A proliferation of new and varied types of pre—service school visitation programs was initiated as a result of this report. Stiles states that: One of the most significant developments in teacher education in the past two decades has been the expansion of organized "professional laboratory experiences" as an integral part of many pre—service teacher education programs.... These activities embrace guided observation of, and participation with, children, youth and adults in a wide range of school and community situations.4 3John G. Flowers, Allen D. Patterson, Florence Stratemeyer. "Recommended Standards Governing Professional Laboratory Experiences and Student Teaching." In: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. First Yearbook. Oneonta: The Association, 1948. pp. 91—92. 4L. J. Stiles, and others. Teacher Education in the United States. New York: The Ronald Press, 1960. p. 230. Need for the study. It seems to the writer that "The Flowers Report" should have focused the attention of researchers on the pre-service school visitation phase of the teacher education program. During the background study needed to compose the standard governing professional laboratory experiences, the sub-committee discovered and reported that nowhere, in all the laboratory experiences, were practices more confusing and in need of research than in the area of pre—student teaching laboratory experiences.5 A few studies appear in the literature which attack this problem, over the next ten years. Their impact was so slight however, that Ulry in 1959 stated that there still existed: "... Great need for research concerning strong and weak points and possible results of the programs in teacher edu- cation."6 This sentiment was echoed again in a study by Halfaker in 1962, when he concluded as follows: 1. The extent of professional growth achieved by students during participation in the various types of laboratory experiences provided prior to student teaching should be investigated. 2. Appraisal studies need to be made of the nature and scope of professional laboratory experiences 5American Association of Teachers Colleges, Sub- Committee of the Committee on Standards and Surveys - School and Communitnyaboratory Experiences in Teacher Education. Oneonta: The Association, 1948. p. 17. 6L. O. Ulry. "The Program of Field Service Projects In Education of the College of Education the Ohio State University." Dissertation Abstracts 20: 2161; No. 6, 1959. provided for students prior to student teaching.7 Reviews of the literature concerning pre-service laboratory experienced programs carried out between 1962 and 1968 all support the premise that this phase of the teacher education program has been neglected by researchers. Mauker' in 1962 reports that: "... there was no research evidence that the time spent in the field experience program might not be spent more advantageously in academic pursuits."8 In 1963, Reynard states that: "Professional laboratory ex- perience seems to be the area least challenged in teacher education." Cyphert and Spaights in 1964, in analyzing research in teacher education over a ten year period, con- clude pessimistically that: Where one peruses the changes made in teacher educa— tion over the past decade, or projects ahead for the next ten years, he is struck by the undeniable evi- dence that virtually all of those who are planning the improvement of teacher education are operating, and are likely to continue to operate, by applying their subjective insights-hunches and hypotheses growing out of experience to reorganizing portions of their programs. They have neither pre— nor post— 7Philip Halfaker. "Professional Laboratory Experi- ences Provided Prior to Student Teaching for Secondary Student in Selected Teacher Education Institutions.” Unpublished Doctor's Dissertation. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1962. p. 162. 8J. W. Mauker. "Imperitives for Excellence in Teacher Education"-In: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Foundations for Excellence. Fifteenth Yearbook. washington, D.C.: The Association, l962. p. 7. innovative empirical data concerning the validity of their changes. Three years later in 1967, Estes indicated that the conclu- sions of Cyphert and Spaights were valid._ As a result of his review of the literature, he reached the following conclusions: 1. Little has been done in the field of education which provides a basis for classifying, by educational authority, professional laboratory experiences as being suggested, necessary or effective, nor has there been development of a set of criteria which measures the effectiveness of specific laboratory experiences. 2. Based on certain data, it would seem that more than one half of the institutions are not con- cerned about objectively measuring the effective— ness of professional laboratory eXperiences.1 Several generalizations emerge as a result of the investigator's review of the literature. (1) Pre-service school visitation programs have been recognized as one important phase of the teacher education program since the establishment of the normal schools. (2) There has been progressive emphasis upon the need for earlier exposure to pre-service school visitation and other pre-service labora- tory programs. (3) Researchers have essentially failed to focus their attention on the school visitation phase of the teacher education program. 9Federick Cyphert, and Ernest Spaights. An Analysis and Projection of Research in Teacher Education. Coopera- tive Research PrOject no. F—Ols. Columbus: The Ohio State University Foundation, 1964. p. 2. 10Sidney Estes. "A Status Study of Pre-Student Teaching Laboratory Experiences in Elementary Teacher Edu- cation.” Dissertation Abstracts 28: 4022A: No. 10, 1968. An investigation undertaken at Michigan State Univer— sity at the beginning of the Fall term of 1968 further emphasized the institutional need to investigate pre-service school visitation programs. 'As one phase of a study of changes instituted in the elementary "Block" program, the Elementary and Special Education department was planning an evaluation of the department's pre—service school visitation program. At this time, neither the personnel nor the research design had been selected to carry out this portion of the research. The "Block" program at Michigan State University is a part of the professional sequence normally enrolled in by elementary education majors during their junior year. It is a fifteen hour sequence which includes common elements, special methods courses, and a half day school visitation program. During the 1967—68 school year, the faCulty and students involved with the "Block" program had indicated that a need existed for changes to be made in the structure of the program. In response, the Elementary and Special Education department had preposed several changes which would be instituted at the beginning of the Winter term of 1968. In order to facilitate the evaluation of these changes, an evaluation committee was appointed by V. W. Hicks, chair- man of the Elementary and Special Education department. Because of personal interest in the school visitation aspect of the program, the writer sought the opportunity to independently investigate the changes affecting the school visitation program. Approval for the investigation by the author was given by the chairman of the research committee and the department chairman. Purposes of the study. The main purpose of the study was to compare the half day per week per term pre-service school visitation program to the full day per week per term pre-service school visitation program as implemented at Michigan State University fall term 1968 and winter term 1969. Problems inherent in implementating this purpose were: 1. The construction of instruments to gather data for the comparison which would allow the investi— gator to: a. secure student opinion as to their expecta— tions and desires relative to the activities (participation and non-participation) which would be provided by the visitation program; b. secure student opinion as to the degree to which their expectations and desires were realized by the visitation program; c. secure information relative to specific activities (participation and non-participa- tion) which students experienced during their school visitation period as well as about those which they did not experience; and, d. secure student opinion as to their changes in behavior as a result of their visitation experiences. 2. Identify the interactions that occurred within the "Block" courses as a result of the pre- service school visitation programs. 10 Hypotheses. With respect to the purposes of the study the following hypotheses were formulated and tested. 1. Students participating in the full day visita— tion program will express a number of expectations with respect to the school visitation program equal to that of students participating in the half day school visitation program . (H01:M1=Mg) Students participating in the full day school visitation program will express a number of desires with respect to the school visitation program equal to that of students participating in the half day school visitation program. (H02:M1=M2) Students participating in the full day school visitation program will realize a proportion of their expectations equal to that of students enrolled in the half day school visitation pro— gram. (H032M1=M2) Students participating in the full day school visitation program will realize a proportion of their desires equal to that of students enrolled in the half day school visitation program. (H04zM1=M2) Students enrolled in the full day school visita- tion program will report experiencing a variety of participation activities equal to that of students enrolled in the half day school visita— tion program during the first seven weeks of the school visitation program. (H05:M1=M3) Students enrolled in the full day school visita- tion program will report experiencing a number of participation activities equal to that of students enrolled in the half day school visitation program during the first seven weeks of the school visita- tion program. (H052M1=M2) Students enrolled in the full day school visita— tion program will report experiencing a number of observation activities equal to that of students enrolled in the half day school visitation program. (H073M1=M2) Students participating in the full day school visitation program will report acquiring a variety of behaviors which are considered to be desirable 11 as preparation for teaching equal to that of students enrolled in the half day school visita— tion program. (Hoe:M1=M2) 9. Students enrolled in the full day school visita— tion program will report an amount of time spent in participation experiences during the first seven weeks of the chool visitation experience equal to that of st dents enrolled in the half day school visitation program. (HogzM1=M2) 10. Students enrolled in the full day school visita- tion program will report a variety of participa— tion experiences during one school visitation equal to that of students enrolled in the half day school visitation program. (Halonleg) 11. Students enrolled in the full day school visita— tion program will report experiencing participa— tion activities in a variety of subject matter areas equal to that of students enrolled in the half day school visitation program. (H0112M1=M2) Design of the study. The study was carried on as an integral part of the elementary education "Block" program at Michigan State University fall term and winter term 1968-69. The study was so designed that group data could be collected on the students enrolled in the "Block" program. In order to insure a consistency of method of data collection, all data were collected during regularly scheduled university class periods. Population. The students enrolled in Education 321—B fReaching Science and Mathematics at the Elementary Level faill term 1968 and winter term 1969 and who were concurrently enrolled in the school visitation program constituted the Populations for the study. There were 261 students enrolled in 3211B in the fall term 1968 and 199 students enrolled in 12 321-B winter term 1969. Of these students only those who were also enrolled in the visitation program and who re- turned usable questionnaire response sheets became a part of the study. Source of data. The data were collected by means of a questionnaire technique. A brief summary of these ques— tionnaires appears below. 1. Questionnaire I - Student perceived goals of the school visitation experiences. The questionnaire was designed to gather information relative to the variety of experiences students expected and/ or desired to encounter during their visitation experience. 2. Questionnaire II - A summary of the participatory activities engaged in by "Block" students during the first seven weeks of the visitation experi- ence. The questionnaire was designed to elicit information relative to the number of times and the duration of these times, that students were able to actively participate in various activities during the first seven weeks of the visitation experience. 3. Questionnaire II—A. — A summary of the participa— tion activities engaged in by Block students during one visitation experience. The question~ naire was designed to gather information relative to the number of times and the subject matter area that a student had the opportunity to participate in various activities during one visitation experi- ence. 4. Observation Questionnaire. — A summary of the observational experiences during the school visi- tation experience. The questionnaire was designed to provide a record of the observations that the‘ students had made about selected phases of the teaching-learning situation during their visita- tions. 5. Questionnaire III. — Goals attained by students as a result of the school visitation experience. The questionnaire was designed to gather information 13 relative to the students' judgments as to whether or not they had achieved their expectations and/or desires as stated in questionnaire one. Identification of terms. The terms or phrases listed below should be considered within this paper to have the meaning attributed to them by the accompanying definition. 1. Pre-service school visitation program at Michigan State University.. A program in which elementary education majors enrolled in the methods "Block" sequence are assigned to and visit elementary classrooms in the Lansing Public Schools. Half day school visitationqprogram. A program in which elementary education "Block" students at Michigan State University spend one-half day each week of the term in an elementary or junior high school. Full day school visitation program. A program in which elementary education "Block" students at Michigan State University spend one full day each week of the term in an elementary or junior high school. Participation activity. Any activity in which a student engages during a school visitation which involves interaction with students, teacher, materials, and/or non-teaching personnel. Non—participation activity. Those activities engaged in by students which are primarily observational in nature. Expectations. ‘EXpectations are the activities which the students anticipate that the school visitation program will provide as well as the changes in behavior that he anticipates will take place as a result of the visitation experience. Desires. Desires are the activities which the students would like the school visitation program to provide, as well as the changes in behavior that he would like to have take place as a result of the visitation experience. Behaviors considered desirable as preparation for teaching. This phrase should be understood to 14 include only those behaviors listed in Question— naire I and III part D of each. These were: a. a feeling of ease when working with Children; b. an ability to identify characteristics of a given age group; C. an ability to construct appropriate lesson plans; d. an ability to plan for and work with two groups simultaneously; e. the development of a judgment of the time necessary to teach a lesson; f. a recognition of an acquisition of motiva- tional techniques; 9. a sense of the individual's suitability to work at a given grade level: h. a sense of the suitability of teaching as a career for the individual: and, i. a sense of competency regarding the appro- priateness of curricular patterns. Treatment of data. The questionnaire response sheets were submitted to the Office of Evaluation Services at Michigan State University. Frequency counts and percentages were Obtained for each item on the questionnaires. The data on the response sheets were then key punched for use in the Control Data Process 3600 computer. The hypotheses of 'the study were analyzed using a two-tailed test of signifi- cance technique. Assumption of the study. The following statements represent the basic assumptions under which this study was carried out. 15 1. Students were intellectually honest in their responses to the questionnaire instruments. 2. Information which was lost because of incomplete return of the questionnaires was random over both terms and the remaining samples were repre— sentative of the total population. 3. The questionnaires were valid instruments for the collection of data with respect to the stated aspects of the visitation experiences. 4. The information collected on the expectation and or desire questionnaire fall term 1968, was not significantly contaminated by the late adminis— tration of this questionnaire. 5. The data collected were not affected by students responding on the face of the questionnaires fall term and on IBM scoring sheets winter term. 6. The differences in the course organization of the "Block" program fall 1968 and of the winter 1969 did not significantly affect student attitude with respect to the visitation programs. Limitatiopg of the study. The investigation was limited to the study of two school visitation programs as they related to: student perceptions of their expectation and/or desires of the programs; their recall of the partici- pation activities they experienced: and, the non—participa— tion experiences they encountered. No attempt was made to ascertain differentiations between student groups on the basis of I.Q., sex, age, grade point averages, the student's minor, or term enrolled in the Block Program. Organization of the dissertation. This chapter presents a statement of the problem investigated and develops a rationale for the study. The recognition of the importance 16 of school visitation experiences in the training of prospec- tive'teachers, a discussion of the need for the study, a statement of the purposes of the study, the hypotheses tested, design of the study, source of data, identification of terms, treatment of data, assumptions of the study, and the limita- tions of the study are also included in this chapter. Chapter II presents a selected review of the literature relevant to pre-student teaching laboratory programs. Chapter III describes the "Block" program at Michigan State University, the background of the study, the design of the study, the student population involved in the study, the construction of the instruments, the administration of the instruments, the statistical tools used, and the method of analysis. Chapter IV presents the analysis of the collected data. The presentation of the conclusions which are sup- ported by the study, as well as some educational implications and suggested problems for future related research are given in Chapter V. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The main purpose of this study was to investigate and to compare two pre-service school visitation programs in the preparation of prospective elementary teachers. The literature in this chapter has, therefore, been limited primarily to studies related to pre-student teaching labora— tory programs which are implemented through elementary schools. In order to facilitate the reporting of studies pertinent to this investigation, the chapter has been divided into seven sections: (1) surveys of institutional practices as related to laboratory programs, (2) influences of laboratory programs with respect to the modification of attitudes and understandings of pre-service students, (3) influences of laboratory programs on anxieties about student teaching and teaching, (4) influences of laboratory programs on success in student teaching and teaching, (5) professional programs emphasizing laboratory experiences, (6) the implementations of modern technology in laboratory programs; and (7) the status of research relative to pre- service laboratory programs. The literature published prior to 1948 was almost devoid of studies which related theory to practice in the 17 18 education of elementary teachers. Sinclair1 reported that he was unable to find the phrase 'Professional Laboratory Experience' in the literature until after the publication of First Yearbook of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (A.A.C.T.E.) in 1948. The importance of this yearbook as a catalyst to the development of the labora- tory program component of pre—service teacher education was also emphasized by Jones.2 For the above reasons, the investigator made no extensive attempt to review literature prior to 1948. l. Surveys of institutional practices as related to laboratory programs. In this section, general patterns common to large groups of institutions are reported. The more unique patterns and trends are cited in the succeeding sections. The level of acceptance, on the part of teacher training institutions, of laboratory programs has been an area of concern to investigators. Frantz,3 in 1958, 1William w. Sinclair. "An Analysis of Three Pre- Student Teaching Experiences in the Preparation of Elementary School Teachers." Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1948. 2Isabelle F. Jones. "A Study of the Various Types of Pre-Student Teaching Experiences to Success in Student Teaching." Dispertation Abstragta, 16: 709: No. 4, 1956. 3Merlin Frantz. "An Analysis of Professional Labora- tory Experiences Provided Prior to Student Teaching for Students Preparing to be Secondary Teachers." Dissertation Abstracts, 20: 211; No. l, 1959. 'l . . 9‘ 19 implemented a questionnaire survey of colleges holding membership in the A.A.C.T.E. His findings indicated that professional laboratory experiences were widely accepted as a part of the training which should be received by prospective teachers in 1970. Turns4 also used a question- naire technique to gather data relative to professional laboratory experiences prior to student teaching from 442 institutions accredited by the National Council for Accreditation for Teacher Education. The results indicated that 86 per cent of the institutions did provide laboratory programs prior to student teaching. While the acceptance and implementation of profes- sional laboratory experiences reported were widespread, there appeared to be little agreement amongst institutions as to the types and extent of experiences to which students should be exposed. Frantzs found, in his survey of teacher education institutions, that 83 per cent had programs which included observation activities while only 41.9 per cent had programs where the students assisted classroom teachers. Turns6 also reported that observational experiences were emphasized to a greater degree than were participatory experiences. In a survey of eighteen Oklahoma institutions, 4Tom Turns, "The Determination and Evaluation of Professional Laboratory Experiences Prior to Student Teaching.‘ Dissertation Abstracts International, 31: 2780; No. 6, 1970. sFrantz, loc. cit. 6Turns, loc. cit. 20 Deever, Williams, and Flynn7 could find little consensus as to: whether observation was more important than partici~ pation or vice versa, the number of hours students should spend in observation; or, the order in which the two types of experiences should occur. Using the criteria of Standard VI of the A.A.C.T.E. as a guide for examining the laboratory programs of 110 elementary teacher training institutions, Estes,8 in 1967, concluded that a wide diverg- ence existed amongst the institutions relative to their adherence in their laboratory programs to the criteria stated in the Standard VI. He concluded that the reasons for this divergence were undetermined. Another area examined in some of the institutional surveys was the placement of laboratory experiences in the professional sequence. Callahan9 reported that in the thirty six institutions with the most extensive first-hand experi- ence programs of the 237 originally surveyed, the laboratory experiences were given the greatest stress in the third year. 7R. Merwin Deever, Chester Williams, and Edward Flynn Jr. "Professional Laboratory Experiences in Oklahoma." Journal of Teacher Education, 16: 497-505; No. 4, 1960. 8Sidney Estes, "A Status Study of Pre-Student Teach- ing Laboratory Experiences in Elementary Teacher Education." Dissertation Abstracts, 28: 4022; No. 10, 1968. 9Sterling Callahan. The Role of Non-Student Teaching "First-Hand Experiences in Selected Teacher Education Insti- tutions." Dissertation Abstracts, 14: 1047; No. 1, 1954. 21 The concentration of laboratory experiences in the third year was also noted by Turns.1° After examining the characteristics of 115 institu— tions involving laboratory schools in their programs, Elliott11 concluded that a weakness of many programs was the lack of integration of pre-student teaching experiences with all phases of the students' programs. A finding shared by two studies may account for some of the variations relative to program emphases noted in the preceding paragraphs. Estes12 in 1967 and Elliott13 in 1970 both concluded that the evaluation of laboratory experi- ence programs was a neglected area in the institutions sur- veyed. 2. Influences of laboratory programs with respect to the modification of attitudes and understandings of pre- pervice students. Three studies reviewed in this section used the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (M.T.A.I.) to assess attitudinal changes in students as a result of 1°Turns, loc. cit. 11Leeland Elliott. "The Nature and Quality of Pre- Student Teaching Laboratory Experiences in Campus Laboratory Schools Affiliated with State Colleges and Universities." Dissertation Abstracts International, 31: 1119; No. 3, 1970. 12Estes, loc. cit. 13Elliott, loc. cit. ob .. O I It) 22 laboratory programs or experiences. Cox,14 in 1960, studied 122 students enrolled in a human growth and development course. An experimental group was assigned to children and youth groups in addition to instruction in the course. Members of the control group received instruction only. On the basis of M.T.A.I. pre and post test data, he concluded that the changes in attitude occurring could be attributed to instruction rather than to field experience. Ingle and Robinson,15 in 1965, reported that there was no demonstrat— able difference in pre—service students' attitudes towards children as a result of one group having a week of observa- tion coupled with a course in educational psychology, and the other group having no observation experience. Fehl16 applied the M.T.A.I. as a pre and post test to a group con- currently enrolled in a principles and practice course and an observation-participation program. While the mean scores shifted positively, the difference was not significant. Attitudinal changes were investigated by Butts and 14Dan Cox. ”An Objective and Empirical Study of the Effects of Laboratory Experience in a Professional Education Course Prior to Student Teachings." The Journal of Experi- mental Education, 29: 89-94, September 1960. 15Robert Ingle and Edward Robinson. "An Examination of the Value of Classroom Observation for Prospective Teachers." Journal of Teache; Education, 15: 75-78, December, 1965. 16Patricia Fehl. ”The Effects of an Observation- Participation Program on Attitudes and on Concepts." Dissertation Abspractg, 27: 3338: No. 10, 1967. 23 Steinbach17 as a part of a Comparative study of the effect of practice with elementary children or with peers in a science methods course. They concluded that students who taught children developed attitudes similar to the students who taught peers. The effect of laboratory experiences on the develop- ment of understanding was reported by two investigators. Levine,18 in a follow—up report on sophomores who had par- ticipated in school office work as a freshman, stated that the students felt they had attained an increased familiarity with four areas relating to school and classroom operation. One result of this increased familiarity was an understanding that teaching meant much more than just being with children. Turney and Stoneking19 involved students in intensive observation and selected participation experiences concur- rently with course work. They concluded that students achieved a much deeper understanding of the professional responsibilities of teaChers and an understanding of the nature and importance of professional problems faced by teachers. 17Alan Steinbach and David Butts. "A Comparative Study of the Effect of Practices with Elementary Children or with Peers in the Science Methods Course." Journaliof Regearch in Science Teaching, 6: 316—21; No. 4, 1969. 18Madeline Levine. "Extending Laboratory Experiences: Part II." Journal of Teacher Education, 12: 29-35, March 1961. 19David Turney and Lewis Stoneking. "A Professional Sequence for the Development of Career Teachers." Journal Of Teacher Education, 16: 281—85, September, 1965. 0” I». A-A .— 'K‘. 01-5 '.v .‘v I”. bv‘ u.; g.“ 24 3. Influences of laboratory programs on anxieties about student teaching and teaching. No disagreement ap- peared to exist with respect to the effectiveness of labora- tory programs in reducing the anxiety of students relative to student teaching or teaching. Colvin20 assigned twenty- one students in one section of a course entitled 'Introduc- tion to Teaching' to an observation-participation program for one half day each week to a selected teacher and class. On the basis of interviews and written materials used to collect data about students, she concluded that as a result of the program students became less anxious about teaching. Fehl21 constructed and applied the Student TeachingyProb- lemg Rating Scale to juniors enrolled in an observation- participation program. She found that the post test results indicated a significant lessening of anxieties about student teaching. Female students accounted for most of this change. The same instrument (S.T.P.R.S.) was used by Funk23 in an experimental study. He used this instrument as a pre and post test with students who were concurrently enrolled in foundations and methods courses, and an observation 20Cynthia Colvin. "Achieving Readiness for Student Teaching Through Direct‘Experience." Dissertation Abstracts. 19: 3229; No. 11, 1958. 21Fehl. loc. cit. 22Haldon Funk. "The Effect of Pre-Student Teaching laboratory Experiences on Selected Attitudes and Concepts of Prospective Elementary Teachers." Dissertation Abstracts Ipternational, 29: 3020; No. 4, 1969. '59. (I. f). 25 participation program; and students enrolled only in the course work. The students concurrently enrolled in the observation-participation program and courses showed a significantly greater reduction in their anxieties towards student teaching. 4. Influences of laboratory programs on success in student teaching or teaching. Edualino23 used a check list to identify the types and amounts of experience a group of students had with students prior to student teaching, and a rating scale to determine their success in student teaching. The conclusion reached was that students who have had experiences with children in church related activities during their high schodl years are more successful in stu- dent teaching than students who have not had these experi- ences. She also stated that the more hours of experience a student has with Children the less frequent is the occur- rence of prdblems related to instructional methods, the easier it is for students to solve discipline problems, and the better he is satisfied with student teaching. A similar conclusion was reported by Jones.34 She stated that all types of pre-student teaching experiences considered in the study were conducive to success in student teaching. 23Emilio Edualino, "The Relationship Between Success- ful Student Teaching and Pre—Student Teaching Experiences with Children." Dissertation Abstracts, 19: 468; No. l, 1958. “ 24Isobel Jones, loc. cit. D! vv w 1 3‘. '0 A. '- .' 5. u; C I I‘D ‘r -i .A "i A \ ‘1.“ h.\ ”i 26 While a relationship does appear to exist between success in student teaching and laboratory experiences prior to student teaching, this relationship may not exist between success in teaching and pre-service laboratory experiences. 35 in 1968, concluded that there was no general Eustice, relationship between non-academic pre-service experiences of teachers and subsequent teaching ratings. 5. Professional programs emphasizing laboratory experiences. The literature cited in this section relates primarily to institutional efforts to devise significant programs for extending the blending of theory and practice, and for including laboratory experience at an earlier stage in professional education of prospective teachers. The studies are cited chronologically. Doll and Macdonald26 described a program at New York University which emphasized a forty-credit program covering an academic year plus the month of June. The program stressed: the students' role in his own learning: individualization of instruction: integration Of education courses; and, the maximizing of experiences in schools, schodl systems, and community agencies. Within the laboratory portion of the course, 25David Eustice. "The Relationship of the Non- Academic Pre-service Experiences of Teachers and Teaching Success. Dissertation Abstracts, 23: 2023; No. 4, 1962. 26Ronald Doll and James Macdonald. "A New Departure in Teacher Education." Journal of Teacher Education, 11: 572-575, December, 1960. 27 students observed in kindergarten through grade twelve, observed teacher tasks, took field trips to community agencies, participated in two student teaching experiences. Course work was taught as it related to the preparation for the laboratory activities and also occurred between the laboratory activities. A program described by Scrivner27 (1961) emphasized the establishment of laboratory centers in communities and the forming of teams composed of students and instructors. Visitation by the teams to the schools began in the sophomore year. Observation experiences form the basis for the development of the course content of a block course at Northern Illinois University described by Waimon (1961).28 At San Francisco State College, a program described by Wilhelms (1961)29 alternates blocks of time in laboratory experiences with time on the campus. Students work with a three man instructional team striving to achieve a balance between theory and practice. While some institutional changes have been occurring, 27A. W. Schrivner. "A Professional Laboratory Experi- ence." Journal of Teacher‘Educatiop, 12: 48-51, March 1961. 28Morton Waimon. "Observing Classroom Action Systems." Journal of Teacher Education." 12: 466—70, December, 1961. 29Fred Wilhelms. ”Exploring New Paths in Teacher Education." Theory Into Practice, 3: 12-16, February, 1964. 28 it is of interest to note that Hunter and Amidon (1966)30 emphasized the need for contact with children throughout the educational sequence. They suggested early experiences with the teaching of one child or very small groups of children. Hersh,31 in 1969, after an intensive search of the litera- ture, concluded that a need exists to provide increased Opportunities for prospective teachers to learn and test theory in a context of reality. The conclusions of Hersh32 support the finding reached earlier (1967) by Estes,33 that teacher education institutions seem to be maintaining status guo with respect to professional laboratory experiences. 6. The implementation ofimodern technology in lgpgratggy programs. Because the focus of the investigator's study involved school visitation programs, only a limited number of studies are cited in this section which investi- gates the comparative effectiveness of laboratory programs with Closed Circuit Television and kinescope recordings. 3oElizabeth Hunter and Edmund Amidon. "Direct Experi— ence in Teacher Education: Innovation and Experimentation." Journal of Teacher Education, 17: 282-9, Fall, 1966. 31Richard Hersh. "An Analytical Approach to the Pro- fessional Training of Teachers.” Dissertation Abstracts International, 31: 265: No. 1, 1970. 32Ibid. 33Estes, loc. cit. 1 ‘ I ‘1 hi 9‘ I‘- 4 ,V, a ,. . 29 6 and Estes37 all con- Turns,34 Clemens,35 Edualino,3 cluded in separate studies that the use of modern techno- logical devices (eg. television tapes — closed circuit T.V.) must be considered by institutions as an important adjunct to laboratory experience programs. Many studies appeared in the literature in the early part of this decade attempting to establish the potential of television as a laboratory experience. Adolphson38 for example, compared the effectiveness of selected Observational procedures in developing teacher perception. Included in Adolphson's study were observations by closed circuit tele- vision, kinesCOpe recordings, and direct observation. He concluded that the nature and extent of the observation rather than the media was the significant factor. Chabe39 found that guided televiewing of a class was almost as 34Turns, loc. cit. 35James Clemens. "An Analysis of Professional Laboratory Experiences Provided Prior to Student Teaching in Secondary Teacher Education Programs of Selected Institu— tions in Illinois." Dissertation Abstracts International, 30: 4302: No. 10, 1970. 36Edualino, loc. cit. 37 - Estes, loc. clt. 38Louis Adolphson. "A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Selected Observational Procedures in Developing Teacher Perception." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, 1961. 39Chabe. "An Experiment with C.C.T.V. in Teacher fgucation." Peabody Journal of Education, 40: 24-30, July. 62. 30 effective as actual guided classroom observations when pre—service students were attempting to identify the skills, attitudes, and appreciations children acquired from a lesson. Fulton and Rupiper4O compared the use of a motion picture of children with actual observation of Children. They concluded that the problems that occur with direct observation can be alleviated successfully with the use of audio-visual materials. Altenhein41 compared pre-service students' reaction towards classroom observation and closed circuit television. The response of students prompted the conClusion that more is learned through observations. 7. The status of research relative to pre-service lppggatory experiences. A review of the literature related to research in pre-service laboratory experiences revealed no one who felt that the research in this area was adequate. Universally authors noted apathy on the part of institutions and researchers. In 1962 Mauker expressed the strong feel- ing that "Nowhere in the literature was there research evidence that the time spent in the field experience program might not be spent more advantageously in academic . 40W. R. Fulton and D. J. Rupiper. "Observation of Teaching: Direct Vs Vicarious Experiences.“ Journal of Teacher Education, 13: 157-164, June, 1962. 41Margarete Altenhein. "C.C.T.V. or Classroom Observation: Which Shall it Be?" PeabodyiJournal of Edu— catlon, 40: 296-300, May, 1963. 31 "42 pursuits. Reynard in a summary of educational research in 1963 stated that: “Professional laboratory experiences seem to be the area leaSt challenged in teacher education."43 Halfaker44 emphasized that the need existed to investigate the growth of students due to participation in professional laboratory experiences."Ort,45 in 1966, identified more specifically some unresolved issues that needed to be examined. For example, how a student profits from the laboratory experience, how behavioral changes are modified, how much experience students need, when should eXperiences occur, and what kinds of COOperative school-college ventures should be instituted. He felt that it was essential that such problems be investigated in order to ascertain the effectiveness of pre-student teaching laboratory experiu ences . 42J. W. Mauker. "Imperatives for Excellence in Teacher Education." Foundation for Excellence, A.A.C.T.E., The Association, Washington, D.C., 1962, p. 7. 43Harold Reynard. "Pre-service and In-service Educa— tion of Teachers." Review of Educational Research, 33: 375- 6, October, 1963, p. 7. 44Phillip Halfaker. "Professional Laboratory Experi» ence Provided Prior to Student Teaching for Undergraduates in Secondary Education in Selected Teacher Education Insti- tutions." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Bloomington, Indiana University, 1962, p. 166. 45E. P. Ort. "Pre-student Teaching Laboratory Experi~ ences." In: Partnership in Teacher Education. Editors, E. Brooks Smith, Hans Olsen, Patrick J. Johnson, and Chandler Barbour. A Joint Publication of the A.A.C.T.E. and AST, Washington D.C., 1966, Sec. V, Part X, p. 296. 32 Summa y. The studies cited in this chapter were grouped into seven categories. The categories and a summary of the research in each category appears below. 1. Surveys of institutional practices as related to igboratory programs. Studies by Frantz (3)* and Turns (4), indicated a widespread institutional acceptance of profes— sional laboratory programs as a part of teacher training programs. Varied findings were reported with respect to the role of observation and participation activities in the laboratory program. Frantz (3) and Turns (4) identified observation experiences as receiving the greatest emphasis. Within the institutions surveyed by Deever, Williams and Flynn (7) and Estes (8) no consensus existed relative to institutional emphasis. The laboratory programs received the most emphasis in the third year of school according to Callahan (9) and Turns (4). Elliot (11) and Estes (8) concluded that there was widespread lack of concern relative to the evaluation of laboratory experiences. 2. Influences oi laboratory programs with respect to the modification oi the attitudes and understandings of students. Ingle and Robinson (15), Cox (l4), and Fehl (l6) *Indicates previously cited study. 33 agreed that observation experiences combined with course work does not modify the attitudes of students more sig- nificantly than class work alone. Turney and Stoneking (l9) concluded that the students in their study did acquire a deeper understanding of the nature and importance of profes- sional problems. 3. Influences of laboratory programs on anxieties about student teaching and teachipg, The findings of Colvin (20) indicated that laboratory experiences reduce anxieties about teaching while those by Fehl (l6) and Funk (22) indicated observation-participation programs reduce anxieties about student teaching. 4. Influences of laboratory programs on success in student teaching or teaching. There appears to be sig— nificant relationship between the activities involving children prior to student teaching, and student teaching success according to the results of studies by Edualino (23) and Jones (2). A study by Eustice (25) concluded that there is no significant relationship between non—academic pre— service experiences and subsequent teaching ratings. 5. Professional programs emphasizing laboratory expe£ience§. The programs cited each had one or more unique features. The program described by Doll and Macdonald (26) was based upon a 40 credit program stressing a wide range of laboratory experiences, and the integration of 34 education courses. Programs described by Scrivner (27) and Wilhelm (29) were based upon the formation of student- instructor teams. A unique program at Northern Illinois University described by Waiman (28) used observation experiences as the basis for the development of the course content. While these innovations are an encouraging sign, Hersh (31) reviewed the literature in 1969 and concluded that a need still exists to develOp Opportunities for stu- dents to test theory in a context of reality. 6. The implementation of modern technology in laboratory programs. Turns (4) Clemens (35) Edualino (23) and Estes (8) all encourage institutions to investigate the possible uses of technological devices in laboratory pro- grams. The studies of Adolphson (38), Chabe (39), and Fulton and Rupiper (40) compared the use of various media as observation experiences with classroom observation in an attempt to compare their relative effectiveness. In these studies no one method was shown to be significantly more effective than another. Direct observation was judged to be superior to Closed Circuit Television as an observation method in a study by Altenhaus (39). 7. The status of research gelative to pre-service laboratory experiences. Mauker (42) expressed concern that the rationale for field experience has not been substantiated. Reynard (43) summarized a review of literature stating that nul- 11 35 the validity of laboratory experiences has not been adeu quately challenged. Halfaker (44) and Ort (45) suggested a need to investigate how students change as a result of laboratory experiences. Estes (8), in 1968, noted that over 50 percent of the institutions he surveyed were not concerned with objectively measuring the effectiveness of laboratory experiences. Mauker (40), in 1969, reported that he felt that the evaluation of teacher education pro— grams occurred, all too often, at the lowest level. CHAPTER III DESCRIPTIVE FEATURES OF THE STUDY The design of the study. The study was conducted as an independent supplement to the overall evaluation of the ”Block" program in elementary education at Michigan State University during the fall term 1968 and winter term 1969. The study was designed to compare the half day per week per term pre-service school visitation program during the fall term 1968 with the full day per week per term pre-service school visitation program implemented winter term 1969. In order to facilitate this comparison, the study was de- signed basically to: 1. identify the expectations and/or desires of the students in the study populations with respect to the school visitation programs; identify the participation and non-participation activities encountered by students of the study pOpulations in the school visitation programs: identify interactions which occurred within the "Block" program as a consequence of the school visitation experience: and, identify the achieved expectations and/or desires of the study populations in the school visitation programs. The questionnaire technique was employed as a means for collecting data. Five questionnaires were constructed by the investigator. The questionnaires were administered 36 37 to the students in the science sessions of the methods course 321—B Teaching Science and Mathematics at the Elemen— tary Level. The hypotheses, as listed in Chapter I, were analyzed by a two-tailed test of significance technique and the analyses provided the basis for the comparison of the two programs. Students in the study. The student enrolled in Edu- cation 321—B Teaching Science and Mathematics at the Elemen- tary Level, fall term 1968 and those enrolled in 321—B winter term 1969 comprised the pOpulations for the study. There were 261 students enrolled in the course during the fall term and 199 students in 321—B, winter term 1969. It is to be noted that some students were not taking the visitation program and were therefore eliminated from the study. In some instances student response sheets to specific questionnaires were not useable and thus the re~ ported number of students responding to the various question» naires varies from instrument to instrument. A brief description of the "Block" program at Michigan State_gniyer§ity. The "Block" program for prospective ele- mentary teachers, as implemented at the time of this study, consisted of specified education courses and visitation experiences in the Lansing Michigan area. The education courses of the program comprised a fifteen credit hour "block” in which students normally enrolled during one term 38 of their junior year. The courses provided for the instruc— tional methods aspect of the total teacher education program. Inherent in the blocking of these methods courses into a professional term was the assumption that this arrangement would foster cooperative staff planning which would result in both minimizing the overlapping of course content and preventing areas of methodology from being left out of the sequence. The assumption also was accepted that students would reap more benefits if the methods courses were taken simultaneously and not scheduled over a longer time period than one term. The courses were grouped into the profes- sional term as follows: Education 321-A — Common Elements Education 321-B - Teaching Science and Mathematics at the Elementary level Education 321-C - Language Arts, Social Studies and Reading at the elementary level The classes in each subject matter component of Edu- cation 321 A—B-C at the time the study began provided for both large and small group instructional techniques. The time allotted to large group instruction was two hours per week each for Mathematics, Science, Language Arts, Reading, Social Studies, and Common Elements. The small group in— struction was limited toapproximately forty students and consisted of a one—hour allotment per subject per week. This division of time was devised in order to provide a climate which would foster interaction between students and also between the students and the instructor. 39 One instructor was responsible for Education 321-A. While students enrolled in Education 321-B as a unit, the course was organized into a science section and a mathema~ tics section with different instructors handling the re- spective sections. Education 321—C was organized on a three section basis with a different instructor for Language Arts, Social Studies, and Reading respectively. The visitation aspect of the curriculum of the "Block" program was given direction by another assumption about the training of prospective elementary teachers. The assumption was that it is essential to a teacher training program that a means be provided through which the enrolled students may interact, within one term, on a theoretical and a practical level with methodological techniques. The implementation of this assumption was provided through two required activities associated with the "Block" Sequence. The first activity required each student to contact school officials within his home town area and arrange to visit an elementary classroom for a period of one week. Because this was done prior to fall term registration at Michigan State University, it was appropriately called the September Experience. This experience was designed to allow the student to observe current methodological practices be- ing employed in elementary classrooms, and to give him a practical point of reference as he entered his methods courses 0 ‘il 1) 40 The second activity took place during the term in which the student was registered for the "Block" program. The student was assigned to a classroom in a Lansing area public school. He was required to spend a specified period of time in this classroom one day each week of the term. The program was called the School Visitation Experience. Clinical experiences were not clearly delineated for this program. However, normally the student spent one portion of his time observing various facets of the teaching act, and the remaining portion participating in various activi- ties carried out by teachers during the school day. It was expected that the student would become able to integrate theory and practice with a greater degree of expertise as a result of this visitation experience. Background of the study. During the 1967-68 school year the Elementary and Special Education Department at Michigan State University initiated a study of the "Block" program in order to determine how to increase its overall effectiveness. The study arose as a result of some question- ing of the effectiveness of the existing program and the need to continulally evaluate the department's goals. Two major considerations which were of immediate concern were: 1) to increase the interaction between students and faculty in the methods courses in order to allow students to identify more closely with the program and to express ideas with re- spect to methodology: and 2) to increase the opportunity for students to relate theory to practice. 41 Through the efforts of a departmental committee, modifications in the program were suggested in the form of a proposal for faculty consideration. The modified program, as suggested, was as follows: Lecture: One two—hour lecture each week would be presented in each of the subject matter areas of Education 3213 and Education 321C, namely Mathe- matics, Science, Language Arts, Reading, and Social Studies. Education 321A (Common Elements) would have no large group lecture presentations. Small Groups: No small groups would be organized for Mathematics, Reading, Language Arts, and Social Studies. In Science, a small group session of 25-30 students would be retained and would meet one hour weekly for laboratory and demonstration experiences. Common Elements (Education 321A) would meet two hours per week in small groups of fifteen students. These sections would be staffed by regular faculty and graduate assistants. School Vigitation: Students would be assigned to the Lansing area public school classrooms for one full day each week. On June 25, 1968, the staff of the Elementary and Special Education Department at Midhigan State University approved the proposal to revise the "Block" program. The program was approved for a two term trial period to be initiated winter term, I969, and ending at the close of spring term, 1969. A research committee was appointed by Dr. William V. Hicks, Chairman of the Elementary and Special Education Department, to develop evaluative criteria relating to the effectiveness of the approved changes. The author's study was conducted independently of the departmental evaluation. However, since it was related to the various phases of 42 program changes being analyzed by the research committee, departmental support for this study was sought and approval was received. The present study had as its focus the school visi— tation portion of the ”Block" program, and involved inves- tigating perceptions of prospective elementary teachers with respect to selected phases of the school visitation experience. Since the visitations were to be conducted mainly in the Lansing Public Schools, an explanatory letter was sent to the Director of Elementary Education of the Lansing Public Schools. This letter explained briefly the background, purposes, and design of the study and solicited the approval of the Lansing school system. A follow-up telephone conversation with the director of elementary edu- cation affirmed the approval of the study as it related to the Lansing Public Schools. A COpy of this letter is found in Appendix A. The construction of the instruments used in the piggy. As stated earlier, the study was primarily designed to ascertain the expectations and/or desires of students relative to their school visitation experience. In addition, the study was also concerned with the variety and number of participatory and observational experiences encountered by students during their visitation experience. Since a review of the literature revealed no instruments suitable for the collection of such information, five questionnaires were 43 constructed by the investigator in order to gather the data necessary for the study. Three major sources were used to establish the categories of items and to serve as the basis for the generation of specific items. These sources were: (1) the literature pertaining to school visitation programs involving prospective elementary teachers, (2) interviews with staff members working with the "Block" program at Michigan State University: and, (3) the guidelines for elementary majors taking their "Block" program in the Honors College at Michigan State University. Two of the five questionnaires were constructed to secure information about goals and experiences which the student felt would and/or should be implemented in the school visitation program, and the extent to which these goals and experiences had been achieved. The remaining three questiOnnaires were constructed to identify specifically the number and variety of participatory and non—participatory experiences encountered by students during their school visitation experiences.’ The five questionnaires were: 1. Pre-service Student School Visitation Question- naire I - Student perceived goals of the school visitation experience, 2. Pre-service Student School Visitation Question- naire II - A summary of the participatory activities engaged in by “Block" students during the first seven weeks of the visitation experi- ence, 3. Pre-service Student School Visitation Question- naire II-A - A summary of the participatory activities engaged in by students during one visitation experience, 44 4. Pre-service Student School Visitation Observa~ tion Questionnaire - A summary of the observa- tional experiences during the school visitation experience: and, 5. Ere-service Student School Visitation Experience Questionnaire III - Goals attained as a result of the school visitation experience. Pre—gervice Student School Vi§tation Questionnaire I — Studentpperceived goals of the school vistation experience. This instrument was designed to ascertain the expectations and/or desires of the "Block" program students as to the educational experiences they might encounter in the school visitation aspect of the "Block" program at Michigan State University. The statements in the questionnaire to which the students were asked to respond were grouped into five cate— gories representing various aspects of the school visitation program. The categories were: 1. Perceived goals relative to the non—participation or observation phase of the school visitation experience, 2. Perceived goals relating to the students' partici— patory role in the school visitation experience, 3. Perceived goals relating to the interaction of the student with school personnel, 4. Perceived changes occurring in the student as a result of the school visitation experience; and, 5. Perceived relationships existing between the methods courses and the school visitation experi— ence. It should be noted that category five in the above list is unique to the questionnaire as it was administered winter term. The addition of this category was instituted (I) C II! ”I 45 in order to collect data which would provide an insight as to whether or not the learnings and experiences acquired by the students as a result of their school visitation experience were being utilized by the "BlOck" instructors in their methods classes. The foci of the seven questions in category five were related to (a) the responsibility of the instructor to give direction to the student as he became involved in the school visitation program; and (b) the opportunities provided by the instructors in the methods classes for discussions concerning questions that arise as a result of the school visitation program. The questionnaire as administered winter term, requested the student to react to a series of statements related to the school visitation experience on the basis of the choices available to him in the following response key. Key Space l.—-if you expect the occurrence of this phenomenon as a goal of this portion of the visitation experience. Space 2.--if you desire the occurrence of this phenomenon as a goal of this portion of the visitation experience. (Like to have the event occur) Space 3.—-if you neither expect nor desire the occurrence of this phenomenon as a goal of this portion of the visitation experience. Space 4.--if you both expect and desire the occur_ rence of this phenomenon as a goal of this portion of the visitation experience. He was further directed to indicate his choice from the above key by recording it on a five choice I.B.M. response sheet. Thus, in following examples from Questionnaire I, part A., the student would, if he expected the occurrence of 46 eggh_phenomenon, record his choices in space one on the response sheet adjacent to the number corresponding to the questionnaire statement number. EXAMPLE In the non-participation or observation portion of the visitation experience I: (Key choice) 1 2 3 4 l. to acquire knowledge concerning skills of planning and conducting learning activities that implement specific, identifiable goals. 1 2 3 4 2. to learn techniques for motivating students. 1 2 3 4 3. to learn techniques for handling class- room organization and procedures. Copies of the questionnaire as administered fall term 1968 and winter term 1969 including the students' responses to the individual items are located in Appendix B. Pre-service Student School Visitatioanuestionnaire II - A gummary of the participatorypactivities engaged in by ”Block" giudentg during the first seven weeks of the school visitation experience. This questionnaire was de- signed to elicit: 1. responses relative to the types of activities in which ”Block" students played an active role during the first seven weeks of the school visitation experience, 2. responses with respect to the number of times and the average duration of time that a student was participating in each activity; and, 3. information relative to the nature of the planning and teaching of lessons when this activity was engaged in by a respondent. 47 The questionnaire was composed of fifty-five items. The items were grouped into two sections. The first section identified twenty-seven tasks in which the student might have had a participatory role one or more times. The second section contained twenty-eight items to which only those students who had planned and taught a lesson or activity were to respond. These items related to the nature of the planning and the method of instruction used by these stu- dents in their lesson or activity. Because of the distinct nature of the two sections of the questionnaire, separate response keys were provided for each section. The response keys for the twenty-seven items of the first section of the questionnaire were as follows: Key A Key B blank — no participation 6--3-7 minutes 1 - one participation 7--8—12 minutes 2 - two participations 8—-l3—l7 minutes 3 - three participations 9--18-22 minutes 4 — four participations lO—-over 22 minutes 5 - five participations (If you participated more than five times, write that number to the left of the question number on the answer sheet) The directions associated with this key requested the stu- dent to select one response from each key for each of the twenty-seven activities. 'The-first response identified the number of times a student had participated in a given activity, while the second response identified the average length of time the student spent in each participation. '1’ 48 The responses were recorded on a ten choice I.B.M. response sheet. The example below was included in the directions to the students winter term, and exemplifies the procedures used in responding to the items. Example: If you took attendance five times and it required about ten minutes each time, you would mark the answer sheet as follows: Answer sheet configuration 1. 1=2=3=4=5X6=718=9=10= Questionnaire Items During the first seven weeks I was able to partici- pate in the class in the following manner: __ 1. take attendance __ __ 2. direct drill work The directions for the second section of Questionnaire II asked the students to respond to the items only if he had planned and taught a lesson(s), or planned and directed an activity(ies). The items related to: 1. from whom the student had received help in planning his lesson, 2. the-emphasis of the lesson, 3. the method of presentation used; and, 4. the activity engaged in by students. The students were asked to respond by marking the number of times that those statements which characterized the lesson(s) taught or the activity(ies) directed occurred. The responses were recorded on a ten choice I.B.M. Response sheet. A sample of the items in this section of the questionnaire is duplicated below: 49 SAMPLE A. The topic of the lesson was chosen: 1. by me 2. by the teacher involved 3. jointly with the teacher observed 4. jointly with a block instructor 5. with the students If, for example, the student had taught 3 lessons and the topic of the lesson was chosen once by the teacher involved and twice by the student alone he would indicate his response on the answer sheet as follows: Sample Answer Sheet l. l=2x3=4=5=6=7=8=9=10= 2. le=3=4=5=6=7=8=9=lO= 3. l=2=3=4=5=6=7=8=9=10= 4. l=2=3=4=5=6=7=8=9=10= 5. l=2=3=4=5=6=7=8=9=10= The remaining descriptive phrases would not be marked be— cause they do not apply in this instance. COpies of Questionnaire II as administered fall term 1968 and winter term 1969 including the students' responses to the individual items are located in Appendix C. Pre-service Student School Visitation Questionnaire iirA. A gummary of the participatory activiiies engaged in by “Block” students during one yigitation experience. Questionnaire II-A was designed to collect data relevant to four aspects of the participatory activities engaged in by students during the visitation experience occurring the week 50 the questionnaire was to be administered. The questionnaire provided the basis for collecting data relevant to: l. the types of activities engaged in by students during this week: 2. the length of time spent in participation in each activity: 3. the subject matter within which the participation occurred; and 4. the nature of the planning and teaching of a lesson or activity where this applied. Because the data sought in Questionnaires II and II-A were both based upon the types of activities engaged in by students, the items and the two sections were similar. Questionnaire II—A, however, asked students to respond rela- tive to the subject matter area within which the participa— tion occurred and thus the first section required different response keys. The response keys used for the first section were as follows: Key A Key 8 l--3 to 7 minutes l—art 2—-8 to 12 minutes 2-music 3--l3 to 17 minutes 3-mathematics 4--18 to 22 minutes 4-language arts 5--over 23 minutes S-reading 6-science 7-social studies 8-spelling 9-geography The directions associated with this section of the questionnaire as it was administered winter term requested the student to select one response from each key for each item only if he participated in the listed activity. The directions further stated that the student should mark his 51 choice from Key A on the scoring sheet on the odd numbers, and his choice from Key B on the even numbers on the scoring sheet which corresponded to the numbers below (response 5 and 6) on the questionnaire. If the student had participated for fifteen minutes during science class he would mark his responses as follows: Answer sheet configuration 5. l=2=3x4=5=6=7=8=9210= 6. l=2=3=4=5=6x7=8=9=10= Sample item Today I was able to participate in class in the following manner: Correct and analyze papers 5 ___ 6 The key and directions for the second section of the questionnaire were the same as in Questionnaire II. Copies of this questionnaire as administered fall term 1968 and winter term 1969 including the students' responses to the individual items are located in Appendix D. Pre—service Student School Visitation Experience - "A summary of:the observatippaiiexperiences during the school visitation expegienceg.“ The Observation Questionnaire was designed to ascertain the observations that the students had made about all phases of the teaching-learning situation during their school visitations, and the subject matter areas 52 in which the observations were made. The items in the questionnaire were grouped into eleven categories. The categories were: 1. 8. 9. 10. 11. type of clasSroom organizational pattern type of approach to subject matter types of instructional materials used levels of abstraction in teaching method use of audio—visual and resource materials goals of instruction methodological techniques activities for children techniques of questioning phases of classroom management school services and professional responsibilities In order to facilitate date collection the format of the questionnaire was arranged as in the following sample from part B of the questionnaire. 53 Sample items 8. subject matter areas (i.e. Reading, Music, etc.) were taught in the classroom: Soc. Lang. Others Studies Read. Science Arts Math specify l. as separate and discrete x x x x subjects. 2. incidentally (only when a question or x application arose 3. as they aided in the solving of a problem (core) 4. combined with one or more other subjects 5. OTHER (specify) The directions accompanying the questionnaire re- quested the student to mark an "x" in the subject column when the descriptive phrase applied. If the statement did not apply they were to make no response. If for example in looking at the items in the sample, a student had Been all sfibjects listed except for science taught only as separate and discrete subjects, and science taught only incidentally ~he would place "x's" as has been done in the sample. COpies of the questionnaire as administered fall term 1968 and winter term 1969 including the students' responses to indi- vidual items are located in Appendix E. In I (n I 5*. "I .(J) (n 3rd (2. r1 ‘ I" 54 g£§;§ervice Student School Visitation Questionnaire III — "Goals atpgined by the §tudents as a result of the §chool visitation eXperience." Questionnaire III was de- signed to ascertain the attainment of the student perceived expectations and/or desires of the school visitation program. For this reason the items and categories contained in the questionnaire were exactly the same as those in Question“ naire I. The student for this questionnaire, however, was asked to respond as to whether (1) he was able, or (2) he was not able, to attain the stated goals as a result of the school visitation experience. Copies of the questionnaire as administered fall term 1968 and winter term 1969 includ- ing the students' responses to the individual items are located in Appendix F. Administration of instruments — general features. A pattern for the administration of the questionnaires was constructed by the investigator so as to maintain a high degree of consistency with respect to their administration, between fall and winter terms. The salient features of the administration of the questionnaires are given in Table 1, page 55. The table indicates that with the exception of Questionnaire I the questionnaires were administered during equivalent weeks of the fall and winter terms. The table also indicates that all questionnaires were administered in the science section of Education 321B. Thus, no outside time 55 HHH OHHmasOfiumosO m OHHMPEOAumosO soaum>nomflo e «IHH OHAMCCOADmODO m HH OHAMGGOAHmOOO m H OHHMCGOHumOSO H "No& .83 .Aum muamm .3. B. We he cum .omo . mmnmm .>oz . m OUCOHU I I OHM n a . m m Zn 333 A m a a .nmq .Aom mug... .cm m m m 3an $02 . w OUGOHU I I . e m TOGOHU I I . a a . m m Hmm m m N am AH nee .uomq.aom maamm .cm a wee .>oz canoe can A .>02 sum .nmm amm .uoo Hmnsm .cmn mmuam .uuo cmuom .ame waned .uoo sauna .cmb HATS .uoo .uooq mocwaom mnamm a oauc .cmn cuom .uamm mum .cmn salon .ummm cmucumncneca a e s a z cmumumacasca A e s e z omega xomz ouonz man Mmmz coaumuumflcwEOd ouwmcsowunmso EH09 Houcwz cowumuumwcfievd ouamss0fiumooo SHOE Hash was .mcma_sumu umucas .mmma.&uou Harm mOHAMGGOADmOSU mo cowumuundcdavm on» How oasvonon OQBTI.H manna 56 was required on the part of the students. In every case the questionnaire completion was initiated at the beginning of the class period. Questionnaires I, III, and the Observa— tion Questionnaire were administered in the large lecture sessions of the science section of Education 321—B. Question- naire II and II-A were administered during the small group sessions. The time allotted for the completion of the questionnaires fall and winter terms were kept equivalent. When verbal directions were given fall term, care was taken to insure that essentially the same verbal directions were given winter term. Administration opruestionnaire I, fall term 1968 and winter term 1969: Fali term 1968. The study began with the adminis- tration, in the science lecture section of Education 321-B, of Questionnaire I on November sixth. At this time a brief introduction to the study was presented and the students were assured that their responses would be treated confi— dentially by the investigator. Students were also advised that other questionnaires would be administered throughout the term. The questionnaire had been designed to serve as a means of collecting student responses to items which they expected and/or desired to experience in their visitations. Because the questionnaire was not administered until the sixth week of the term it was necessary to ask the students to 57 respond to the items as well as possible, in a manner which would exclude biases they had developed during their prior visitation experiences. Twenty minutes provided sufficient time for the students to complete the questionnaire. Winter term 1969. The first full week of winter term was January sixth through tenth. At the first science lecture session of Education 321-B on January seventh, the investigator administered Questionnaire I. The introduction to the study presented fall term.was repeated for the winter term students in the study. Twenty minutes provided suf- ficient time for all students to complete the questionnaire. Administration of Questionnaire II fall term 1968 and winter term 1969. Fall term 1968. The questionnaire administration continued with the distribution of Questionnaire II during the seventh full week of classes. The questionnaire was completed in the small group science sessions which met on November eleventh, thirteenth, and fifteenth. All students completed the questionnaire in fifteen or less minutes. Winter term 1969. Questionnaire II was distributed during the seventh week of winter term. It was completed by the students during the small group science sessions of February seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth. All stu— dents completed the questionnaire in the fifteen minutes allotted for its completion. 58 Administration of Questionnaire II A, fall term 1968 and winter term 1969. Fall term. The administration of the questionnaires continued with the presentation by the investigator of Questionnaire II A during the eighth week of fall term. Students completed the questionnaire in the small science group sessions on November eighteenth, twentieth, and twenty-second. Twenty minutes were required for the comple- tion of the questionnaire by all students. Winter term. The winter term administration of Questionnaire II-A in the small science group sessions on February twenty-fifth, twenty—sixth, and twenty-seventh. These dates fell within the eighth full week of classes. Twenty minutes provided sufficient time for the completion of the questionnaire. Administration of the Observation questionnaire and Questionnaire IIILgfall term 1968 and winter term 1969. Fall term 1968. The final questionnaire administra— tion of the fall term took place during the last week of fall term classes. During this week both the Observation questionnaire and Questionnaire III were administered. One hour and ten minutes were required for the completion of the questionnaires (fifty minutes for the Observation question- naire and twenty minutes for Questionnaire III). The ques- tionnaires were completed in the small science group sessions on December second, fourth, and sixth. 59 The investigator was faced with a unique problem with respect to the group of students meeting on Friday the sixth, since, during the second half of this week the students in the "Block" had been subjected to an unusually heavy schedule of testing. This was due partially to exams within the "Block" sequence courses, and also to procedures being used by the Elementary Education department in their overall evaluation of the “Block" sequence. Fatigue from these evaluation procedures was evident in students toward the end of the week. The investigator, in consultation with the director of the study, decided that if the group meeting on Friday were exposed to an hour and ten minutes of questionnaire completion, biased results could occur. For this reason these students were asked to complete only Questionnaire III. The students were able to complete Questionnaire III in twenty minutes. A Winter term 1969. The final administration of ques- tionnaires winter term occurred on March third, fourth, and fifth in the small science group sessions during the last week of classes. At these times both the Observation ques- tionnaire and Questionnaire III were distributed for comple- tion. The students were able to complete the questionnaires in one hour and ten minutes. Collection of data. The data collection involved the retrieval of questionnaire responses from the two stu— dent groups fall term 1968 and winter term 1969. 60 The instruments as administered fall term required the stu- dents to mark items on the face of the questionnaires. Consequently, in order to facilitate the handling of the responses, it was necessary to transfer the marking of each individual questionnaire to I.B.M. response sheets. This task was completed by two students that the investigator felt were competent to carry out the task. Checks were made to insure the accuracy of the transfer of the data. The fall term I.B.M. response sheets, together with those from winter term were assigned identification numbers. These response sheets were then submitted to the Michigan State University Office of Evaluation Services, through whose facilities the questionnaire responses were trans— ferred to data cards suitable for use with the Control data Corporation 3600 computer. .Analysis of data. As previously stated, the data analyzed in the study originated from student responses to items on five questionnaires. The purpose of the analysis was to compare the half day pre-service school visitation program as instituted fall term 1968 with the full day pre-service school visitation program as instituted winter term 1969. Differences between the two programs were measured by means of two tailed "t"-tests (p 0.05) performed on the following eleven dependent variables: the number of expectations with respect to the school visitation program expressed by students, the number of desires with respect to 61 the school visitation program expressed by students, the pr0portion of expectations realized by students, the pro- portion of desires realized by students, the variety of participation activities experienced during the first seven weeks, the number of participation activities experienced during the first seven weeks, the number of observation activities experienced, the variety of behaviors considered to be desirable as preparation for teaching acquired, the amount of time spent in participation activities during the first seven weeks, the variety of participation experi- ences occurring during one visitation; and the participation activities in a variety of subject matter areas experienced. A "t"-test computer routine was available through the Computer Services Library at Michigan State University. Separate data decks were prepared for each population and verified for accuracy. The decks were then submitted to the Computer Center for analysis by the Control Data Corpor- ation 3600 computer. Summa y. Data related to eleven variables were collected from two student populations. The pOpulations involved in the study were: the students concurrently enrolled in Education 321-B Teaching Science and Mathematics at the Elementary Level, and the half day school visitation program fall term 1968; and the students concurrently en- rolled in Education 321-B, and the full day school visita- tion program winter term 1969. The emphasis of the study 62 was to compare the half day school visitation program with the full day school visitation program on the basis of the eleven variables. Five questionnaires were constructed and administered by the investigator to the two student populations in order to collect data relevant to the variables as identified in the hypotheses listed in Chapter I. The questionnaires were administered during regularly scheduled university class periods. The questionnaire data relevant to the hypotheses were analyzed using a "t"-test routine through the facilities of the Michigan State University Computer Center's Control Data Corporation 3600 computer. A 0.05 level of confidence was selected for the purpose of testing all hypotheses. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA This chapter presents the analysis of the data collected relative to the hypotheses identified in Chapter I. The data were analyzed through facilities of the Michigan State Computer Center's Control Data Corpora— tion 3600 computer. The data relevant to each of the eleven hypotheses were subjected to a two tailed ”t"-test routine available through the Michigan State University Computer Services Library. The 0.05 level of significance was the criterion against which all results were checked. In order to facilitate the reporting of the analysis of data, each questionnaire and its related hypotheses are discussed in a separate section. Questionnaire I and associated hypotheses. The questionnaire was constructed to elicit information relative to the expectations and/or desires of students enrolled in the half day school visitation program fall 1968 and winter term 1969. The responses to the questionnaire items were used in testing Hypothesis One and Hypothesis Two which were stated as follows: 63 64 1. Students participating in the full day visita— tion program will express a number of expecta— tions with respect to the school visitation program equal to that of students enrolled in the half day program (H01:M1=M2); and, 2. Students participating in the full day school visitation program will express a number of desires with respect to the school visitation program equal to that of students participating in the half day school visitation program (H023M1=M2) The data relative to the first hypothesis were analyzed using a two tailed "t"-test. The significant aspects of the data analysis appear in Table 2 below. The table presents data identifying the number of subjects in each population, the means, the standard deviations, the "t"-ratio; and the level of significance of the "t"-ratio. Table 2.--Analysis of the number of expectations recorded by the half day and full day school visitation populations. POpulation N i' O t Significance Half Day 175 81.19 14.40 13.84 <.0005 Full Day 181 55.75 19.76 Table 2 indicates that 175 students in the half day program and 181 students in the full day program responsed to the items on Questionnaire I. The mean number of expectations recorded by the half day pOpulation was 81.19 which was greater than the mean of 55.75 recorded by the 65 full day population. The data analysis yielded a ”t"-ratio of 13.84 which was significant at a level greater than 0.0005. On the basis of the analysis of data summarized in Table 3, the first hypothesis (H01:M1=M2) was rejected. The data indicated that students in the half day school visitation program expressed a significantly greater number of expectations relative to the school visitation program than did students in the full day school visitation program. The analysis of data relevant to the second hypothe— sis encompassed the desires recorded by the half day and full day school visitation populations. Significant aspects of the t-test analysis appear below in Table 3. Identified are the sample sizes, the means, and standard deviations, the "t"-ratio, and the level Of significance of the "t"— ratio. Table 3.--Analysis of the number of desires recorded by half day and full day school visitation pOpula- tions. POpulation N i' O t Significance Half Day 175 90.60 15.01 1.60 .093 Full Day 181 87.61 18.63 Table 3 indicates that 175 students in the half day school visitation pOpulation, and 181 students in the full {ECO the of t nair Ques the Vis: 66 day school visitation population responded to Questionnaire I. The mean number of desires identified by the half day pOpulation respondents was 90.60 and the mean of the full day pOpulation respondents was 87.61. The analysis yielded a "t"-ratio of 1.60 which was significant at the 0.093 level. Because the criterion level set for the rejection of hypotheses was not reached, the second hypothesis (H02:M1=M2) was not rejected. The analysis indicated that there was no significant difference between the number of desires recorded by the half day school visitation pOpulation and the full day school visitation pOpulation at the 0.05 level; ~. The reader may wish to examine the response patterns of the sample pOpulations to specific items from Question- naire I. These data are given in Appendix B. Qpestionnaire III and associated hypotheses. This questionnaire was used to elicit information relative to the goals attained by students as a result of the school visitation program. The response of the sample pOpulations to the items on this questionnaire as well as to the items on Questionnaire I, provided the data necessary to test Hypotheses Three and Hypothesis Four. These hypotheses stated: 3. Students participating in the full day visita— tion program will realize a proportion of their expectations equal to that of students enrolled in the half day school visitation program. (H033M1=M2) 67 4. Students partiCipating in the full day school visitation program will realize a proportion of their desires equal to that of students enrolled in the half day school visitation program. (H04:M1=M2) The "t"-test analyses for the third and fourth hypotheses required the raw data from Questionnaire I identi- fying the expectations and desires of students to be matched with the raw data from Questionnaire III which identified the goals reached by students as a result of the visitation experience. The combining of these data allowed the prOpor— tion of expectations achieved as well as the proportion of desires achieved by each student to be calculated. The data significant to the testing of the third hypothesis appears in Table 4 below. Identified in the table are the number qf‘students completing the involved questionnaires, the means, the standard deviations, the "t"-ratio, and the level of significance of the "t"—ratio. Table 4.——Analysis of the achieved expectations recorded by the half day and full day school visitation populations. Population N i' O t Significance Half Day 128 .74 .24 13.21 ‘<.0005 Full Day 142 .26 1.39 The data in Table 4 indicates that the "N" of each population has been reduced when compared to the "N" of the 68 sample groups in Table 2 and Table 3. This difference can be attributed primarily to the necessity for students to have completed both Questionnaire I and III in order to be included in the populations identified in Table 4. The group means for the half day and full day pOpula— tions were .74 and .26 respectively. The means are expressed in terms of the prOportion of identified expectations achieved and thus are less than 1.00 in each instance. The analysis yielded a "t"-ratio which was significant at a level greater than 0.0005, and thus the third hypothe- sis (H03:M1=M2) was rejected. The significant difference indicated that the half day population achieved a greater prOportion of their expectations than did the full day population. The data analysis relative to the fourth hypothesis is presented in Table 5. The table specifies the sample size, the mean, the standard deviation, the "t”-ratio, and the significance of the "t"-ratio. Table 5.-—Analysis of the achieved desires of the half day and full day school visitation pOpulations Population N ii 5 t Significance Half Day 128 .8115 .1525 13.21 ‘<.0005 Full Day 142 .4081 1.0452 69 The data in Table 5 reflect the same unique features identified for Table 4. The number of respondents were the same, namely 128 in the half day pOpulation and 142 in the full day population. The mean proportiOn of achieved desires was calculated to be .81 for the half day population and .41 for the full day population. A "t"-ratio of 13.21 was determined and was significant at a level greater than 0.0005. Because the 0.05 level of significance was exceeded, the fourth hypothesis (Ho4zM1=M2) was rejected. The sig- nificant difference indicated that the half day population realized a greater prOportion of their desires than did the full day school visitation pOpulation. Nine items on Questionnaire III provided the data for analysis of Hypothesis Eight which stated: 8. Students enrolled in the full day school visita- tion program will report acquiring a variety of behaviors which are considered desirable as preparation for teaching equal to that of students enrolled in the half day school visitation program. (H098M1=M2) The data from the nine items was subjected to a "t"- test which yielded the analysis summarized in Table 6. The table includes the number of students in the sample popula- tions, the mean, the standard deviation, the "t"—ratio, and the significance of the ”t"-ratio. Table 6 indicates that 223 students in the half day population and 189 students in the full day pOpulation responded to the nine questionnaire items. Group means of 4.90 and 6.62 were established for the half day and full day 70 Table 6.-—Analysis of desirable teaching behaviors acquired by half day and full day school visitation popula— tions. Population N i. 6 t Significance Half Day 223 4.90 2.07 8.64 (0.0005 Full Day 189 6.62 1.94 pOpulations respectively. The analysis yielded a "t"—ratio of 8.64 which was significant at a level greater than 0.0005. The eighth hypothesis (Hoe:M1=M2) satisfied the criterion level and was rejected. The data indicated that the full day pOpulation acquired a significantly greater number of behaviors considered desirable for teaching than did students enrolled in the half day pOpulation. The reader interested in examining group responses to specific items on Questionnaire III is directed to Appendix F. Questionnaire II and associated hypotheses. The first twenty seven items of Questionnaire II were designed to elicit information relative to the number of times each individual had participated in listed activities during the first seven weeks of the school visitation experience gpg the average length of time spent in each participation. The data collected on these items were used to test Hypotheses Five, Six, and Nine which were stated as follows: .b u h. . h \ Q 0; at \ .IL The, 1.1 u RIDE \ 5. Students enrolled in the full day school visita- tion program will report experiencing a variety of participation activities equal to that of students enrolled in the half day school visita- tion program during the first seven weeks of the school visitation program (H05:M1=M2) 6. Students enrolled in the full day school visita— tion program will report experiencing a number of participation activities equal to that of students enrolled in the half day school visita— tion program during the first seven weeks of the school visitation program (H95:M1=M2) 9. Students enrolled in the full day school visita- tion program will report an amount of time spent in participation experiences during the first seven weeks of the school visitation experience equal to that of students enrolled in the half day school visitation program (H093M1:M2). The data analysis relevant to the fifth hypothesis is summarized in Table 7. The summary which appears below includes the number of students in the populations, the means, the standard deviations, the "t"-ratio, and the significance of the "t"—ratio. Table 7.--Analysis of the variety of participation activi— ties engaged in by half day and full day school visitation pOpulations during the first seven weeks. Population N i 6 t Significance Half Day 201 9.59 4.70 6.83 <10.0005 Full Day 173 12.92 4.70 The data in Table 7 indicate that a half day popula- tion of 201 and a full day population of 173 responded to 72 the first twenty seven items of Questionnaire II. Group means of 9.59 and 12.92 were established for the half day and full day populations respectively. A i't”.-ratio of 6.83 was identified and its significance was found to be greater than 0.0005. The established criterion was met by the "t"-ratio and resulted in the rejection of the fifth hypothesis (H052M1=M3). The data revealed that students enrolled in the full day school visitation program reported experiencing a significantly greater variety of participatory experiences than did students enrolled in the half day school visitation program. The summary of the "t"-test analysis of the sixth hypothesis is presented in Table 8, below. The data included in the summary are the number of students in the populations, the means, the standard deviations, the "t"-ratio, and the significance of the "t"-ratio. Table 8.--Ana1ysis of the number of participatory activities experienced by half day and full day school visi- tation pOpulations during the first seven weeks. Population N i. 6 t Significance Half Day 201 23250 15.26 6.93 .lIuIU-finVoh ;V-U HUB-flu uNoUiH lu-IU..U I.Q‘vAJl-UIv-J- V'.~U nunIhI3fld'fliA.~ Ih-hl‘v‘ U.Uln..IO'U-,‘ -:”I\’LU‘-Nni< )J‘F‘I l.fl\l§!t~ 9 7 .muouosuumcfl mponuma >3 Eoum mcommma mcflccmam Ga mam: o>wmomu .oma o.mm H.om .COflumuflmfl> m.xom3 nomm How mdoow m on m>nnmflmu cofluomuwc cm>nm mp .mmH ~.om m.~m .m:0aumuwm«> Hoonom man no uHsm low M mm mmfium umnu mcowummsv mmmao an mmsumno on muncspuonno map m>mn .vNH 4.6m H.mm .coaumu IHmH> Hoonom on» no uazmmu m mm mmfium umnu mcoaummsv muouosuumsw muonuma sun; mmsumws on muncspuomno may m>mn .mma ”.mm H.mm .mE ou pmcwauso Hoosom map CH pom padosm H mmoqmwuomxw Gnu m>mn .NNH m.¢m m.mm .08 on twcflmamxm doonom mnp an mafia on am H umnu maou may w>mn .Hma ~.Hm H.m¢ .Houusnumca mponumfi may ma Emumoum . mud tam Hoozom man on pmoscouucfl on .oma H.0m H.mm no» «Ham mm3 H mfiouH mHHMCGOApmmDO coauumumuaH coapom mcwuflmma HO\Usm mucmvsum mo ucmunmm numucH mcfl>mwso< «pampzum mo unmoumm .Eumu Hmucfl3 mucmwummxm coaumuwmfl> Hoosum mzu tam momusou mvonuma 03p cmm3umn mcoauomnmucfl.pm>mflgudli.ma magma 1 E I 4 1“ l.\\ EV. AH» .il‘ n-I‘ .3 VI. ‘1‘ «u .1 Wu. Vs «rt ‘1 CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The main purpose of this study was to compare the half day per week per term pre-service school visitation program to the full day per week per term pre-service school visita- tion program as instituted at Michigan State University fall term 1968 and winter term 1969. The bases for the compari- son involved: the expectations and desires of students, the participation activities engaged in by students; and, the non-participation or observation activities encountered by students. The primary concern identified through a selected review of the literature was an institutional apathy towards initiating research which would evaluate the effectiveness of pre-service laboratory programs. Few studies could be isolated which related to student perceptions relative to pre-service school visitation programs or which directly related to the amount of value of the time spent in visita- tion experiences. Thus, a need for research endeavors re- lated to pre-service laboratory prOgrams was established. The study involved the student population enrolled in Education 321-B Teaching Science and Mathematics at the Elementary Level and the half day school visitation program 80 81 fall term 1968, and the student population enrolled in Educa— tion 321-B and full day school visitation winter term 1969. Five questionnaires were constructed to gather data from the two populations relative to their expectations and desires, the types and extent of participation experiences encountered, and the observational or non-participatory activities experi- enced; in the school visitation programs. The data collected from the two populations were used in the analysis of the eleven variables isolated for investi- gation. A two tailed "t"—test was used to examine each variable. gesults and conclusions, Hypothesis One (Halelez) involved the number of identified expectations of students with respect to the school visitation programs. The hypothe- sis was rejected and the analysis indicated that the half day population identified a significantly greater number of expectations than the full day school visitation pOpulation. The number of desires identified by students relative to the school visitation programs was considered in the second hypothesis (H02:M1=M2). No significant difference was found between the half day and full day school visitation populations. The result might be interpreted as indicating that the amount of time that a student in either of the two populations anticipated spending in a school visitation program did not significantly affect the number of goals that he desired to reach via the school visitation program. ()1 D; 82 The third hypothesis (H03:M1=M2) examined the prOpor- tion of expectations achieved by students in the school visitation pOpulations. The hypothesis was rejected and the data indicated that students enrolled in the half day program achieved a greater prOportion of their expectations than students enrolled in the full day program. The fourth hypothesis (H04:M1=M2) considered the achieved desires of the school visitation programs. The analysis of data supported the rejection of the hypothesis and indicated that the half day school visitation population realized a significantly greater prOportion of their desires than did the full day school visitation pOpulation. The variety of participation activities engaged in by students during the first seven weeks of the visitation pro- grams was considered in the fifth hypothesis (H05:M3,=M2) . Tlle‘ hypothesis was rejected and a significant difference in means supported the conclusion that full day school visita- tion provided the Opportunity for students to engage in a greater variety of participatory activities than the half day program. The sixth hypothesis (H052M1=M2) was related to the W of participation activities experienced by students dun: ing the first seven weeks of the visitation program. The analysis of data led to the rejection of the hypothesis. The significant difference indicated that the full day popu- la . tion encountered a greater number of participation activi- t - 1 es than did the half day population. ‘ 83 The seventh hypothesis (H07:M1=M2) examined the number of observation activities experienced by the school visitation pOpulations. The hypothesis met the criterion for rejection and the analysis indicated that the number of observation activities experienced by the full day school *visitation population exceeded significantly that of the lualf day pOpulation. The eighth hypothesis (H08:M1=M2) involved the aaczquisition of behaviors which are considered desirable as E>zreparation for teaching. The hypothesis was rejected with title.significant difference indicating a greater acquisition c>jE the behaviors by the full day group. The amount of time spent in participation activities during the first seven weeks of the visitation programs was the subject of the ninth hypothesis (Hogzmlez) . The analy- Sis of data supported the rejection of the hypothesis. The analysis also indicated that the half day school visitation Population did not spend as much time in participatory activities as the full day pOpulation. The analysis of data led to the rejection of the tenth h:‘-’l"‘IE.:=><>thesis (H010:M1=M2) which was concerned with the variety ‘C>1E' Iparticipation activities encountered during one school Vis itation experience. The significant difference in means jLJn‘f the hypothesis. The analysis indicated that students eanrolled in the full day school visitation program encountered 3E>articipation experiences in a greater variety of subject m atter areas . Summary and discussion of the results and conclu— 8 ions. The results and conclusions of this study may be EBIJmmmarized by the following statements. 1. The students in the half day school visitation experience recorded a greater number of expectations of the SchOOl visitation program than students in the full day pr Ogram. 2. There was no significant difference in the number ()fo idesires that students in the half day and full day school visitation programs identified as goals of the visitation <2:;<: . Derience. 3. Students enrolled in the half day school visitation E ngram realized a greater proportion of their expectations 3 Jrl‘ta- desires than did students enrolled in the full day school \r - :l‘ s itation program. 85 4. When compared to students in the half day school Visitation programrthe-students in the full day program were a greater number and variety of partiCipa— able to achieve: participation experiences in a greater tion experiences; variety of subject matter areas, spent in participation activities- a greater amount of time experiences in a greater and, a greater number of number of observation activities- zactiVities considered to be desirable as preparation for t eaching. It is interesting to note that a greater number of empectations were recorded by half day students than full It would appear that students enrolled in ‘éizay students. if not greater, -t:lae full day program should have had an equal :ritamber of expectations of the school visitation program based on the greater amount of time they were to spend in 1:1143 school visitations. Several explanations, however, could account for this apparent disparity. Three possible explana- tions are discussed briefly in the succeeding paragraphs. It is pOSSible that the students enrolled in the half Ciiicxr school visitation program, because of the late adminis— t3:- ation of the questionnaire fall term, were highly aware 'the variety of experiences the program was offering them C>;ff 'Eiit; ‘the time they were responding to the questionnaire items. As a result of this awareness, they identified an increased 11 . ‘ullfinloer of expectations of the program. The winter term pg l§>lalation responding to the questionnaire the first week of t: 111;.5: program would not have had this awareness and as a 86 consequence of their greater naivete’ with respect to the pro— gram recorded fewer expectations. The investigator attempted to compensate for this effect in the administration of the questionnaire as noted in Chapter III.' Another explanation might be based upon the assumption that the late administration had no significant effect upon the responses of the students in the fall (half day) group, as was assumed in Chapter I. Instead, the term the student enrolled in the visitation program might have influenced the results. The fall term population in this case might have reflected a naiveté by marking a large number of expectations. I f the communication was significant between the members of the population and the winter population prior to the winter administration of the questionnaire, a lessening of naivetel might occur within the winter group. A result of this might be a decrease in the number of expectations they would id entify. A third variable might also have been operating either alOne or in conjunction with one of the above. The fall (half day) group was aware that they were participating not on 137 in research being carried on by this investigator, but also in a larger departmental study. Both of these studies were beingwinitiated during the fall term. It seems highly ‘1 ikely, then, that conditions existed which would encourage t - he operation of a halo effect. It is very possible that th 3 effects would be greater fall term at the onset of the :L tr 87 research efforts than during the winter term continuation of the research. The scope of the present study did not allow for the verification of the above explanations. The effect of the variables described in the explanations might be fruitful areas for further research. The feasibility of an uncontrolled variable operating in Hypothesis One, as described above, appears to be given rieeither more nor less credence by the second conclusion in the summary. This conclusion resulted from the testing of Hypothesis Two, and indicated that there was no significant difference between groups in the number of desires identi- fied relative to the school visitation program. The investi- gator would expect that the desires of the students in terms of what they would like a school visitation program to offer wou 1d be a more stable variable than expectations under the conditions of the late administration of the questionnaire fall term. Thus, the number of desires would be less likely to be modified by any of the contaminating variables identi— fied in the above discussion. The results as indicated in the third statement of the summary, that students in the half day school visitation pr ogxam were able to realize a greater proportion of these exp ectations and desires than the full day pOpulation, also Ives additional comment. The assumption that as one in Q3: eased the length of the visitations from a half day to a 88 full day the probability of students achieving an equal or a higher proportion of their expectations and desires would This assumption was not borne be increased, appears logical. The results revealed by the analysis of out by the results. data may be attributed to several factors which could have Two of these will been operating within the groups studied. be identified briefly in the following two paragraphs. The shorter length of the visitations of the fall group .nnay in fact be directly related to the increased attainment of the students' expectations and desires as the data indi— In this instance the reaction of students, cooperating c ates . and "Block" instructors relative to length of the If the t eachers, xzuisitation experience would have to be examined. Epesrsonnel concerned with the half day program reacted to the Shorter involvement by an effort to schedule experiences to evaluate progress more often and to plan more carefully, more carefully for a variety of experiences than the full day Personnel; the results of these efforts might be manifested jLIi. ‘the responses of the fall term pOpulations to the Question- naires as a higher achievement of expectations and desires. Th is effort by the personnel, then, could overcome the assumed Va lue of the increased time available in the full day visita- tion program for the attainment of student expectations and de sires. An.alternative analysis could be based on a rejection <:> :EE 1:he assumption made by the investigator at the outset of 89 the study that the late administration of Questionnaire One fall term would not bias the data gathered. The adminis— t:J:ation of the questionnaire during the sixth week of the visitation experience fall term may have resulted in the students evaluating the program and their own progress at this point. If this evaluation led to an increased effort on their part to reach the expectations and desires charac- terized in the questionnaire items, their achievement in the follow—up questionnaire should have been high. There would be no corresponding effect in the full day program. Th is then could effect the result as noted in the summary 8 t atement . The consistency of the findings relative to the fourth summary statement should be noted. The significant differences in each case were greater than 0.0005. The Variables noted in this statement all related to specific activities encountered by students during the school visita- 1”53...:3n programs. In each case the significant difference was in the direction of the full day visitation program. Implications for teacher training institutions. In View of the findings of this study, several educational impli— ea-‘|:ions appear to be justified with respect to designing and J‘I'T'T‘ED lementing school visitation programs as a part of the pre— 3 tudent teaching laboratory experiences. 1. Students perceive the introduction to the school sJltation program as important. OffiCials administering 90 such programs should be encouraged to institute a careful introduction to the program. 2. A high percentage of students expect and desire to be prepared for the types of experiences they are to receive in school visitation programs. Thus the implica— tion could be made that prior information relative to each week's visitation experience would facilitate student participation. 3. Institutions should be aware of the importance to students of the interaction between the methods courses and the school visitation program. 4. Institutions designing or implementing a school visitation program should consider that a full day program (one day per week per term) is likely to permit students to become involved in a significantly greater variety and number of participation experiences than a half day program. 5. The implementation of a full day program will probably allow students to encounter significantly greater numbers of observational experiences than will a half day program. 6. In order to facilitate more desirable behavior Ql'langes, visitation programs should be at least one full day per week. Identification of problems for further research. The r eview of literature indicated a need for research relative to the effectiveness of laboratory experiences prior to (I) '1”) r" 91 student teaching. The literature also stressed that the research should move toward a more quantitative approach. This study has compared two pre-service school visitation programs with respect to the perceptions of students regard- ing the programs, and with respect to the types, number, and degrees of experiences students encountered as related to the time period of involvement. Additional study in the areas of student perceptions relative to school visitation programs, seems desirable. The investigator feels also that further studies are needed which attempt to derive optimum periods of time for school visitations as related to the achievement of student perceived goals of such programs, and as related to the involvement of students in selected participation and observation activities. Some specific problems generated by this study are: 1. Does the student who encounters more of the experi- ences (participation + non-participation) outlined in this study achieve greater success as a student teacher? 2. Would an increase in the time spent in school Visitation programs result in a significantly greater exposure to a variety of participation and observation experiences? 3. Are student expectations and institutional e“PeCtations of school visitation prOgrams similar? 4. Is there a relationship between the term enrolled i . . . . . n Sc$11001 V181tat10n programs and the achievement of student ex . . pectations or deSires? 92 5. Are the observational experiences encountered by students in school visitation programs appropriate to the Inethods and procedures outlined in professional courses? 6. Is there a relationship between the length of the school visitation program and the degree to which specific eaxperiences are planned’for students? 7. Does the day of the week on which a student makes riis school visitation influence significantly the variety c>f observation and participation experiences he encounters? 8. Is one full day per week more effective in terms crf achieving specified goals of a school visitation experi— euice than an equivalent time allotment spread over five days per week? BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS 2%.A.C.T.E. Sub—Committee of the Committee on Standards and Surveys. School and Community Laboratory Experi- ences in Teacher Education. Oneonta: The Association, 1948, 340 pp. bdagnun, Vernon. The American Normal School. Baltimore: Warwick and York Inc., 1928. 235 pp. (Drt, E. P. "Pre-student Teaching Laboratory Experiences." In: Partnershipiin Teacher Educatign, editors, E. Brooks Smith, Hans Olsen, Patrick J. Johnson, and Chandler Barbour. A Joint Publication of the A.A.C.T.E. and AST, Washington D.C., 1966, Sec. V, Part X. 496 pp. Stiiles, L. J., and others. Teacher Education in the United States. New York: The Ronald Press, 1960. 512 pp. Williams, E. I. F. The Actual and Potential Use of Labora— tory Schools. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1942. 273 pp. YEARBOOKS Flowers, John 6., Patterson, Allen, Shatemeyer, Florence. "Recommended Standards Governing Professional Labora- tory Experiences and Student Teaching." In The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Educa- tion. First Yearbook. Oneonta: The Association, 1948. p. 228. Manker, J. W. "Imperatives for Excellence in Teacher Education." In: Foundation for Excellence, A.A.C.T.E., Fifteenth Yearbook Association, Washington D.C., 1962, 202 pp. 93 (3 El l—r’ 94 DISSERTATIONS .Adolphson, Louis. ”A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Selected Observational Procedures in Developing Teacher Perception." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, 1961. (Zallahan, Sterling. The Pole of Non-Student Teaching "First— Hand Experiences in Selected Teacher Education Insti— tutions." Dissertation Abstracts, 41: 1047; No. l, 1954. c:lemens, James. "An Analysis of Professional Laboratory Experiences Provided Prior to Student Teaching in Secondary Teacher Education Programs of Selected Institutions in Illinois.“ Dissertation Abstracts International, 30: 4302; No. 10, 1970. (:cnlvin, Cynthia. “Achieving Readiness for Student Teaching Through Direct Experience." Dissertation Abstracts, 19: 3229; No. 11, 1958. Ekiualino, Emilio. The Relationship Between Successful Student Teaching and Pre—Student Teaching Experiences with Children." Dissertation Abstracts, 19: 468; No. l, 1958. jElgliott, Leeland. "The Nature and Quality of Pre-Student Teaching Laboratory Experiences in Campus Laboratory Schools Affiliated with State Colleges and Universities." Dissertation Abstracts International, 31: 1119; No. 3, 1970. Estes, Sidney. "A Status Study of Pre-Student Teaching Laboratory Experiences in Elementary Teacher Educa— tion." Dissertation Abstracts, 28: 4022; No. 10, 1968. Eustice, David. "The Relationship of the Non-Academic Pre-service Experiences of Teachers and Teaching Success. Dissertation Abstracts, 23: 2023; No. 4, 1962. ' Fehl: Patricia. "The Effects of an Observation-Participa— tion Program on Attitudes and on Concepts." Disserta- tion Abstracts, 27: 3338; No. 10, 1967. Frantz. Merlin. "An Analysis of Professional Laboratory Experiences Provided Prior to Student Teaching for Students Preparing to be Secondary Teachers." Dissertation Abstracts, 20: 211; No. l, 1959. 95 Funk, Haldon. "The Effect of Pre—Student Teaching Laboratory Experiences on selected Attitudes and Concepts of Prospective Elementary Teachers.“ Dissertation Abstracts, 20: 211; No. l, 1959. :Halfaker, Phillip. "Professional Laboratory Experience Provided Prior to Student Teaching for Undergraduates in Secondary Education in Selected Teacher Education Institutions." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Bloomington, Indiana University, 1962. 206 pp. Iiersh, Richard. "An Analytical Approach to the Professional Training of Teachers." Dissertation Abstracts Inter- national, 31: 265; No. l, 1970. Clones, Isabelle F. "A Study of the Various Types of Pre- Student Teaching Experiences to Success in Student Teaching." Dissertation Abstracts, 16: 709; No. 4, 1956. E3inc1air, William W. "An Analysis of Three Pre-Student Teaching Experiences in the Preparation of Elementary School Teachers." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1948. Thirns, Tom. "The Determination and Evaluation of Profes- sional Laboratory Experiences Prior to Student Teach— ing." Dissertation Abstracts International, 31: 2780; No. 6, 1970. Ulry, L. O. "The Program of Field Service Projects in Education of the College of Education the Ohio State University." Dissertation Abstracts, 20: 2161; No. 6, 1959. PERIODICALS Altenhein, Margarete. "C.C.T.V. or Classroom Observation: Which Shall it Be?" Peabody Journal of Education, 40: 296-300, May, 1963. Chabe. "An Experiment with C.C.T.V. in Teacher Education." Peabody Journal ofifEducation, 40: 24-30, July, 1962. Cox, Dan. "An Objective and Empirical Study of the Effects of Laboratory Experience in a Professional Education Course Prior to Student Teachings." The Journal of Experimental Education, 29: 89-94, September 1960. 96 Deever, Merwin R., Williams, Chester, and Flynn, Edward Jr. ”Professional Laboratory Experiences in Oklahoma.” Journal of Teacher Education, 16: 497—505; No. 4, 1960. Doll, Ronald, and Macdonald, James. "A New Departure in Teacher Education." Journal of Teacher Education, 11: 572-575, December, 1960. :Fulton, W. R., and Rupiper, D. J. "Observation of Teaching: Direct Vs Vicarious Experiences." Journal of Teacher Education, 13: 157—164, June, 1962. Iiunter, Elizabeth and Amidon, Edmund. "Direct Experience in Teacher Education: Innovation and Experimentation.” Journal of Teacher Education, 17: 282—9, Fall, 1966. :[ngle, Robert, and Robinson, Edward. "An Examination of the Value of Classroom Observation for Prospective Teachers." Journal of Teacher Education, 15: 75-78, December, 1965. Ihevine, Madeline. "Extending Laboratory Experiences: Part II." Journil of Teacher Education, 12: 29-35, March, 1961. Reynard, Harold. "Pre-service and In-service Education of Teachers." Review of Educational Research, 33: 375— 6, October, 1963, p. 7. Scrivner, A. W. "A Professional Laboratory Experience." Journal of Teacher Education, 12: 48-53, March, 1961. Steinbach, Alan, and Butts, David. "A Comparative Study of the Effect of Practices with Elementary Children or with Peers in the Science Methods Course." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6: 316-21; No. 4, 1969. Turney, David, and Stoneking, Lewis. "A Professional Sequence for the Deve10pment of Career Teachers." Journal of Teacher Education, 16: 281-85, September, 1965. Waimon, Morton. "Observing Classroom Action Systems." Journal of Teacher Education." 12: 466—70, December, 1961. Wilhelms, Fred. "Exploring New Patha in Teacher Education." Theory Into Practice, 3: 12-16, February, 1964. APPENDICES APPENDIX A EXPLANATORY LETTER TO THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OF THE LANSING PUBLIC SCHOOLS 98 99 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY -East Lansing«-Midhigan 48823 College of Education - Department of Elementary and Special Education - Erickson Hall November 19, 1968 Miss Grace Van Wert Director of Elementary Education Lansing Board of Education 3426 S. Cedar Lansing, Michigan Dear Miss Van Wert: This communication is to present the general features of the design of a doctoral study that is anticipated as one feature of an overall study being made of the "elementary block" pro- gram at Michigan State University. The main purpose of the doctoral study is to ascertain students' perception and sig- nificance of visitation experiences in connection with their preservice educational program, While this study does not involve any teacher time or speci— fic evaluation of any given learning situation or teaching technique, we feel that you and your teachers would want to know that we anticipate a research study and we trust that the study will meet with your approval. The major features of the study including a brief review of the background for the study follows. Background. The faculty of the Department of Elementary Education has decided to change some of the organizational aspects of the "elementary block". These changes will be implemented at the beginning of the Winter Term, 1969. In “view of these contemplated changes, the faculty decided to attempt some comparative evaluation of the program as it has operated this term and as it will Operate the following term. As you probably know, one feature that will be changed is the sdhool visitation experience from one-half day to a full days' experience per week. This is the change that we hope to study relative to student perception and significance. .Design ofithe study. Questionnaire technique will be used to collect information with respect to student perceptions prior to»visitation, to observation of their experiences, to partici- pation, to perceptions as a result of their experiences, and to the significance of their experiences. Questionnaires will be administered to only the students taking the elementary block. The questionnaire will be given during a regular university class period and will not involve outside 100 student time. Effort will also be made to ascertain the things that university instructors are doing in preparing the students for their visitation experiences and for any follow—up that occurs in relation to the visitations. The students in the study will be those students enrolled in the "elementary block" at Michigan State University Fall Term, 1968 and Winter Term, 1969. The data will be treated as group data and will not be used in grading the students. The investigator is Mr. George Schneck, a doctoral student who is on leave from Oshkosh State University. Mr. Schneck is a staff member of the Education Department of that University and teaches science methods courses. He is also involved in some student teaching supervision. The study has the approval of the departmental research committee headed by Dr. Martin and Dr. Vernon Hicks, Chairman, Ele- mentary Education Department. It is to be emphasized that this study will not attempt to evaluate any teaching situation or teacher and that all data will be treated as group data and individual schools or situations will not be identifiable. We are most pleased to be associated with you and your teachers in the education of teachers and we trust that we may maintain the fine cooperation that now exists. If you have any specific questions concerning this study, I would welcome such questions. Sincerely, MN hn M. Mason rofessor Education 333 Erickson Hall JMM:pt APPENDIX B PRE-SERVICE STUDENT SCHOOL VISITATION QUESTIONNAIRE I AS ADMINISTERED FALL TERM 1968 AND WINTER TERM 1969 101 102 PRE-SERVICE STUDENT SCHOOL VISITATION EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE I WINTER TERM "Student-Perceived Goals of the School Visitation Experience" Perceived goals relative to the non-participation or observation portion of the school visitation experience. To the student: Please react to the following statements. Indicate your reaction by marking the answer sheet with your choice from the key. Key Space l.—-if you expect the occurrence of this phenomenon as a goal of this portion of the visitation experience. Space 2.--if you desire the occurrence of this phenomenon as a goal of this portion of the visitation experience. (like to have the event occur) Space 3.-—if you neither expect nor desire the occur— rence of this phenomenon as a goal of this portion of the visitation experience. Space 4.--if you both expect and desire the occurence of this tion of In the non-participation tation experience I: Fall (upper) Winter (lower) 1 98 6 92 119 Z 62 23 73 52 42 27 7 2 H~d i 8 1. 149 2 2. 126 7 3. 147 phenomenon as a goal of this por- the visitation experience. or observation portion of the visi— to acquire knowledge concerning skills of planning and conducting learning activities that implement specific, identifiable goals. to learn techniques for motivating students. to learn techniques for handling classroom organization and procedures. 103 Fall (upper) Winter (lower) .1. l .3. A. 73 89 7 6 4. to learn techniques for handling 8 69 l 102 small group_instruction. 67 96 8 4 5. to learn techniques for handling 8 84 5 83 individualization of instruction. 33 132 4 6 6. to have the opportunity to observe 9 68 10 93 the teaching of all subject matter areas during the term. 64 101 7 3 7. to learn techniques for handling 4 72 9 95 discipline problems. 54 107 2 12 8. to learn a variety of evaluative 6 103 10 61 techniques. 83 82 6 4 9. to learn techniques for building 4 74 5 96 rapport with children to acquire skills in the use of the fol— lowing, where they are the basic instruc- tional aid: 122 43 5 5 10. Textbooks 23 26 2 129 12 114 l 48 11. Radio Programs 5 94 72 9 19 123 2 31 12. Television Programs 9 112 29 30 54 97 6 18 13. Incidental Materials 14 66 18 82 59 100 9 7 14. "Modern Curriculum Materials" 14 98 6 61 (AAAS, SMSG, etc.) 73 87 5 10 15. Teacher Assembled Materials 19 72 4 85 13 4 157 16. The Library 14 66 10 90 B. Perceived goals relating to my participation in the visitation experience. Fall (upper) ‘Winter (lower) 1 48 1 48 7 13 59 48 13 10 23 32 58 16 47 20 25 15 55 15 20 25 13 To the student: 2 l 10 4 1 176 90 5 95 12 25 1 10 95 lb 112 32 65 136 16 17. 18. 19. 104 to be strictly an observer without any active participation. to participate as a co—worker with the teacher in the planning and implementation of learning experi- ences. to participate mainly as a student assistant, without any independent responsibilities. The following are a list of activities in which you may have an opportunity_to participate. Please apply the key to the degrees of involvement listed in each case. 70 73 35 35 34 64 38 69 47 28 16 66 52 69 17 44 62 33 54 32 129 119 109 13 76 69 80 130 134 66 67 38 138 103 157 25 Audio-visual presentation(s) 20. Plan 21. Assist with 22. Direct alone genes 23. Plan 24. Assist with 25. Direct alone Supplying supplementary materials 26. 27. 28. 'Plan Assist with Direct alone Fall (upper) Winter (lower) .1. 73 13 39 22 13 14 39 19 17 29 10 68 14 15 10 64 29 20 34 23 46 12 Z 27 49 12 31 33 41 53 85 53 38 16 69 26 81 47 39 10 65 44 49 19 31 21 42 35 79 .3. 49 11 69 73 50 123 118 127 42 81 35 102 114 127 31 80 61 54 121 149 65 67 49 136 109 129 43 91 73 105 Marking of papegs 29. Plan 30. Assist with 31. Direct alone Handling special situations-group singing, folk dancing, etc. 32. Plan 33. Assist with 34. Direct alone Personal assistance to pupils 35. Plan 36. Assist with 37. Direct alone Setting up apparatus 38. Plan 39. ASSist with 40. Direct alone Reading to students 41. Plan Fall (upper) 'Winter (lower) 1 59 19 18 14 48 28 20 31 16 20 37 18 20 23 ll 17 25 17 12 22 2 53 33 32 65 48 63 22 26 23 57 47 65 24 32 21 50 71 60 33 63 25 33 82 91 >33 69 15 3. 6 9 23 51 49 16 64 93 44 129 4 57 118 125 77 76 51 131 113 136 52 9O 48 130 108 143 48 68 19 132 58 142 10 66 26 125 93 135 16 106 42. Assist with 43. Direct alone Making 0; bulletin board(s) 44. Plan 45. Assist with 46. Direct alone Poster construction 47. Plan 48. Assist with 49. Direct alone Handling 0; discipline problems 50. ‘Plan 51. Assist with 52. Direct alone Analyzing pupil work_§or creativity 53. Plan 54. Assist with 55. Direct alone Fall (upper) Winter (lower) 1 68 23 38 25 22 19 69 10 41 18 10 10 35 13 15 15 33 14 .2. 4O 65 44 32 24 56 32 81 29 50 34 69 67 93 55 52 42 74 83 84 3O 55 3O 45 76 87 .3. 48 10 59 76 72 16 119 63 43 93 113 129 45 71 54 104 110 131 47 70 29 104 105 127 23 72 19 142 96 137 12 63 36 107 111311. 56. Plan 57. Assist with 58. Direct alone Helping pupils solve problems 59. Plan 60. Assist with 61. Direct alone Creative activities — poetry, plays, etc. 62. Plan 63. Assist with 64. Direct alone Planning and conductinggfield trips 65. Plan 66. Assist with 67. Direct alone pgncidentaI learning situations- current affairs 68. Plan Fall (upper) Winter (lower) .1 17 19 21 ll 62 13 36 17 090‘ mu L310) .2. 4O 49 23 73 49 9o 45 4s 34 78 76 86 26 54 23 56 59 81 21 65 19 47 80 48 17 71 21 26 3 56 53 17 103 123 114 50 144 9. 118 105 130 26 61 36 91 112 138 39 79 33 144 97 144 16 99 11 149 70 154 88 12 155 50 137 108 69. Assist with 70. Direct alone Individualization o: instruction 71. Plan 72. Assist with 73. Direct alone Planning parties and picnics 74. Plan 75. Assist with 76. Direct alone Pupil publications 77. Plan 78. Assist with 79. Direct alone Parent teacher conferences 80. Plan 81. Assist with 82. Direct alone Fall (upper) Winter (lower) 1 37 16 25 17 13 11 37 32 24 41 16 66 31 16 12 18 17 21 .2. 60 77 50 49 25 77 65 41 52 25 34 26 54 31 74 19 33 104 81 16 56 23 78 3. UTH 50 51 14 74 102 29 133 51 Ink 76 51 98 106 137 39 7O 55 98 99 151 55 80 15 111 61 148 10 59 29 152 99 130 26 109 Conducting group discussions 83. Plan 84. Assist with 85. Direct alone Supervising students during recess, lunch, etc. 86. Plan 87. Assist with 88. Direct alone Administering and interpreting standardized test data 89. Plan 90. Assist with 91. Direct alone Teaching specifiic skills in various subject areas 92. Plan 93. Assist with 94. Direct alone Wi Hm 110 C. Perceived gpals relating to interaction with school personnel. I will have the Opportunity tO talk with the follow- ing personnel connected with the school Operation: Fall (upper) Winter (lower) .1. 2 l i 48 62 l 64 95. other teachers, 11 21 7 140 26 50 l 98 96. visiting teacher, 6 68 13 92 25 27 2 2 97. subject area consultants, 5 98 15 62 48 92 3 31 98. principal, 9 47 9 115 26 120 1 27 99. counselor(s), 8 97 ll 64 89 63 7 15 100. custodial staff. 15 57 57 49 Through discussions with various personnel I will: 32 112 2 28 101. Obtain insights into the nature 8 67 17 87 and role Of various professional organizations. 31 64 l 78 102. Examine the responsibilities Of 9 58 15 98 teachers beyond the classroom, 46 85 2 41 103. Gain insights into the role of 7 95 8 70 special consultant staff connected with the school system, 82 77 3 12 104. Become aware Of special programs 7 57 l 115 for special groups of children. 46 101 l 26 105. Become aware of the diagnostic 3 95 8 75 procedures for identifying special children. I will have the Opportunity to examine: 77 83 4 10 106. Cumulative folders, 8 lll 18 43 111. Fall (upper) Winter (lower) 1 2 3 4 58 102 1 13 107. Methods Of reporting to parents, 10 9O 8 '72 58 100 3 13 108. Teachers manuals used in subject 15 33 3 129 matter areas, 58 100 l 14 109. SChOOl facilities, 12 22 5 141 124 40 7 3 110. Methods Of record keeping. 16 47 3 114 D. Changes I will expect to chur in me as a result ofpthe visitation experience. 127 24 6 7 111. I will feel more at ease in working 9 l9 3 148 with children in a classroom situa- tion. 90 68 5 11 112. I will be able tO identify more 10 33 4 132 precisely the characteristics of a given age group. 114 43 12 5 113 I could construct, on my own, daily 7 72 8 92 lesson plans apprOpriate tO a given grade level. 105 58 6 5 114 I could construct, on my own, daily 6 85 9 79 lesson plans so that I could work with One group while the rest of the class was engaged in another activ- ity. 37 125 2 9 115. I would be able tO judge how long 7 75 6 90 a planned lesson would take to implement. 39 125 2 8 116. I would have a "storehouse” of 4 112 9 53 techniques that are usually moti— Vating to this age group. 47 116 11 117. I would be able to identify specific 7 56 7 109 reasons why I was, or was not, suited tO work at this grade level. 37 126 2 9 118. I would be able to identify specific 13 51 10 105 reasons why teaching was or was not a suitable career choice for me. Fal Win Wit 112 Fall (upper) Winter (lower) 13.3.4 86 77 2 9 119. I will feel more competent in de- 8 76 8 87 ciding what curricular pattern is most satisfying to the children Of this age group. E. Perceived relationship between the methods courses and the school visitation program. Winter only 18 51 37 70 120. TO be introduced to the school and its program by the methods instructors. 18 4O 27 89 121. TO have the rOle that I am to play in the school explained to me. ll 19 8 141 122. TO have the experiences I should get in school outlined to me. 7 22 l 148 123. TO have the Opportunity to discuss with methods instructors questions that arise as a result Of the school visitations. 8 71 23 77 124. TO have the Opportunity tO discuss in class questions that arise as a result Of the school visitations. 7 57 6 108 125. TO be given direction relative to a focus for each week's visitation. 15 80 32 41 126. TO be able to receive help in plan— ning lessons from my methods instructors. 113 PRE-SERVICE STUDENT SCHOOL VISITATION EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE I FALL TERM "Student-Perceived Goals Of the School ViSitation Experience” A. Perceived goals relative to the non-participation portion Of the visitation experience. TO the student: Please react to the following statements. Indicate by check in the appropriate column whether you expect*, or desire*, the occurrence Of these phenomena as goals Of this portion Of the visitation experience. (If you both expect and desire the occurrence Of the phenomenon check both columns. If you neither expect nor desire the occurrence do not check either column) I expect desire: 1. TO acquire knowledge concerning setting and conducting learning activities that implement specific, identifiable goals. 2. TO learn techniques for motivating students. 3. TO learn techniques for handling class- room organization and procedures. 4. TO learn techniques for handling small group instruction. 5. TO learn techniques for handling individualization Of instruction. 6. TO have the Opportunity to Observe the teaching Of all subject matter areas during the term. 7. TO learn how to handle discipline problems. 8. TO learn a variety of evaluative techniques. * Expect-Synonmymes might be; to lOOk for, to intend, to have in prospect, or to count upon. * Desire-Synonmymes might be; to hope, wish for, or to be glad of. I expect desire: 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 114 TO learn techniques for building rapport with children. TO acquire skills in the use of the following, where they are the basic insrructional aid. a. Textbooks b. Radio Programs c. Television Programs d. Incidental Materials e. "Modern" Curriculum Materials f. Teacher Assembled Materials OTHER (Please specify) 9. OTHER (Please specify) h. B. Perceived goals relating to my participation in the visitation experience. I expect desire: 1. TO be strictly an Observer without any active participation TO participate mainly as a student assistant, without any independent responsibilities. OTHER (Please specify) 3. 115 B. (continued) In the following statements mark each Of the vertical columns with your choice from the key. Key: 3 (E.D. - Both expect and desire .-—Expect ' Blank - Neither expect nor desire) --Desire In the participation portion of the visitation experience, I expect, desire: to Plan Assist in Direct Alone: 1. Audio-visual presen- tation(s) 2. Games 3. Supplying supple- mentary materials 4. Marking Of papers 5. Handling special situ- ation(s)-group singing, folk dancing, etc. 6. Personal assistance to pupils 7. Setting up apparatus 8. Reading to students 9. Making of bulletin board(s) 10. Poster making 11. Handling of discipline problems 12. Analyzing pupil work for creativity 13. Helping pupils solve problems To Plan Assist in Direct Alone: 116 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Drill work Creative activities — poetry, plays, etc. Planning and conducting field trips Incidental learning situations - current affairs Individualization of instruction Planning parties and picnics Pupil publications Parent teacher confer- ence(s) Conducting group discussion(s) Class discussions Supervising pupils during recess, lunch etc. Administering and inter- preting standardized test data Teaching specific skills in various subject areas C. Perceived goals relating tO interaction with school personnel. I [Expect Desire that: 1. I will have the Opportunity to talk with personnel connected with the school Operation. a. Other teachers C.--Continued I Expect Desire that: 117 b. Visiting teacher ‘c. Subject area consultants d. Principal e. Counselors f. Custodial staff Through discussions with various personnel I will: a. Obtain insights into the nature and role Of various professional organizations. b. Gain insights into the role of special consultant staff con— nected with the school system. c. Examine the responsibilities Of teachers beyond the classroom. d. Become aware Of special programs for special groups of children. e. Become aware Of the diagnostic procedures for identifying special children. OTHER (Please specify) f. g. I will have the Opportunity to examine; a. Cumulative folders b. Methods Of reporting to parents c. Teachers manuals used in subject matter areas, d. School facilities, I Expect Dgsire that: 118 e. Methods of record keeping OTHER (Specify) f. g. D. Changes I will expect tO occur in me as a result Of the visitation experience. I Expect Desire that: l. I will feel more at ease in work- ing with children in a classroom situation. 2. I will be able to identify more precisely the characteristics of a given grade level. 3. I could construct, on my own, daily lesson plans appropriate to a given grade level. 4. I could construct, on my own, daily lesson plans so that I could work with one group while the rest of the class was engaged in another activity. 5. I would be able to judge how long a planned lesson would take to implement. 6. I would have a "storehouse" Of techniques that are usually moti- vating tO this age group. 7. I would be able to identify speci- fic reasons why I was, or was not, suited to work at this grade levell 8. I would be able tO identify speci- fic reasons why teaching was, or was not, a suitable career choice for me. - 9. I will feel more competent in deciding what curricular pattern is most satisfying tO the children. APPENDIX C PRE-SERVICE STUDENT SCHOOL VISITATION QUESTIONNAIRE II AS ADMINISTERED FALL TERM 1968 AND WINTER TERM 1969 119 120 QUESTIONNAIRE II (Only on Winter Term) Fall (upper) Winter (lower) Question Response Number Number __ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l 4 l 2 l 3 9 1 l4 9 2 3 3 20 6 l 2 2 14 29 21 26 15 10 3O 31 27 7 22 19 21 38 13 7 25 32 15 35 3 26 26 25 23 14 21 30 3O 30 3 19 26 26 18 34 7 24 19 34 45 4 24 22 9 I3 5 l4 16 15 25 3 52 18 9 5 3 7 25 l6 19 18 5 7 7 2 2 3 6 5 4 5 1 2 l 12 6 2 3 12 14 7 5 7 6 3 2 l 2 1 l 7 l 1 1 l l l 7 23 4 4 6 2 4 9 3 18 7 42 38 19 6 3 7 18 16 16 43 8 23 9 3 2 3 9 5 12 7 2 35 38 18 7 4 5 17 26 19 3O 9 33 13 7 7 6 l6 9 12 26 3 31 40 25 13 9 8 25 25 16 35 10 21 ll 3 5 4 21 8 8 6 l 29 27 18 5 7 37 17 15 6 7 ll 30 32 26 4O ,35 17 35 25 72 l4 17 23 22 17 35 5 17 34 21 53 12 22 ll 9 7 6 40 5 3 5 3 34 24 20 12 7 74 9 4 2 3 13 21 8 12 8 6 l2 l3 8 l7 4 32 16 9 4 ll 12 20 17 4 15 continued Fall (upper) Winter (lower) Question m 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 121 Response Number l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 16 15 22 9 6 10 17 39 7 16 18 22 14 21 3 8 24 28 34 3O 15 9 11 6 10 10 19 29 3 24 34 20 11 «17 6 16 27 23 36 2 9 13 9 13 2 11 21 16 17 1 2 26 11 11 6 5 24 32 19 11 35 19 14 16 20 7 22 3O 39 6 33 21 14 7 12 2 21 23 19 22 22 15 10 18 13 5 17 26 27 3 27 12 6 6 6 3 14 18 13 14 22 6 3 1 3 5 6 10 10 3 28 12 3 3 5 4 15 5 14 3 1 1 1 4 5 1 2 1 1 4 6 1 1 2 2 1 6 1 11 3 1 1 3 1 2 5 28 18 7 7 8 5 7 4 44 8 35 28 30 16 14 6 15 19 81 14 12 9 7 2 4 12 21 7 34 42 28 8 8 24 29 61 19 10 7 11 IO 6 7 13 27 4 20 19 11 7 7 3 10 19 10 21 13 17 8 15 5 3 10 18 3 9 8 3O 26 28 13 17 6 18 27 64 16 16 8 14 34 4 4 17 28 5 29 36 -38 10 11 1 9 35 28 53 15 13 19 18 20 7 11 19 39 8 13 19 11 19 12 6 14 17 15 24 34 6 5 2 3 1 1 1 30 33 27 12 5 3 2 3 1 2 continued 122 Fall (upper) Winter (lower) Question Respgnge Number Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 29 32 5 2 l l 2 18 10 12 13 4 2 3 l 30 33 4 2 l l l 22 15 ll 6 5 l l 31 l 8 46 18 7 3 1 2 l 32 48 7 5 3 3 l l l 40 29 23 15 6 l 4 2 l 33 31 4 2 2 l l l 32 18 ll 9 4 l 4 34 6 l l 20 10 5 l l 1 35 15 l 2 1 24 13 6 4 1 36 7 l l 34 46 19 7 7 4 2 3 2 37 31 5 2 3 2 - 29 53 35 15 9 3 l l l 38 17 3 l 1 l 1 31 24 19 8 3 l l l 39 52 7 4 2 2 l l 3 32 32“ 27 12 7 2 2 40 22 2 l 23 15 8 4 3 l l 41 6 l 12 4 2 42 17 2 l 2 18 23 10 2 4 1 l 43 39 4 5 l l 26 24 17 6 6 2 l 44 27 3 2 l 3 l 35 57 22 17 2 4 2 1 continued 123 Fall (upper) ‘Winter (lower) Question Response Number Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 45 21 5 2 ' 27 14 7 l l 46 33 4 5 3 1 17 25 23 7 4 2 47 l l 12 8 7 2 48 10 18 4 3 1 49 38 2 4 2 22 l9 17 10 4 l 50 52 4 4 2 3 14 39 26 17 7 l 51 ll 2 l 33 37 9 3 2 52 13 3 l l 39 12 4 2 l 53 21 3 2 4 2 21 23 9 l 2 54 13 l .2 l 2 19 23 15 5 2 l 55 18 2 l 2 l 124 PRE-SERVICE STUDENT SCHOOL VISITATION EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE II WINTER TERM "A Summary Of the Participatory Activities Engaged in by Block Students During the First Seven Weeks Of the Visitation Experience" Directions: This questionnaire is designed to elicit informa- tion with respect tO two aspects Of your participation. 1. The number pf times you have participated in a listed activity. 2. The average length Of time spent in each partici- pation. Please respond by marking on the scoring sheet for each activity as follows: 1. One response from Key A to indicate the number Of participations, and; 2. One response from Key B to indicate the average number Of minutes per visitation. Key A. Key B blank — no participation 6--3—7 minutes 1 - one participation 7--8-12 minutes 2 — two participations 8—-l3-l7 minutes 3 - three participations 9--18-22 minutes 4 - four participations 10--Over 22 minutes 5 - five participations (if you participated more than five times, write that number to the left Of the question number on the answer sheet) Example: If you tOOk attendance 5 times and it took about 10 minutes each time, you would mark the answer sheet as follows: 1. 1=2=3=4=5¥6=7X8=9=10= During the first seven weeks I was able tO participate in the class in the following manner: 1. take attendance 2. direct drill work 3. correct and analyze papers 4. administer a test 8. 9. 10. 125 record grades participate in a parent teacher conference make an audio-visual aid make an audio-visual presentation supply supplementary materials for a class set up apparatus interact with one child 11. 12. 13. do remedial work handle a discipline problem direct an individual investigation interact with a group Of children 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. do remedial work conduct group discussions read tO students supervise play activities supervise students during lunch, recess, etc. handle special situations-group singing, folk dancing, etc. plan a field trip plan a party or picnic plan a lesson involving the whole class plan a lesson involving a group Of students plan for individualization Of instruction teach a lesson involving the whole class teach a lesson involving a group within the class implement individualization Of instruction 126 $9 the Student: The f Ollowing are to be answered only if you have planned and taught a lesson(s), or planned and directed an activity(ies). Directions: mprHE N (D (b ‘< ?’ Respond only to the statements that apply, using the below. one time 6 - six times two times 7 - seven times three times 8 - eight times four times 9 - nine times five times 10 — ten times The tOpic Of the lesson was chosen: 28. by me . 29. by the teacher Observed 30. jointly with the teacher Observed 31. jointly with the Block instructor I received help in planning my lesson from: 32. 33. 34. 35. __36. myself only teacher I was Observing classmates Block instructors textbooks The emphasis Of the lesson concerned: _37. __38. _39. _40. The meth 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. concepts facts skills (language, etc.) attitudes Od used was primarily one Of: lecture lecture-discussion discussion discovery demonstration questioning reading listening 127 E. The activity engaged in by the children was one Of: 49. listening 50. discussing 51. constructing 52. drawing 53. writing investigating 54. individual 55. group 128 PRE-SERVICE STUDENT SCHOOL VISITATION EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE II FALL TERM IDilrections: Choose one response from Key A to indicate the number Of participations; and 2. One response from Key B to indicate the average number Of minutes per participation. 3. Place your responses in the appropriate column. Key A Key B lilaank - no participation 6--3-7 minutes 1 - one participation 7——8-12 minutes 2 — two participations 8—-13-17 minutes 3 - three participations 9-—18-22 minutes 4 — four participations lO--Over 22 minutes 5 - five participations (if you participated more than five times, write that number to the left of the question 11L1meer on the answer sheet) During the first seven weeks I was able to participate in the Class in the following manner: 1. take attendance 2. direct drill work 3. correct and analyze papers 4. administer a test 5. record grades participate in a parent teacher conference 7. make an audio-visual aid (specify) 8. make an audio-visual presentation 9. supply supplemental materials for a class 10. set up apparatus lll/llllllll ll. interact with one child -—__. 11a. do remedial work 11b. C. 129 handle a discipline prOblem direct an individual inOestigation Other (specify) d. e. 12. a. b. C. interact with a group Of children do remedial work conduct group discussions read to students Other (specify) d. e. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. supervise play activities supervise students during lunch, recess, etc. handle special situations—group singing, folk dancing, etc. ' plan a field trip plan a party or picnic plan a lesson involving the whole class plan a lesson involving a group Of students plan for individualization Of instruction teach a lesson involving the whole class teach a lesson involving a group within the class implement individualization Of instruction Answer statements A through E only if you planned and taught a lesson or activity: 130 The tOpic Of the lesson was chosen: 1. by me 2. by the teacher Observed 3. jointly with the teacher Observed 4. jointly with a block instructor Other (specify) 5. I received help in planning my lesson from: 1. myself only 2. teacher I was Observing 3. classmates 4. block instructors Other (specify) 5. The emphasis Of the lesson concerned: 1. concepts 2. facts 3. skills (language, etc.) 4. attitudes The method I used was primarily one Of: 1. lecture 2. lecture-discussion 3. discussion 4. discovery 5. demonstration 6. questioning Other (specify) 7. The activity engaged in by the children was one of: l. listening 2. discussing 3. constructing 4. drawing 5. writing 6. investigating a.~ individual b. group Other (specify) APPENDIX D PRE-SERVICE STUDENT SCHOOL VISITATION QUESTIONNAIRE II-A AS ADMINISTERED FALL TERM 1968 AND WINTER TERM 1969 131 132 QUESTIONNAIRE II-A (Only on Winter Term) PART I Upper (half day) Lower (full day) Question Response Numper Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ,19 l 5 13 l 2 l 1 l “2 l l l 3 8 5 8 4 ll 5 l3 17 10 16 4 12 5 l4 5 l l 22 12 6 20 5 3 13 8 5 l4 8 14 13 10 13 6 1 l4 l9 4 2 3 28 13 5 5 9 7 3 6 l 3 3 8 12 5 6 8 2 10 2 3 6 4 4 2 15 9 l 2 2 1 3 3 4 2 l l 10 l 8 6 2 2 11 l l 1 l 12 l 2 l 13 l 6 3 2 3 continued 133 Upper (half day) Lower (full day) Question RegpongepNumper Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 1 3 3 4 2 i 2 2 18 5 2 2 4 2 15 3 3 5 2 7 3 ll 11 4 11 16 2 2 l 4 4 5 2 l 3 20 7 l 2 3 l 17 2 3 4 6 7 4 8 9 ll 13 18 6 3 6 5 l 1 2 3 24 4 4 4 2 1 19 12 3 4 2 1 14 5 3 3 l 20 3 2 5 4 2 5 l 3 12 6 2 6 21 4 8 8 ll 24 ll 18 24 13 26 22 4 9 8 21 3 8 5 22 17 15 2 l 8 23 7 6 ll 7 I5 3 8 l6 8 15 24 10 8 20 4 5 1 16 6 16 2 l 1 25 5 l3 7 4 10 l 5 19 14 12 26 3 3‘ '31 l 2 44 l 27 16 9 3 3 5 28 15 S 3 6 28 2 ll 6 12 2 2 10 5 l8 8 8 4 2 2 continued Response Number 134 1 Upper (half day) Lower (full day) Question Number 65 67 29 continued 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 135 Upper (half day) Lower (full day) Question Response-Number Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 19 45 l 4 7 3” 5 4 7 10 3 5 46 4 4 5 4 2 2 10 4 8 2 3 47 l 3 4 2 4 8 9 4 4 48 3' 7 1 7 9 4 49 2 1 l 2 l 8 7 4 6 50 2 2 2 2 5 3 8 2 4 2 51 1 l l 3 3 2 52 l 2 l 4 l 53 1 5 8 4 5 4 17 13 9 54 1 l 3 3 _4 2 l 55 3 6 6 4 3 4 15 ll 5 56 l 2 l 57 2 2 1 1 2 2 4 4 2 '3 58 1 4 l 2 9 l 59 l 1. continued 10 n§e Number 136 ResLDO 1 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 Lower (full day) 60 Upper (half day) Question Number 15 21 4.6 69 7O 71 72 15 12 76 73 74 75 76 137 PART II Upper (half day) Lower (full day) Question ,Response Numper Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l 18 2 35 2 7 6 2 2 9 l l 6 2 3 2 3 10 l 10 4 3 2 4 1 8 1 2 5 l 2 3 6 ll 18 3 6 1 7 ll 10 9 2 l 8 4 l 6 l 9 10 4 2 10 3 1 ll 8 27 7 5 3 12 14 29 8 5 2 P‘ th' a: 13 5 12 2 .2 14 23 22 8 4 1 2 continued Upper (half day) Lower (full day) 138 Question Response Number Number 1 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 15 l 4 4 l6 5 l9 3 17 3 l 18 l 1 12 2 l9 3 7 l 20 10 ll 3 1 21 16 29 8 3 22 8 9 l 23 9 20 l 2 24 9 l 7 1 25 l 7 5 2 26 12 26 4 l 27 17 1 3O 7 4 28 5 l9 4 29 4 ll 1 continued 139 Upper (half day) Lower (full day) Question Response Numpgr Number 1 2 3 4 5‘ 6 7 10 10 9 13 l 2 l 31 5 2 2 32 9 l 9 2 33 l 19 6 2 1 34 l 24 3 5 4 3 140 PRE-SERVICE STUDENT SCHOOL VISITATION EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE II-A WINTER TERM 1 "A Summary Of the Participatory Activities Engaged in by Block Students During One Visitation Experience" Directions: This questionnaire is designed to elicit information with respect to two aspects Of your partici- pation. l. The number Of times you have participated in a listed activity, 2. The subject matter area in which the participation occurred. Please respond by marking on the scoring sheet for each activity as follows: 1. One response from Key A, marked on the pdg numbers, and; 2. One response from Key B, marked on the even numbers. 3 If you did not participate in an activity do not respond in the spaces provided. Key A Key B l--3 to 7 minutes 1--art 2--8 to 12 minutes 2--music 3——l3 to 17 minutes 3--mathematics 4—-18 to 22 minutes 4--language arts 5--Over 23 minutes 5--reading 6--science 7--social studies 8--spelling 9--geography Today I was able to participate in the class in the follow- ing manner: take attendance 1 2 direct drill work 3 4 Correct and analyze papers 5 6 141 administer a test 7 ___8 record grades 9 10 participate in a parent teacher conference 11 12 make an audio-visual aid 13‘ 14 make an audio-visual presentation 15 .16 supply supplementary materials for a class 18 set up apparatus 20 interact with one child — without a written plan __21 . 22 a. do remedial work ___23 ___24 b. .listen to reading ___25 ___26 c. give instructions ___27 .___28 d. direct practice ___29 ___30 e. direct an individual investigation 31 ___32 f. handle a discipline problem g. other (specify) 142 interact with a group Of children - without a written plan 37 ___38 a. do remedial work ___39 ___40 b. plan with students ___41 ___42 c. explain or give direction ___44 d. direct practice ___45 ' ___46 e. read to students ___47 ___48 f. conduct group discussions ___49 ___50 9. other (specify) ___51 ___52 supervise play activities ___53 54 supervise students during lunch, recess, etc. 55 56 handle special situations - group singing, folk dancing, etc. 57 58 plan a field trip 59 60 plan a party or picnic 62 plan a lesson involving the whole class ___63 64 plan a lesson involving a group Of students 65 66 143 plan for individualization Of instruction 67 68 plan for individualization of instruction 69 7O teach a lesson involving the whole class a lesson involving a group within the class (specify) 144 TO the Student: The following are to be answered only if you have planned and taught a lesson(s), or planned and directed an activity(ies). Directions: Respond only to the statements that apply, using the Key below. K_82 1 - one time 6 - six times 2 - two times 7 — seven times 3 - three times 8 - eight times 4 - four times 9 - nine times 5 - five times 10 - ten times A. The topic of the lesson was chosen: ___1. by me ___2. .by the teacher involved ___3. jointly with the teacher Observed ___4. jointly with a block instructor ___5. with the students B. I received help in planning my lesson from: 6. no one 7. the teacher I was Observing 8. classmates 9. block instructor(s) 10. other teachers 11. books C. The emphasis of the lesson concerned: ___12. concepts ___13. facts ___14. skills ___15. attitudes ___16. creativity D. The method I used was primarily one Of: ___17. lecture ___18. lecture discussion 19. lecture demonstration 20. discussion 21. discovery 22. demonstration 23. questioning 24. drill 25. listening 145 'E. The activity engaged in by the children was one Of: ___26. listening 27. discussing 28. constructing 29. drawing 30. writing 31. reporting 32. reading investigating ___33. individual ___34. group E“ wpwmpo I 146 PRE-SERVICE STUDENT SCHOOL VISITATION EXPERIENCE OBSERVATION QUESTIONNAIRE II-A FALL TERM no participation A--art 3-7 minutes M--music 8-12 minutes Ma-—mathematics 13-17 minutes L--1anguage arts 18-22 minutes R--reading over 23 minutes S--science Directions: Sslect and write in the apprOpriate number and letter from the key for each Of the statements below. Use one Of the available spaces for each participation. SS--social studies -—other (please specify) Today I was able to participate in the class in the follow- ing manner: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. take attendance direct drill work correct and analyze papers administer a test record grades participate in a parent teacher conference make an audio-visual aid (specify) make an audio-visual presentation supply supplemental materials for a class set up apparatus interact with ppg child - without a written plan a. dO remedial work b. listen to reading c. give instructions 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 147 d. direct practice e. direct an individual investigation f. handle a discipline problem other (specify) 9. interact with a group Of children - without a written plan a. do remedial work b. plan with students c. explain or give directions d. direct practice e. read to students f. conduct group discussions other (specify) g. supervise play activities supervise students during lunch, recess, etc. handle special situations - group singing, folk dancing, etc. plan a field trip plan a party or picnic plan a lesson involving the whole class plan a lesson involving a group Of students plan for individualization Of instruction teach a lesson involving the whole class teach a lesson involving a group within the class implement individualization Of instruction other (specify 24. Respond to items 25-29 only if you planned and taught a lesson(s) or activity(ies). Key Respond by marking the number Of times before the appropriate descriptive phrase. N N 0‘ U1 o o N \J o N (n 29. 148 The tOpic Of the lesson was chosen: a. by me b. by the teacher involved c. jointly with the teacher Observed d. jointly with a block instructor e. with the students other (specify) f. I received help in planning my lesson from: a. no one b. the teacher I was Observing c. classmates d. block instructors e. ‘Other teachers f. books other 9. The emphasis Of the lesson concerned: a. concepts b. facts c. skills (specify) d. attitudes e. creativity other f. The method I used was primarily one Of: a. lecture b. lecture discussion c. lecture demonstration d. discussion e. discovery f. questioning h. drill i. listening other j. The activity engaged in by the children was one of: a. listening b. discussing c. constructing d. drawing e. writing f. reporting 9. reading h. investigating 1. individual' 2. group other (specify) .1. APPENDIX E PRE-SERVICE STUDENT SCHOOL VISITATION EXPERIENCE OBSERVATION QUESTIONNAIRE AS ADMINISTERED FALL TERM 1968 AND WINTER TERM 1969 149 150 Name Student NO. NO. Of Visitations PRE-SERVICE STUDENT- SCHOOL VISITATION EXPERIENCE OBSERVATION QUESTIONNAIRE -WINTER TERM "A Summary Of the Observational Experiences During the School Visitation Experience" A. The Classroom organizational pattern in the school where I visited is best characterized by the pattern checked below. {fig} Self contained 1 Departmentalized Transitional 5 Ungraded Platoon 11 Other (specify) 151 52!. . In statements B through L mark an X in theksubject column when the descriptive phrase below applies. ‘If a statement does not apply, make no response. B. Subject metter areas (i.e., Reading, Music, etc.) were taught in the classroom: 1 Soc. Lang. Others Studies Read. Sgi, Arts Math. (specify) 1. as separate and ' discrete subjects. 3? //é//0¢1 7% /%f 2. incidentally (only when a question or application arose) 5g 47 743 g] 3‘ 3. as they aided in ;::.:::Vt::.:f a 30 .27 34 47 :2. 3 _4 4. combined with one or more other subjects. 2’3 5% 010 73 // 7 5. OTHER (specify C. The basic instructional materials used in the class(es) Observed during the term were: Soc. Lang. thers Studies Read. Sci. Arts Math. (specify) 1. teacher assembled i4 024 ¢52 5% 43? /,¢L/ 2. textbook oriented :Z/ 74 $0 221 //£ a. single text _ b. multiple text gé 25 M /4 __‘fi‘é c. programmed learn- ing 7' .AZ€7 2? 9? /;7 3. 'd ' 1 flitiiiaiimcu um .17 .5; 545 /$[ 9’6. .incidental ,3/ /j Ag 1:40 /A / 55' .\ \% 5.))a\ 9» 9. .3 A; at/ 44 radio program T.V. program OTHER (specify) q oxtn b O D. 1. actual objects or 1 47 life situations that could be Ob- served with the senses. . models or replicas . pictures Of Objects or situations . mostly verbaliza- tion situations . verbalization situ— ations entirely 152 Soc. Stud. Read. Sci. F Lang. Arts The class Observed during the term made use Of: ath. Others (specifyl /7 Mr 725 A3 7 {if 5’ 7! /& /§’ a: .57 ,2 76? (:7 (a 4,2 r 55' /5 414 /o”~ e7 E. During this term I Observed learning experiences involving the teacher's use Of: Soc. Lang. Others _§tud. Ready Sci. Arts (Math. (specify) 1. demonstrations 27 4: [f ,L. / if ¢ 4 at? /3 2. Audio Visual 1 materials a. motion picture j¢ é 35’ [’5 /5 b. film strip 5 [0 r c. posters-pictures d. flannel board e. overhead pro— jector f. record player OTHER 9. 3. Field trips 4. Guest speakers OTHERS (specify) 5. 6. .5 2E 343,4 / 722? 5/5' /7 gar/i _/0 ,1 7 A .3 3 2.2 947 / \K ER @& b {L {i R’ “\ F. ** 153 During the term I Observed learning experiences speci- fically designed tO direct children towards: Soc. Stud. Read. Sci. Lang.- Arts Math. Others (specify) formation of new subject matter con— cepts 4? 57 .73 57 /// é the broadening of subject matter con« cepts 7X 70 éé £2, 92 /2v modification of attitudinal be“ havior* acquisition Of factual informa— tion development Of skills** develOpment Of interests 4:? 075’ 3.7, 242/ 7 77 3% 57 8.3 449/ /// é 71¢ /07 3:! 7 M/ /5/ .5& 7.1 7Q 5’? a g; A/ The modification Of attitudinal behavior as used here, accepting and relates to the receiving, perceiving, subsequent preference for a value or value-system. In a school it might take the form Of units on community helpers (in lst grade). to lead towards Open—mindedness. These fall into two categories. Type A - relates to skills such as comprehending, criminating problem solving, lessons, synthesizing, ”feel boxes” in kindergarten). In science experiences designed dis— and perceiving when dealing with phenomena (ex. reading comprehension Type B - Skills involving Object manipulation or body manipulation. apparatus would be examples. Using a pencil or using scientific 154 In my Observations I was able to identify techniques that I associate with: Lectures Lecture demon— strations Leading class a. b. identify problems refine problems . exchange ideas or information . prepare plans for investiga— tion . illustrate explain clarify . interpret and draw conclu- sions individualized instruction questioning story reading Lang. 5; Arts Math - Jo Others (specify) / ISZSd.kRead. Sci. 1.1 £215 3; x? 9 22, 1? 4i f/ 32 If 2% £3 /7 (.3 5/ /a 3.2 /.7 A3 5‘ '52 gl/ 134 j 45‘ r I 9'10 $194.57 :14 f 2, / .3 .3 5’ r 210 3’2 45" N2. /7 £5 77 7.7 43 76 7 60 f .3 j. 5 f/ 155 H. This term I had the Opportunity to see children engaged in: Soc. Lang. 1. construction pro— jects 87 a. dioramas b. bulletin boards c. posters d. maps e. models f. murals g. puppets Other h. i. 2. Discussions* a. class b. small group 3. investigating indi vidual interests 4. group investiga- tions 5. dramatizations 6. reporting to class 7. recitation drill 8. drill 9. free play 10. kinesthetic experi ences ll. simulation games 12. test taking 13. experiments 14. reviews Other 15. 16. *See I-3 for clarification 5. 6. 156 During these Observations I had the Opportunity to see the assessment Of student progress through the use of: . teacher designed tests . workbook assign- ments . homework assign~ ments . standardized tests other commercial tests pupil conferences OTHER (specify) 7. J. 3. 4. Soc. Lang. Other Stud. Read. Sci. Apts Math. (3 ecif (52' 64 12 £6 79 76 7? 7? 5? 4.2. 34 3 2:4 X .1 /? 6 :3 ! 423/ .44 5 _ék :4 8? \% m I The evaluation procedures employed above gathered informa- tion primarily about student progress in: . skill develOpment . concept level attainment acquisition Of facts attitudinal change OTHER (specify) 5. ¥% :1! ié 4512 4,7 47 .44 Soc. Lang. Other Stud. Read. Sci. Arts Math. (specify) .4521 2978/1277 53" 225' 4: r .42. )5 .3 J / 1 K. 157 When children responded tO questions they manner that indicated that they were: . Recalling informa— tion previously learned . analyzing a situa— tion . making a judgment . creating a solution to a problem )SOC. Stud. F Read. Sci. Lang. Arts answered in a Math. Others (specify) 71 7/ é/ Z? /:3/ 12 {1 724 .221 A 32 54: /¢ g?’ 71.7 r A1 7/ During the visitations I Observed techniques used in conjunction with the following situations: . children entering for the beginning Of the school day Soc. Lang. Others Stud. Read. Sci. Arts Math. (specify) 37 4:— /¥ .2! 41% /5’ . an occasionally dis- ruptive student 55 f7 7‘7 74 a”! p/EZ. . regulating the phy— sical conditions Of the class 46 I 7‘5 35" 27 324 . lagging student interest helping students to make transi- tions from one class activity to another . general disorder 221 y: 35' 5:6 7,? _4/ 65 3! 55‘ .‘2’1 2’19 3! M 51.2 4451 . directing "pupil helpers" . closing the school day /’ £2 3% 7 720 _51 _3é [3 K7 3.2. xx ‘k\ WSW \\ m 158 Key: Mark with an (X) those statements which are indicative Of what occurred: M. In talking with the teacher before or after class, I was able to: #1. [[Q 2. #3 . #4 . OTHER 11. see how she delimits a day's work see how she writes her lesson plans look at a cumulative folder learn about the diagnostic procedures used to identify unique children in this school system discover how a knowledge Of an individual within the class is essential to knowing how tO maximize his learning identify the types Of special programs Offered to children by the school system hear about the consultant help available to the faculty examine the method Of reporting student progress to parents discuss the responsibilities of teachers beyond the classroom _ learn about various aspects Of professional organi- zations 159 Name Student No. No. of Visitations PRE-SERVICE STUDENT SCHOOL VISITATION EXPERIENCE OBSERVATION QUESTIONNAIRE FALL TERM "A Summary of the Observational Experiences During the School Visitation Experience" A. The Classroom organizational pattern in the school where I visited is best characterized by the pattern checked below. Self contained Departmentalized Transitional Ungraded _L£f_ _4.0_ Platoon Other (specify) Key 160 In statements B through L mark an X in the subject column when the descriptive phrase below applies. does not apply, make no response. If a statement B. Subject matter areas (i.e., Reading, Music, etc.) were taught in the classroom: Soc. Stud. Read. Lang. Arts Math. Other (specify) l. as separate and discrete subjects (o/ 57 5.1 ?7 31/ incidentally (only when a question or application arose) a’l/ i /0 3. as they aided in the solving of a problem (core) /a’<‘, A 5' 4. combined with one or more other subjects /5’ 4% /o 5% 5. OTHER (specify) / 3 fl / é 7 4 ,1 \fi}; 1; C. The basic instructional materials used in the class(es) observed during the term were: ) Soc. Stud. Read. Lang. '. Arts Math. Other (specify) teacher assembled 3/ a1)» textbook oriented a. single text 57 32 35’ 47 33 b. multiple text // /7 c. programmed learning 2a- 4 modern curriculum materials incidental 7 10 5. radio program T.V. program 7. OTHER (specify) f 2&5 A 0 .3 é MVVRRDRR o 9?. ¢ \‘\%\ FRA‘MB‘K\\R 3. 4. 161 The class observed during the term made use of: . actual objects or life situations that could be ob- served with the senses models or replicas . pictures of objects or situations mostly verbaliza— tion situations verbalization situ— ations entirely Soc. Stud. T Read. Sci. Lang.k Arts Math. Others (specify) 3O A3 22. /a 515’ AB 4% #7 .22. 52,6 3g) 50 Zé / M ? $5 .57: // /3 /¢Z/ During this term I observed learning experiences involving the teacher's use of: demonstrations Audio Visual materials a. motion picture film strip posters-pictures flannel board overhead pros jector record player OTHER 9. Field trips Guest speakers OTHERS (specify) 6. Soc. Lang. Others Stud. Read. Sci. Arts Math. (specify) 1 4.5" 16 / 3 é’ % 3 N: / 4. 6 /.f .7 P .3 /0 f / o 42.5 \k E). /o [7 f a A c Q 7 z 51 B M“). \1»\ ‘~ 0M WWW“ 1?: \ “k F. 16 q fically designed to direct children towards: formation of new subject matter concepts the broadening of subject matter concepts modification of attitudinal behavior* acquisition of factual informa— tion develOpment of skills** develOpment of interests 'Soc. Stud. Read. Sci. Lang. Arts 1‘43. th I During the term I observed learning experiences speci- Others (specify) 47 M 30 47 615 #2 02/ 4% 4o Qé UL // 7 4 (714 4% 3?» W 9o 6 4 6 M f/ /0 4/ J L3/ JUL élé // /,7 *The modification of attitudinal behavior as used here, relates to the receiving, perceiving, subsequent preference for a value or value-system. school it might take the form of units on community helpers (in lst grade). to lead towards Open-mindedness. **These fall into two categories. Type A - relates to skills such as comprehending, discrimi- nating problem solving, synthesizing, accepting and In a In science experiences designed and perceiving when dealing with phenomena.(ex. reading comprehension lessons, "feel boxes" in kindergarten). Type B - skills involving object manipulation or body manipulation. would be examples. Using a pencil or using scientific apparatus 163 In my observations I was able to identify techniques that I associate with: . lectures . lecture demonstra- tions a. b. C. . leading class identify prob— lems -refine problems exchange ideas of information prepare plans for investiga— tions . illustrate explain clarify . interpret and draw conclu- sions . individualized instruction . questioning . story reading [Soc. Stud. Read. Sci. Lang. Arts ‘Math. Others (specify) Q? 7 /3 1:45 i /5' /5 /¢ MK I: k ‘Ik / é /6 // é" /¢ éfi .23 £0 /5' i h l“ \ ‘“\\\I\\\M\x 46 47 9!; M 55' 3& i“ 4:4 29m)» \3 a) \th r H. 0 “- S'U'LQthQaOU‘ ° (D H \DCDVOU! ll. 12. l3. 14. 164 This term I had the Opportunity to see children engaged in: . construction projects a. dioramas . bulletin boards . posters . maps . models . murals . puppets i. . discussions* a. class b. small group . investigating indi- vidual interests . group investiga— tions . dramatizations . reporting to class . recitation . drill . free play 10. kinesthetic experi- ences simulation games test taking experiments reviews Other 15. 16. [Soc.’ _& Y 3 0“ ‘\\B\ \\ / Lang. Others Stud. Read. Sci. Arts Math. (specify) 7 / / / /z, /; 4 f .5 3 yr 7 4 a 4 L __166 fit at /,_2_, / f / 4 / é / m is. 4 1 é/ .23 33 35! .15 5’ .1? / 4:3 57 /6 (7 M Li 6 /a ? éz at f 7 /.( / / 4 1\ 902 / 7.2 ”5“ $32.34.!” 5.3/14755 41.9.333/ 5235/1713“ 7&yé// ?' ///7K¢5/z, A; /3/5’ .1.; / x7?9‘/£/,7 3 / *See I—3 for clarification I. 5. 6. 165 During these observations I had the opportunity to see the assessment of student progress through the use of: . teacher designed tests . workbook assign- ments . homework assign- ments . standardized tests other commercial tests pupil conferences OTHER (Specify) 7. J. 3. 4. )Soc. ) . Read. Sci. Arts Lang. Math. Other (specify) /{ 3o 1? 5:. 491 M \B\£u§ [$1 fic / 7 t§‘%n ‘\\.-r G“ .\\ % h‘ ‘KV \x g‘é’: “\‘W\;~\§R\ § 51 5’ The evaluation procedures employed above gathered informa- tion primarily about student progress in: . skill develOpment . concept level attainment acquisition of facts attitudinal change Other (specify) 5. Soc. Stud. . Sci. Lang. Arts Math. Other (specify) A3 £4 .5” 5:5" .3 /5 /.i_ 47 _éé 2’92 3:3 1w 91¢ 3g 9.5/ [a .3 / 7 / ,2 .3 / K. 166 When children responded to questions they answered in a manner that indicated that they were: . Recalling informa- tion previously learned . analyzing a situ- ation . making a judgment . creating a solutio to a problem Soc. Stud. I Read. Sci. Lang. Arts Math . -thers (specifyl 45% $2. .27 531 é? é 3/ 02/ 491 /.5 A?" 5.. w M A! /.L // ,6! /z / 5’ // £51 .5 During the visitations I observed techniques used in conjunction with the following situations: . Children entering for the beginning of the school day . an occasionally disruptive stu- dent . regulating the physical condi- tions of the class . lagging student interest . helping students to make transi— tions from one class activity to another . general disorder . directing "pupil helpers" . closing the school day Soc. Stud. Read. Sci. Lang. Arts Math. Others (specify) / 7 fl 7 2‘ /o z/a 3’7 W 417 47 A? // /¢ M /% f // 3/ .27 /.3 37 3,4 3‘" :77 7 54 /5 r 14 020 :23 .10 01.925' :20 9 /at fl. [5 /3 :25 45 /6 f 3% a? 167 Key: Mark with an (X) those statements which are indicative of what occurred: M. In talking with the teacher before or after class, I was able to: _QZJ. :22. 3’0 3 . _/_é_10 . OTHER 11. see how she delimits a day's work see how she writes her lesson plans look at a cumulative folder learn about the diagnostic procedures used to identify unique children in this school system discover how a knowledge of an individual within the class is essential to knowing how to maximize his learning identify the types of special programs offered to children by the school system hear about the consultant help available to the faculty examine the method of reporting student progress to parents discuss the responsibilities of teachers beyond the classroom - learn about various aspects of professional organiw zations APPENDIX F PRE-SERVICE STUDENT SCHOOL VISITATION EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE III AS ADMINISTERED FALL TERM 1968 AND WINTER TERM 1969 168 169 PRE—SERVICE STUDENT SCHOOL VISITATION EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE III WINTER TERM "Goals attained by students as a result of the school visita- tion eXperience" A. Goals attained as a result of the non—participation por- tion of the visitation experience. To the student: Please react to the following statements. Indicate your reaction by marking the answer sheet with your choice from the key. Key Space 1. I was able 39 Space 2. I was not able 59 In the non—participation or observation portion of the visita- tion experience I: Fall Winter 1_ 2 l 2 167 54 150 39 l. acquire knowledge concerning skills of planning and conducting learning activities that implement specific, identifiable goals. 157 66 142 47 2. learn techniques for motivating students. 181 42 169 20 3. learn techniques for handling class- room organization and procedures. 140 83 143 46 4. learn techniques for handling small group instruction. 138 83 126 62 5. learn techniques for handling indi- vidualization of instruction. 25 198 6l 127 6. have the Opportunity to observe the teaching of all subject matter areas during the term. 98 125 124 65 7. learn techniques for handling disci- pline problems. Fall Winter .1. a 1 2 43 180 57 132 8. learn a variety of evaluative tech~ 171 niques. 49 158 31 9. learn techniques for building rapport with children. Acquire skills in the use of the following, where they are the basic instructional aid: 141 l 22 118 88 118 12 99 76 16 82 141 46 10. Textbooks 222 188 11. Radio Programs 201 63 125 12. Television Programs 103 146 43 13. Incidental materials 135 60 128 14. "Modern Curriculum Materials" (AAAS, SMSG, etc.) 105 133 56 15. Teacher Assembled Materials 209 97 92 16. The Library My status relative to my participation in the visitation experience. 123 16 173 17. to be strictly an observer without any active participation. 147 128 60 18. to participate mainly as a student assistant, without any independent responsibilities. 207 71 117 19. to participate mainly as a student assistant, without any independent responsibilities. To the student: The following are a list of activities in which you may have had an opportunity to participate. Please apply the key to the degrees of involvement listed in each case. Fall 1 2 43 179 43 180 31 192 89 134 63 159 24 197 34 178 59 164 5 217 76 145 70 153 17 206 35 187 47 175 24 199 87 136 150 73 7 215 46 177 37 186 14 209 33 188 99 124 7 215 36 186 26 193 5 218 15 208 15 208 4 217 Hints; 1 .2 81 104 116 73 84 1o: 75 113 125 62 88 95 137 51 124 53 137 51 46 141 136 51 93 94 43 143 84 105 50 137 115 73 171 17 145 42 58 129 99 9o 68 119 70 117 99 88 103 85 51 136 75 112 57 130 30 156 28 158 27 160 171 Audio-visualpregentation(s) 20. Plan 21. Assist with 22. Direct alone Games 23. Plan 24. Assist with 25. Direct alone Supplying supplementary materials 26. Plan 27. Assist with :8. Direct alone Marking of papers 29. Plan 30. Assist with 31. Direct alone Handlinq §E§Cial situations—group singing, folk dancing, etc. 32. Plan 33. Assist with 34. Direct alone Personal assistance to pupils 35. Plan » 36. Assist with 37. Direct alone Setting up apparatus 38. Plan 39. Assist with 40. Direct alone Reading to students 41. Plan 42. Assist with 43. Direct alone Making of bulletin board(s) 44. Plan 45. Assist with 46. Direct alone Poster construction 47. Plan 48. Assist with 49. Direct alone Fall 1 .2 50 173 34 189 7 216 48 173 30 193 8 214 92 131 76 146 13 2 10 77 146 93 130 22 201 36 187 33 189 6 217 14 204 6 217 3 220 35 188 13 207 20 203 56 166 100 123 2 219 12 211 4 218 2 221 4 217 3 220 4 219 Winter 1 2 43 144 115 72 9O 98 43 143 84 104 50 137 70 117 139 49 108 79 97 ‘90 168 20 131 56 42 146 56 131 37 151 5 182 19 168 4 183 22 164 71 116 29 158 111 77 154 34 141 47 13 174 35 152 10 177 5 181 12 175 4 183 172 .Handling of discipline problems 50. Plan 51. .Assist with 52. Direct alone Analyzing pupil workpfor creativity 53. Plan 54. Assist with 55. Direct alone Drill work 56. Plan 57. Assist with 58. Direct alone Helping pupils solve problems 59. Plan 60. .Assist with 61. Direct alone Creative activities -4poetry14plays, etc. 62. Plan 63. .Assist with 64. Direct alone Planning and conducting field trips 65. Plan 66. .Assist with 67. Direct alone Incidental learning situations-current affairs 68. Plan 69. Assist with 70. Direct alone Individualization of instruction 71. Plan 72. Assist with 73. Direct alone Planning parties andgpicnics 74. Plan 75. Assist with 76. vDirect alone -Pupil publications 77. .Plan 78. Assist with 79. Direct alone Fall .1. 2. 6 217 3 218 12 211 48 194 59 164 6 212 84 136 53 169 11 212 39 184 53 169 223 15 208 6 214 16 207 C. 43 56 128 50 32 118 Winter .1. 2. 2 185 6 181 2 185 122 65 134 54 130 58 44 144 117 70 70 118 5 181 22 165 11 176 138 50 161 27 153 35 173 _Parent teacher conferences 80. Plan 81. Assist with 82. .Direct alone Conducting class discussions 83. Plan 84. .Assist with 85. .Direct alone Supervising students during recess, lunch, etc. 86. Plan 87. .Assist with 88. Direct alone Administering and interpretingygtan— darized test data 89. Plan 90. .Assist with 91. Direct alone Teaching specific skills in various subject ageas 92. -Plan 93. Assist with 94. Direct alone Goals achieved relative to interaction with school personnel. I (1) was able (2) was not able to talk with the follow- ing personnel connected with the school operation: 179 167 87 172 189 103 185 101 72 144 34 94 4 88 117 45 155 95 95. other teachers 96. subject area consultants 97. visiting teacher 98. principal 99. counselor(s) 100. custodial staff Through discussions with various personnel I (1) was able (2) was not able to: Fall 1 2. 14 200 32 189 38 184 101 121 43 176 116 73 93 78 147 139 91 183 Winter 1 .2. 72 116 152 37 85 104 129 60 100 89 I (l) was 106 149 129 134 75 87 88 172 175 108 able 102 101 17 12 81 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. (2) was 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. Changes that occurred tion experience. 1. 2. 83 131 28 I am able to am not able to I 182 167 142 7 46 111. 112. 113. 174 Obtain insights into the nature and role of various professional organizations. Examine the responsibilities of teachers beyond the classroom. Gain insights into the role of special consultant staff connected with the school system. Become aware of special programs for special groups of children. Become aware of the diagnostic procedures for identifying ispecial children. not able to examine: Cumulative folders. Methods of reporting to parents. Teachers manuals used in subject matter areas. School facilities. Methods of record keeping. in me as a result of the visita- feel more at ease in working with children in a classroom situation. identify more precisely the charac- teristics of a given age group. construct, on my own, daily lesson plans appropriate to a given grade level. Fall Winter .1 2 .1. 2 193 29 122 65 82 138 114 74 70 152 75 113 83 133 161 27 73 149 159 30 179 42 129 60 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 175 construct, on my own, daily lesson plans so that I could work with one group while the rest of the class was engaged in another activity. judge how long a planned lesson would take to implement. have a "storehouse" of techniques that are usually motivating to this age group. identify specific reasons why I was, or was not, suited to work at this grade level. identify specific reasons why teaching was or was not a suitable career choice for me. feel more competent in deciding what curricular pattern is most satisfy- ing to the children of this age group. E. .Achieved relationship between the methods course and the school visitation program. Key 1. I was able to 2. I was not able to 55 91 62 157 133 93 127 32 120. 121. 122. 123. Be introduced to the school and its program by the methods instructors. To have the role that I am to play in the school explained to me. To have the experiences I should get in the school outlined to me. To have the Opportunity to discuss with methods instructors questions that arise as a result Of the school visitations. Winter 1 1 157 32 62 125 106 79 124. 125. 126. 176 TO have the Opportunity to discuss in class questions that arise as a result of the school visitations. To be given direction relative to a focus for each week's visitation. To be able to receive help in plan- ning lessons from my methods instructors. 177 PRE-SERVICE STUDENT SCHOOL VISITATION EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE III FALL TERM "Goals attained by students as a result of the school visita— A. Key: tion experience“ Goals attained as a result of the non—participationypor- tion of the visitation experience. To the student: Please react to the following statements. Indicate your reaction by marking the answer sheet with your choice from the key. 1. I was able pg 2. I was not able £2 In the non-participation or Observation portion of the visita— tion experience I: 1 2 1. acquire knowledge concerning skills of planning and conducting learning activities that implement specific, identifiable goals. 2. learn techniques for motivating students. 3. learn techniques for handling classroom organiza- tion and procedures. 4. learn techniques for handling small group instruc- tion. 5. learn techniques for handling individualization Of instruction. 6. have the Opportunity to Observe the teaching of all subject matter areas during the term. 7. .learn techniques for handling discipline problems. 8. learn a variety of evaluative techniques. 9. learn techniques for building rapport with children. 178 Acquire skills in the use of the following, where they are the basic instructional aid: 1 2 10. 1 2 11. 1 2 12. 1 2 l3. 1 2 l4. 1 2 15. 1 2 l6. Textbooks Radio Programs Television Programs Incidental Materials "Modern curriculum Materials" (AAAS, SMSG, etc.) Teacher Assembled Materials The Library B. My status relative to my participation in the visitation experience. 1 2 17. to be strictly an observer without any active participation. 1 2 18. to participate as a co—worker with the teacher in the planning and implementation of learning experience. 1 2 19. to participate mainly as a student assistant, without any independent responsibilities. To the Student The following are a list of activities in which you may have had an opportunity to participate. Please apply the key to the degrees of involvement listed in each case. Audio-visual presentation(s) 20. 21. 22. Games 23. 24. 25. Plan Assist with Direct alone Plan Assist with Direct alone Supplying supplementary materials 26. 27. 28. Plan Assist with Direct alone 179 Marking of papers 29. Plan 30. Assist with 31. .Direct alone Handling special situationfigroup singingI folk dancing, 5.12.0.» ' 32. Plan 33. Assist with 34. Direct alone Personal assistance to pupigs 35. Plan 36. Assist with 37. Direct alone Setting up apparatus 38. Plan 39. Assist with 40. Direct alone Reading,toy§tudent§ 41. Plan 42. Assist with 43. Direct alone Making Of bulletin board(s) 44. Plan 45. Assist with 46. Direct alone Poster construction 47. Plan 48. Assist with 49. Direct alone Handling of discipline prOblems 50. Plan 51. Assist with 52. Direct alone Analyzing pupil work for creativity 53. Plan 54. Assist with 55. Direct alone Drill work 56. Plan 57. Assist with 58. Direct alone 180 Helping pupiis solve problems 59. Plan 60. Assist with 61. Direct alone Creative activities - poetry, plays, etc. 62. Plan ' 63. Assist with 64. Direct alone Planning and conducting,field tripg 65. Plan 66. Assist with 67. Direct alone Incidental learning situations—cuppent affaip§_ 68. Plan 69. Assist with 70. Direct alone Individualization offinstruction 71. Plan 72. Assist with 73. Direct alone Planning parties and picnics 74. Plan 75. Assist with 76. Direct alone Pupil publications 77. Plan 78. Assist with 79. Direct alone Pgient teacher conferences 80. Plan 81. Assist with 82. Direct alone Conducting class discussions 83. Plan 84. Assist with 85. Direct alone Supervising students during recepgyyiunchypetc. 86. Plan 87. Assist with 88. Direct alone H H F‘ rd nu H 181 Administering and interpreting standardized test data 89. VPlan 90. Assist with 91. Direct alone Egachingygpecific skills in various subject areas 92. Plan 93. Assist with 94. Direct alone Goals achieved relative to interaction with school personnel. I (l) was able (2) was not able to talk with the follow— ing personnel connected with the school Operation: 95. other teachers 96. subject area consultants 97. visiting teacher 98. principal 99. counselor(s) 100. custodial staff Through discussions with various personnel I (l) was able (2) was not able to: 101. Obtain insights into the nature and role of various professional organizations. 102. Examine the responsibilities of teachers beyond the classroom. 103. Gain insights into the role of special consultant staff connected with the school system. 104. Become aware of special programs for special groups Of children. 105. .Become aware of the diagnostic procedures for identifying special children. I (l) was able (2) was not able to examine: .106. Cumulative folders. 107. Methods of reporting to parents. 182 l 2 108. Teachers manuals used in subject matter areas. 1 2 109. School facilities. 1 2 110. Methods of record keeping. D. Changes that occurred in me as a resuit of the visita- tion experience. Key 1. I am able to 2. I am not able to 1 2 111. feel more at ease in working with children in a classroom situation. . l 2 112. identify more precisely the characteristics of a given age group. 1 2 113. construct, on my own, daily lesson plans appro- priate to a given grade level. 1 2 -114. construct, on my own, daily lesson plans so that I could work with one group while the rest of the class was engaged in another activity. 1 2 115. judge how long a planned lesson would take to implement. l 2 116. have a "storehouse" of techniques that are usually motivating to this age group. 1 2 117. identify specific reasons why I was, or was not, suited to work at this grade level. 1 2 118. identify specific reasons why teaching was or was not a suitable career choice for me. 1 2 119. feel more competent in deciding what curricular pattern is most satisfying to the children Of this age group. B. Achieved relationship between the methods courses and the school visitation program. 1. I was able to . I was not able to P.) 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 183 be introduced to the school and its program by the Methods instructors. have the role that I am to play in the school explained to me. have the experiences I should get in the school outlined to me. have the Opportunity to discuss with Methods instructors questions that arise as a result of the school visitations. have the Opportunity to discuss in class ques— tions that arise as a result of the school visi- tations. be given direction relative to a focus for each week's visitation. receive help in planning lessons from my Methods instructors. ”’TITriTlifluijfijfifirfifljxltfflfififtflmiyfim7“