,_ - w‘ .. “-,‘~; A sum as 0mm FUR SELELCI'I‘QR a? COLLEGE smawsm OF STUDENT TEACHERS as PERCENED av 3mm 1%ch ADWNESTRATORS 0F SELEC'l’ED MISTiTUTIONS as THE SOUTHEASTERN REGlONAL .AssoczAmN FOR STUDENT Imcmm Thesis for the Degree of Ph‘ D. MiCHtGAN STATE UNIVERSW GEORGE DAVED YOUSTRA 1970’ THt‘Sis This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF COLLEGE SUPERVISORS OF STUDENT TEACHERS AS PERCEIVED HY STUDENT TEACHING ADMINISTRATORS OF SELECTED INSTITUTIONS OF THE SOUTHEASTERN REGIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR STUDENT TEACHIM} presented by George David Youatra has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _£h-_Il9__ degree in Education L- jor professor Date M 0-169 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF COLLEGE SUPERVISORS OF STUDENT TEACHERS AS PERCEIVED BY STUDENT TEACHING ADMINISTRATORS OF SELECTED INSTITUTIONS OF THE SOUTHEASTERN REGIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR STUDENT TEACHING By George David'Youstra The purpose of this study was to determine if there were any established criteria or job specifications cur- rently accepted and being used by the administrators of student teaching programs when selecting college supervisors. A second purpose was to determine if these same student teaching administrators perceived that a list of criteria for the selection of college supervisors is important to the success of college supervisors. Underlying the investigation were the following assumptions: 1. That an adequate student teaching eXperience is more likely to result when certain general criteria are employed.in.the selection.of college supervisors. 2. That the college supervisor must be carefully selected since not all possess the qualities and level of com- petence necessary for serving in this capacity. 8. George David Youstra That the criteria used for the selection of college supervisors will apply to all programs where college supervisors of student teaching are involved. That administrators of student teaching programs have convictions as to the type and quality of college supervisor that they want working with their student teachers, principals, and supervising teachers. That serving as a college supervisor requires special qualities and competencies. That administrators of student teaching programs have responsibilities to determine the personal and profes- sional competencies that college supervisors should possess. That since the basic responsibility for the administra- tion of quality student teaching programs rests with institutions of higher learning, the selection of college supervisors represents one of the primary factors relating to the quality or teacher education programs. That this study was not intended, nor should it be con- strued, as an evaluation of any student teaching pro- gram, administrator of student teaching, or institution. The population of the study included one hundred seventy-six members of the Southeastern Regional Association for Student Teaching. A questionnaire containing twenty- eight criteria which had been developed from the literature res one Sou His ti! set 121' \A’ George David Youstra was forwarded, bringing responses from representatives of one hundred two institutions of higher learning in the ten Southeastern states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and.West Virginia. A representative sample of twenty administrators of student teaching programs was then selected from the population to be interviewed. These interviews, were centered around the following questions: 1. Do you believe that a list of Job specifications or criteria are necessary or useful when interviewing or selecting supervisor candidates? 2. Do you believe that the list of criteria contained in this questionnaire is important to the success of future college supervisors? 3. Would you like to change or add to these criteria for selection? 4. Does your institution or department have job require- ments, criteria, or specifications for the position of college supervisor of student teaching? A further dimension to the study was added by admin- istering the same questionnaire to a group of thirty-two public school supervising teachers to ascertain if they perceived the criteria for the selection of college super- visors of student teaching the same way as the respondents from the Southeastern Regional Association for Student George David Youstra Teaching. Chi-square tests of homogeneity were conducted for each criterion at the .05 level of significance. Conclusions of the Study Within the limitations of this inquiry, the following conclusions were supported: 1. 3. There was found to be an absence of established criteria or Job specifications for the position of college super- visor of student teaching. Twenty of the twenty-eight criteria were considered “basic, necessary requirements" for college supervisors by a majority of the population. There was some disagreement between college personnel and the public school teachers over the importance of some of the selection criteria. The administrators of student teaching programs were in agreement that a list of criteria would be helpful when attempting to select new college supervisors of student teaching. The administrators were in agreement that a list of criteria, similar to the one in the questionnaire, would be important to the success of future college supervisors of student teaching. A STUDY OF CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF COLLEGE SUPERVISORS OF STUDENT TEACHERS AS PERCEIVED BY STUDENT TEACHING ADMINISTRATORS OF SELECTED INSTITUTIONS OF THE SOUTHEASTERN REGIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR STUDENT TEACHING By George David Youstra A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1970 Cér- Cm§}/§}3 /~' $1.)" “7/ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My sincere appreciation and gratitude are extended to the members of my committee, Drs. Troy Stearn, Judd Field, and.Bruce Cohen, for their assistance, and especially to the committee chairman, George Myers, for ten years of unfailing support, encouragement and friendship. Special thanks is also extended to Mr. Barry Bratton for his assistance in the research design and data analysis, and to the entire staff of Michigan State University's Macomb Teacher Education Center, Warren, Michigan, for their valu- able suggestions. Finally, the sacrifice of my children, George Thomas, Laurie Patricia, and Connie Elizabeth, and the patience, understanding, and support of my wife, Patricia Williams Youstra, made all this possible. I am particularly indebted to her and.Mr: and.Mrs. Thomas Crid.Williams, Sr., for giving me a year of their lives. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . LIST OF LIST OF Chapter I. THE NATURE OF THE INVESTIGATION TABLES . . . . . . . APPENDICES . . . . 0 Introduction to the Study Need for the Study . Hypotheses . . . . Statement of Purpose . Underlying Assumptions of the Study Limitations of the Study . . Operational Definitions of Variables Overview of Subsequent Chapters Summary . . II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . III. Background . . . . Summary e e e PROCEDURES UTILIZED IN Introduction . . . . Sources of Data . . Design of the Study Summary 0 0 IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . Introduction . . . . Hypothesis One . . . Hypothesis Two . . Qualifying Remarks . Comparative Analysis Summary...... Criteria on College Supervisors THE STUDY 0 O O O O 0 iii 0 O O O O O 0 0000 000000000 Page ii vii V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary . Conclusions and SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY GENERAL REFERENCES . APPENDICES . Re commendations iv Page #8 48 51 56 6O 62 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1 Distribution of Participating Institutions According to State, 1970 . . . . . . . . . 22 3.2 Distribution of Major Sources of Financial Support for Participating Institutions, 1970 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 22 3.3 Population Distribution of Respondents According to State, 1970 . . . . . . . . . 24 3.“ Population Distribution According to Sex, 1970ee'eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 21'" 3.5 Age Distribution of the Instrument Popu- lation, 1970 e e e e e 0 e e e e e e e e e 25 3.6 Distribution Indicating Sizes of Communities of Participating Institutions . . . . . . . 26 3.7 Distribution of Undergraduate Students Enrolled in College or Department of Education of Participating Institutions, 1970eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 27 3.8 Distribution of Undergraduate Students Participating in Student Teaching Spring Term or Semester, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.9 Distribution of Students Successfully Com- pleting Student Teaching Annually at Participating Institutions, 1970 . . . . . 28 3.10 Population Distribution of Respondents Indicating Willingness to Participate in Interviews and Further Research, 1970 . . . 3O h.1 Distribution of Responses to Interview Questions, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table Page 4.2 Responses of A.S.T. Membership to Selected Criteria, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . 36 4.3 Responses of Supervising Teachers to Selected Criteria, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . #1 4.4 Tabulated Table of Chi-Square Tests of Homogeneity of Southeastern A.S.T. Respondents and Supervising Teachers . . . . #4 vi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A List of Participating Institutions of the Southeastern Association for Student Teaching and Locations of Interviewed Respondents and Administrators . . . . . . . 62 B Questionnaire and Cover Letter Sent to Members of the Southeastern Regional Association for Student Teaching . . . . . . 69 C Total Number of Responses Given to Each Criterion by Southeastern Association for Student Teaching Respondents and Supervising Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 D Names, Positions, and Institutions of those Interviewed ................ 81+ E Criteria Considered to Be I'Basic and Necessary" By A Majority of the Respondents from the Southeastern Regional Association for Student Teaching 0 e e e e e e e e e e e 86 vii CHAPTER I THE NATURE or THE INVESTIGATION Introduction to the Study The expansion of student teaching programs in recent years to cover increased enrollments and provide more realistic experiences has brought a legion of new concerns, responsibilities, and challenges to teacher educators. Not the least of these focuses on the college supervisor, who, cognizant of the movement of teacher education programs into public school facilities, on a greater scale than ever before, has become a (l) liaison person between the school systems and the institution of higher learning; (2) a resident ”father-mentor” of sorts to the student teachers away from the campus; (3) an "interpreter" of college policies; (A) a resource person to the public school teachers; (5) and a col- lege instructor. Succintly put, his role is that of a Iteam-- man."1 While his responsibilities vary from institution to institution, the college supervisor may hold or share any of the following responsibilities: 1. Assisting the director of student teaching in the assignment of student teachers and recommending reassignment when necessary. 1John U. Michaelis, "Teacher Education--Student Teaching and Internship," Enc clo edia of Educational Research, ed. by Chester W. Harris, (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1960), p. 1&77. 2. 3. 1+. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Orienting student teachers to the school environ- ment in which they will do their student teaching. Establishing and maintaining good relationships between colleges and cooperating schools. Acquainting cooperating school personnel with the philosophy, objectives, organization, and content of the teacher education program. Learning the philosophy, objectives, organization, and content of the cooperating school program. Helping supervising teachers and other members of the supervisory team to understand and hence improve their performance in their supervisory role in the teacher education program. Working with college and cooperating school per- sonnel in planning an appropriate program of experi- ences for student teachers. Observing and conferring with student teachers in order to help them improve their instructional practices through clinical experiences in which the teaching-learning situation and related planning and evaluation activities are examined. Consulting with supervising teachers and other pro- fessionals in order to analyze the performance of student teachers and plan experiences that will lead to their greater understanding and, therefore, to the improvement of their teaching. Counseling with student teachers concerning prob- lems of adjustment to their teaching role. Conducting seminars or teaching courses designated to supplement and complement student teaching experiences. Consulting with cooperating school personnel on curricular, instructional, and organizational mat- ters when.requested. Analyzing and refining their own professional skills. 1h. Cooperating with other college and school per- sonnel in evaluating and refining the teacher education program.2 Regardless of whether college supervisors work in.on- campus or in off-campus programs, there are those who believe that this position reguires special role Qualifications. The following statement by the authors of Bulletin Number 11 of the Association for Student Teaching illustrates this point. : . . Not only does the work require a great amount of time, but also it requires a person who knows what is involved.in good teaching and who is able to help others analyze teaching-learning situations. The work also requires a high degree of leadership ability, for, above all, the college supervisor must be able to establish and.maintain good working real- tionships with public school teachers, administrators, student teachers, and fellow faculty members. To do this successfully, he must be sensitive to human relations and must understand their impact on all persons involved in the program. Only those members of the faculty whose qualifications most closely approach these should Be considered for the position of college supervisor. Human“ buttressed this position further when he wrote that the I'selection and preparation of . . . college supervisors 2Commission on Standards for Supervising Teachers and College Supervisors, The Collegg Sgpegzisgr: A Positign Pa r (Cedar Falls, Iowa: Association 0 Student Teaching, 19 , pp. 5-6. 3Howard.T."Batchelder, Richard.E. Lawrence and George R. Myers, A Guide to Planni Off-Cam us Student Teachi , Bulletin No. 11 ZCedEr Falls, Iowa: The AssocIatIon for Student Teaching, 1959), p. 18. uEdward.L. Human, 'InPService Education of Supervising Teachers and College Supervisors ' Partnershi in Education, ed. by E. Brooks Smith, _e_t_~._. 3;. {wa—‘pE‘——shington D. .: The American.Association.of Colleges For Teacher Education, 1968), p. 270. 4 are significant factors in the development of sound student teaching programs." He also cogently pointed out that the college supervisor ”must be provided with sophisticated, well-organized experiences which will enhance those under- standings and perceptions which may reasonably assure the competence necessary for effective supervision.'5 Conant6 and.Pogue7 echoed the need for qualified col- lege supervisors while Hess8 and Pfeiffer9 consider the lack of professional preparation among supervisors and others among the greatest problems of student teaching. An A.S.T. Commission on Standards ascerted that “serving as a college supervisor requires special qualities and competen- cies."10 51bid. 6James Bryant Conant, The Educati n of American Teachers (New‘York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1963), p e e" 7s. Graham chue, "Student Teaching: The State of the Art,” Innovative Progpams in Spugent Teachipg, ed. by Roy A. Edglfelt, 2Baltimore: Maryland.State Department of Education, 19 9 , p. . 8Mary Bullock Hess, |'A National Survey of State Practices and Trends in.Student Teaching,” Innovative Pro- gppps in Student Teachipg, ed. by Roy A. EdelIelt, (BEIEImore: Maryland State Department of Education, 1969), p. 44. 9Robert T. Pfeiffer, ”Common Concerns of College Supervisors,‘ The Collegp Supervisor, Conflict and Challepge, Forty-third.Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching, (Cedar Falls, Iowa: The Association for Student Teaching, 196“), pp. 11-20: 1°C . cits, The Colle Su ervisor: A Position.Pa er, p: 6. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume on the basis of the increased enrollments in.teacher education11 and the expansion and complexity of the programs12 that a unique breed of college supervisors is needed to insure quality experiences for student teachers. 322g:for_the Study Allusions have already been made to the many that have called attention to the important role the college supervisor plays in a student teacher's experience.13 More- over, it is becoming clear that with role descriptions and responsibilities having become more clearly delineated in most areas of teacher education, general criteria can be developed for the selection of college supervisors. Some have felt that if utilized in conjunction with other criteria appropriate to specific local circumstances, these general criteria can serve as effective guides in selecting qualified college supervisors of student teaching.1u To be more 11Glenn Hontz, "Redefining Roles in the Supervision of Student Teachers,“ The Collegp Supervisor, Conflict and Challen.e, Forty-third Yearbook of the Association for Stu- dent Teaching, (Cedar Falls, Iowa: The Association for Student Teaching, 1964), p. 132. lzIpid. 13For example, see Chapters I, II, and.XII, The College S rvisor Conflict and Challe , Forty-third Yearbook of the AssociatIon for Student Teaching, (Cedar Falls, Iowa: The Azsociation for Student Teaching, 1964), pp. 3-10; 11-20; 132-1 5. 1&0 . cit., The Collegp Supervisor: A Position Paper, p. 6. accurate, at the present time there is no single list of criteria for selection of college supervisors in the litera- ture on student teaching which is generally accepted and used as a guide by those involved in the hiring processes. Statement of Pppppse The purposes of this study are as follows: 1. To determine if there are any established criteria or job specifications currently accepted and being used by the administrators of student teaching programs when hiring college supervisors. 2. To determine if these same student teaching administra- tors perceive that a basic list of criteria for the selection of college supervisors is important to the success of college supervisors. These accomplishments would provide additional tools for meeting the functional challenge of selection. Hypotheses The hypotheses to be tested in this study are as follows: 1. "The established criteria presently used for the selec- tion of college supervisors of student teaching at the institutions represented in this study show some concurrence.“ 2. 'There is agreement among the student teaching admini- strators of the institutions of this study that the use of a list of criteria contributes to the success of college supervisors." As was pointed out earlier, there is no single list of criteria for selecting college supervisors evidenced in the professional literature on student teaching. However, the absence of a single list should not persuade one to maintain a stance which refuses to accept some concurrence with regard to criteria for selection of college supervisors. Underlying Assumptions of the Study The following observations seem to be reasonable assumptions upon which this study may be based: 1. 3. 5. That an adequate student teaching experience is more likely to result when certain general criteria are em- ployed in the selection of college supervisors. That the college supervisor must be carefully selected since not all possess the qualities and level of compe- tence necessary for serving in this capacity. That the criteria used for the selection of college supervisors will apply to all programs where college supervisors of student teachers are involved. That administrators of student teaching programs have convictions as to the type and quality of college super- visor they want working with their student teachers and supervising teachers. That serving as a college supervisor requires special qualities and competencies. 6. That administrators of student teaching programs have responsibilities to determine the personal and profes- sional competencies that college supervisors should possess. 7. That since the basic responsibility for the administra- tion of quality student teaching programs rests with institutions of high education, the selection of college supervisors represents one of the primary factors rela- ting to the quality of the teacher education program. 8. That this study is not intended, nor should it be con- strued, as an evaluation of any specific student teaching program, administrator of student teaching, or institution. Limitations of the Study It should be noted that an exploratory study of this nature cannot be all encompassing. This study is, therefore, (1) limited to a number of selected institutions of higher learning in the southeastern region of the United States which carry on teacher education programs. Although there are a number of important and dynamic components to the current field of teacher education, (e.g., the elementary intern program offered at some institutions) this study (2) will concern itself only with the area of student teaching--both elementary and secondary. Moreover, the participants in this study (3) have been selected regardless of length of service or experience within the normal limi— tations of the questionnaire-interview technique.~ In order to determine the attitudes of supervising teachers toward the selected criteria, (4) a group of public school super- vising teachers that worked with the author at Michigan State's Macomb Teacher Education Center were used because of their interest and concern in this area. An analysis of their participation will follow in a later chapter. Operational Definitions of Variables 1. Supervisor of Student Teaching.--An individual employed by the teacher-education institution to work coopera- tively with supervising teachers and student teachers. The college supervisor is not to be confused with the high school supervising teacher; moreover, for the purposes of this study he will henceforth be referred to as the college supervisor as opposed to the college or resident coordinator. The semantics of the word 'supervisor,P as it has special reference to student teaching and the college supervisor, were discussed by Smith in A.S.T.'s Forty-third Yearbook.15 2. Student Teaching Administrator.--That administrator at the teacher-education institutions represented in the sampling as the director of the student teaching program. 15E. Brooks Smith, “The Case for the College Supervisor,“ The Collegp Supervisor, Conflict and Challenge, Forty-third Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching£)(Cedar Falls, Iowa: The Association for Student Teaching, 19 , p. 169. 10 Although his title may be that of a dean, a director, or a coordinator, for the purposes of this study, he will be known as the student teaching administrator. 3. Southeastern Regional Association for Studept Teaching.-- A regional organization of teacher educators connected with the Association for Student Teaching (A.S.T.), a wing of the National Education Association. On February 28, 1970, the name of the national A.S.T. was formally changed to the Association of Teacher Educators (A.T.E.). For the sake of clarity this study will use A.S.T. and A.T.E. interchangeably. Overview of Subseguent Chapters In Chapter Two pertinent literature and related studies will be discussed while in.gpppter Three the design of the study, the instrument, procedures and collection of data, and statistical information will be treated. Qpppter Four will be devoted to an analysis of the data, which will in turn be summarized and interpreted in Chapter Five. Certain implications and recommendations will also be found in Chapter Five. Summapy In summation, significance and need of the study, statement of purpose, hypotheses, underlying assumptions, limitations, and operational definitions were treated in Chapter One. This chapter closed with an overview of sub- sequent chapters. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Background In a recent publication of the Association for Student Teaching1 attention was focused on the increased acceptance of the role of teacher education in our society and how this increase had fostered further study of the various components 2 of the student teaching program. Although Boyce, Doane,3 and.Woodruff4 found that student teaching has been con- sidered for many years the most worthwhile requirement in the teacher-education program, the general status of critical data on student teaching was held, until recently, to be poor.5 The past few years, however, have witnessed numerous 1The Director of Student Teaching: Characteristics and Res onsibilities, Research Bulletin No. 7. (WashIngton, D.C.: The Association for Student Teaching, 1968), p. 1. 2Kate L. Boyce, “What Is The Most Important Part of Teacher Training?" Ohio Schools, XXX (April, 1952), 162-63. 3Kenneth Ralph Doane, 'A Study of the Professional Curriculum Requirements for the Preparation of High School Teachers in the United States," Journal of Expepgmental Education, XVI (September, 1947), 66-69. hAsahel D. Woodruff, 'Exploratory Evaluation of Teacher Education,“ Educational Administration Supplement, XXXII (1946) . 5Rohen J. Manski, ed., Needed Research in Teacher Edu- cation, (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1954), 62. 11 12 studies of the roles, charapteristips, and responsibilities of the student teacher, the college supervisor, and the 6 A careful analysis of a director of student teaching. number of recent publications of the Association for Student Teaching, (recently changed to the Association of Teacher Educators), reveals indepth studies on all of the important components of student teaching.7 Moreover, an A.S.T. anno- 8 cites no fewer than a dozen recent tated bibliography, studies on the roles, characteristics, and responsibilities of the student teacher, the supervising teacher, the college supervisor, (or coordinator) and the director of student teaching. In spite of this recent influx of studies, to date very little has been done with criteria used for selecting personnel to adequately staff and service student teaching programs. Johnson9 reported on various criteria used by administrators of Big Ten Universities to select supervising teachers in secondary schools. He found agreement on five 69p. cit., A.S.T. Bulletin No. 7, p. 1. 7Ibid. (As well as The College Supervisor, Conflict and Challe . Forty-Third Yearbook, l9 ; Pro essional GrowEh In-service of the Su ervisi Teacher. Forty-FiIth Yearbook, 1966). 8Ruth Heideback and Margaret Lindsey, eds., Annotated Bibliogpaphy on Laboratopy Experiences and Related Acti ities in the Professional Education of Teachers (Washington, D.C.: The Association for Student Teaching, 1968). 9Manley F. Johnson, "A Study of Criteria For Selection of Supervising Teachers in Secondary Schools As Perceived By Student Teaching Administrators." (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968), 1-97. 13 of eighteen selected criteria, while a majority of the other items were agreed upon by seven of the ten administrators. An A.S.T. Position Paper10 proposed fourteen criteria for the selection of su ervisi teachers, while Edwards11 suggested a number of competencies for supervising_teacher§ related (1) to classroom procedures and techniques; (2) to working relationships between the supervising teacher and the student teacher; (3) to the transition from the rela- tively inactive status of the student teacher at the beginning of student teaching to his active status later in the assign- ment; (4) to personal characteristics or traits of the super- vising teacher that might be emulated by the student teacher; and finally, (5) to developing broad professional and school responsibilities. Kelley12 suggested forty-three criteria for the selec- tion of supervisin teachers, while Charles Rogers13 found five criteria associated with supervising teacher effectiveness. 1OCommission on Standards for Supervising Teachers and College Supervisors, "The Supervising Teacher: A Position Pagzp (Cegar Falls, Iowa: Association for Student Teaching, 19 a p. 0 11Karl D. Edwards, "Competencies of the Supervising Teacher,“ Professional Growth Inservice of the Supervising Teacher, Forty-Fifth Yearbook of the Association for tudent Teaching (Cedar Falls, Iowa: The Association for Student Teaching, 1966), 19-20. 12David George Kelley, 'An Exploratory Study of the Criteria Used by College Supervisors of Student Teachers and Elementary School Principals in the Selection or Recommenda- tions of Cooperating Teachers” (unpublished Ed. D. disserta- tion, Columbia University, 1965). IBCharles Harman Rogers, “Factors Associated with Supervising Teacher EffectivenessI (un ublished Ed. D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1965 . l4 14 In A.S.T.'s Research Bulletin Number Seven, such competencies as the educational and personal characteristics of directors of student teaching progpams were treated in depth. Although this A.S.T. study was concerned primarily with the characteristics and responsibilities of directors, it is apparent that the criteria for the selection of col- lege personnel is based on this kind of information, as noted in.the following statement from Bulletin Seven; “The project was undertaken because it was felt that the information gained would be of value and of use to those responsible for assigning duties to directors of student teaching.'15 Criteria On College Supervisors Coincident with the forementioned studies dealing with criteria used for selecting supervising teachers and the A.S.T. study dealing with directors of student teaching pro- grams, is the apparent dearth of any concrete inquiries con- cerning criteria for selectipg college supervisors, with but several exceptions. Inlcw16 briefly suggested a number of job criteria for college supervisors including the following: 140 . 915., A.S.T. Bulletin No. 7, p. 5-2n. 15Ibid., p. 1. 16Gail M. Inlow, ‘The Complex Role of the College Supervisor," Educational Research Bulletin, XXXV (January, 1956) pp. 10-I7. 15 1. Some theoretical (course work) as well as practical experience in human relations; 2. Some experience and credit hours in counseling processes; 3. Some background in psychology to help him better under- stand personality patterns and group interactions; 4. A knowledge via experience of the gpgde levels or an - ject matter aregp wherein supervision will take place; 5. Should be able to teach appropriate college courses in curriculum, methods, educational psychology, or related subjects; 6. Should be a general practitioner as opposed to a specialist; 7. If a Ph. D. is needed by other college faculty, it is likewise needed by the college supervisor--or at least he should be working toward the doctorate. The A.S.T. Commission on Standards for Supervising Teachers and College Supervisors has presented guidelines for the selection of supervising teachers17 and college supervisors.18 Human and his committee listed the following twelve criteria for selecting college supervisors: 1. Presents evidence of having had at least three years of successful teaching experience at the level he is to supervise. 1792. cit., Association for Student Teaching, “The Supervising Teacher: A Position Paper." 18Commission on.Standards for Supervising Teachers and College Supervisors, 'The College Supervisor: A Position Paper" (Cedar Falls: Iowa: Association of Student Teaching, 1968), 6-7. 5. 9. 10. 11. 12. 16 Knows the roles of others in the teacher education program. Understands the programs, personnel, and problems of cooperating schools, especially at the level where he supervises. Is a student of teaching and learning and is able to separate the concepts from the mass of folklore, cliches, and intuition that often pass for knowl- edge about teaching. Is able to analyze, examine, and conceptualize the teaching act in light of an appropriate theory of learning. Is able to utilize recent developments and trends in order to demonstrate good teaching at the class- room level where he is working. Accepts willingly the opportunity to serve in the capacity of college supervisor. Knows the structure and inquiry procedures of the subject matter at the level he supervises. Displays leadership skills in working with peOple. Demonstrates ability to work effectively with per- sons of all levels of professional sophistication and status on a one-to-one basis as well as in groups. Possesses a thorough understanding of student teaching and wide knowledge of many student teaching programs and practices. Innovates and puts ideas to the test.19 A survey was reported of one hundred thirty cooperating teachers concerning their reactions to the responsibilities of the college supervisor. They reported that they felt that the college supervisor should: 1. Visit the classroom of the supervising teacher fre- quently enough to become acquainted with the students and their teaching practices. 199p. cit. 2. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 17 Provide the supervising teacher with pertinent information about the student teacher. Share responsibility of evaluation of the student teacher with the principal, the supervising teacher, and the student teacher. Help the supervising teacher understand and play her role in the student teaching program. Help the supervising teacher and the student teacher resolve any problems which develop in the student teaching experience. Acquaint the supervising teacher with what is expected from the student teacher-~diaries, evaluations, reports, and the like. Be willing and able to make suggestions for the improvement of instruction in the classroom of the supervising teacher. Help the supervising teacher and the principal provide opportunities for the student teacher to participate in varied and extensive activities in the total school program. Provide sources of information as requested by the supervising teacher or the student teacher. Observe the prospective supervising teacher in action several times prior to any student teaching assignment. Place the student teacher with the supervising teacher who can provide high quality teaching experiences. Help the principal in his preparation for the induction of the student teacher into his school program. Consult and advise with the student teacher as the occasion dictates. Observe the student teacher in action and follow the observations with a three-or-four way conference. 18 15. Help the college understand and discharge its responsibilities to the student teaching pgggram in the laboratory and cooperating schools. Therefore, in spite of the growing demands for compe- tent personnel to serve colleges and universities in the role as supervisors of student teachers, a vacuum apparently con- tinues, caused by the lack of clear job definitions on the one hand,21 and the absence of agreed upon criteria to be used by directors of student teaching and other college admin- istrators involved in hiring personnel. More Specifically, are there ppy agpged upon job sppcifications? Summapy Thus, the preceding discussion of the related litera- ture attempted to establish some background for the study by the following: 1. Focusing attention on the increased acceptance of the role of teaching education in our society; 2. Calling attention to the recent increases of acceptable studies dealing with the teacher-education program; 3. Focusing some discussion on limited inquiries that have been made concerning the selection of college personnel to adequately staff and service student teaching pro- grams; 20William A. Bennie, Coo eration for Better Teachi (Minneapolis: Burgess PWW, citing The Supervising Teachep, 38th Yearbook, The Associ- ation for Student Teaching, 1959, p. 91. 210 . cit., The College Supervisor, Conflict and Chal- 1 pgp—B 11 e , p. e l9 4. Highlighting the apparent lack of lists of agreed upon criteria for selecting college supervisors of student teaching. Hopefully, this study will contribute the kind of in- formation which will help directors of student teaching pro- grams and other college administrators decide on and describe the job specifications for the kinds of people needed to do the job effectively. The supervision of student teachers calls for talented people. Myers and Walsh put it this way: College or university coordinators bear heavy responsibility for the continuous operation of suc- cessful professional laboratory experiences. They represent the philosophy, responsibility, and authority of the institution of higher education in the community and on the campus. They are person- ally and professionally ”tuned" both to the institu- tion and the community. They reflect changes and adaptations that are both hidden and apparent in the operation and administration of the program. The coordinators are administrators, teachers, troubleshooters, and professional confessors all in one. They listen more than they talk and they see more than they report. They are trusted and respon- sible yet remain the moderators 052the entire intern- ship or student teaching program. 22George B. Myers and William J. welsh, Student Teachin and Internshi in Toda 's Secondary Schools (Columbus, 0: r es . err 00 S, no., ), p. 18. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES UTILIZED IN THE STUDY Introduction The purposes of this study were (1) to determine if there were any established criteria or job Specifications currently accepted and being used by the administrators of student teaching programs when hiring college supervisors; and (2) to determine if these student teaching administra— tors perceive that a basic list of criteria or job speci- fications is important to the success of college supervisors of student teachers. Moreover, the primary intent of this chapter was to describe the research design and the proce- dures utilized in the study. The hypotheses of the study were (1) that the estab- lished criteria presently used for the selection of college supervisors of student teaching at the institutions represented in this study show some concurrence; and (2) that there is agreement among the student teaching administrators of the institutions of this study that the use of a list of criteria contributes to the success of college supervisors. The remainder of Chapter III is devoted to synthesizing and discussing the rationale behind these hypotheses. 20 21 Sgurces of_§gp§ The population of the study consisted of active members of the Southeastern Regional Association For Stu- dent Teaching as specified by the current mailing list of the association. This group was selected not only because (1) they are actively involved in teacher preparation, but because (2) they share a mutual concern for the selection of competent college supervisors. The states represented in Southeastern A.S.T. are listed alphabetically as fol- lows: (1) Alabama, (2) Florida, (3) Georgia, (4) Kentucky, (5) Mississippi, (6) North Carolina, (7) South Carolina, (8) Tennessee, (9) Virginia, and (10) West Virginia. The membership of Southeastern A.S.T. that participated in this study represented 102 institutions of higher education in- terested in teacher education. Apppndix A includes the respective states and locations of these schools. The distribution of the participating institutions is described in Table 3.1. Five institutions from Alabama or 4.9 per cent of the total were represented, while eleven schools from Florida with 10.7 per cent of the distribution participated. Georgia and.Kentucky each had twelve institu- tions responding, as did North Carolina and Tennessee, for a composite of 46.8 per cent of the total; whereas, three Mississippi schools were represented comprising 2.9 per cent of the distribution. Fourteen South Carolina schools were represented amounting to 13.7 per cent of the total, while 22 TABLE 3.1--Distribution of Participating Institutions According to State, 1970. -:r ._‘-___ ——-——: Southeastern A.S.T. States Number Per cent 1. Alabama 5 4.9 2. Florida 11 10.7 3. Georgia 12 11.7 4. Kentucky 12 11.7 5. Mississippi 3 2.9 6. North Carolina 12 11.7 7. South Carolina 14 13.7 8. Tennessee 12 11.7 9. Virginia 8 7.8 10. West Virginia 13 12.7 N=102 99.5a TABLE 3.2--Distribution of Major Sources of Financial Support for Participating Institutions, 1970. Subjects Public Private Parochial Per cent Number 52 44 6 102 Per cent 50.9 43.1 5.8 99.88 aDeviation due to rounding 23 Virginia with eight institutions and West Virginia with thirteen comprised 7.8 per cent and 12.7 per cent of the distribution. Table 3.2 includes a description of the distribution of major sources of financial support of the participant's institutions, with 52 of the schools, or 50.9 per cent of the total representing the public sector. Another 44 of the schools gleaned most of their financial support from private sources, with this representing 43.1 per cent of the total. Six respondents reported that they worked at institutions which would be deemed parochial and this comprised 5.8 per cent of the distribution. In Table 3.3 the population distribution of the states that the respondents represented is described. Of the 206 questionnaire instruments that were sent, 176 were returned for better than an 85 per cent response. Of these,5 respon- dents, or 2.8 per cent of the total, were from Alabama; 19 respondents, or 10.7 per cent of the total, were from Florida; 23 responded from Georgia, (13.0 of the total), while Kentucky respondents numbered 21, or 11.9 per cent of the total. There were 3 who responded from Mississippi, (1.7 per cent of the total), 29 from North Carolina, (10.? per cent of the total), 30 from South Carolina, (17 per cent of the total), 23 from Tennessee, (13 per cent of the total), 11 from Virginia, (6.2 per cent of the total), and 22 from West Virginia, or 12.5 per cent of the total. 24 TABLE 3;3--Popu1ation Distribution of Respondents According to State, 1970. States Designated Alphabetically Number Per cent 1. Alabama 5 2.8 2. Florida 19 10.7 3. Georgia 23 13.0 4. Kentucky 21 11.9 5. Mississippi 3 1.7 6. North Carolina 19 10.7 7 . South Carolina 30 17 .o 8. Tennessee 23 13.0 9. Virginia 11 6.2 10. West Virginia 22 12.5 N=176 99.5 Table 3.4 includes a description of the population distribution according to sex. Male respondents numbered 114 or 64.7 per cent of the total, while there were 62 female participants, or 35.2 per cent of the total 176 reapondents. TABLE 3.4--Popu1ation Distribution According to Sex, 1970. Sex of Respondent Number Per cent 1. Male 114 64.7 2. Female 62 35.2 N=176 99-9 25 Table 3.5 includes a description of the age distri- bution of the respondents. Approximately 72 per cent of the population fell in the forty-one to sixty age range. TABLE 3.5-~Age Distribution of the Instrument Papulation, 1970. Age Groups 25- 31- 23- 41- 46- 51- 56- 61- over Subjects 30 35 45 50 55 60 65 65 Number 1 11 25 25 39 41 22 11 1 Per cent .5 6.2 14.2 14.2 22.1 23.2 12.5 6.2 {5 N=176 9909 Appendix B includes a copy of the questionnaire instru- ment. Notice that it is divided into two parts, Institu- tional Information and Information on Criteria. The section on Institutional Information was included to more thoroughly understand the respondents and the schools which they repre- sented. The instrument will be discussed later in this chapter. In Table 3.6 a further description of participating institutions is given by indicating the sizes of the range of communities in which the various schools are located. Almost 70 per cent of the respondents indicated that the schools they represented were located in communities ranging between 10,000 and under 500,000 in population. Only 2.8 26 m.mm manz m.~ m.0 e.a~ a.am m.aa 0.a m.s e.a ease and n ma 0: ma mm as m as sonssz soaaaaz 000.000.H eea.eaa 00a.0a eee.e~ a0e.m ame.a aaa.~ eeoofipsm H on on on on on on on peso 000.com 000.00H 000.0m 000.0H 000.m 00m.~ 0 momsmm scapeamnom .mfloapsuduwnH wnameHOthmm no medpanzeaoo ho mmuam wndpwoadnH noflpsnfihpmanllw.m mqmda 27 per cent said they represented schools found in large metro- politan areas over one million in population. A distribution of the undergraduate students enrolled in the Colleges or Departments of Education of the various participating institutions is explained in Table 3.7. Approximately 40 per cent of the schools were reported to have enrollments in the field of education of less than 1,000. TABLE 3.7--Distribution of Undergraduate Students Enrolled in College or Department of Education of Participating Institutions--l970. W Enrollment Ranges 0 150 500 1,000 3,000 to to to to to over Subjects 149 499 999 2.999 4,999 5,000 Totals Number 6 25 37 65 27 16 176 Per cent 3.4 14.2 21.0 36.9 15.3 9.0 99.8 N=176 Table 3.8 illustrates the distribution of undergraduate students who were participating in student teaching during the spring term or semester of the 1970 school year, (the period that the questionnaire was circulated). Better than 90 per cent of the institutional enrollments showed a stu- dent teaching participation of less than 500 students for the spring period, In Table 3.9 those student teachers successfully com- pleting student teaching annually at the participating 28 TABLE 3.8--Distribution of Undergraduate Students Partici- pating in Student Teaching Spring Term or Semester, 1970. Enrollment Ranges 0 150 500 to to to Over Subjects 149 499 999 1,000 Totals Number 102 59 13 2 176 Per cent 57.9 33.5 7.3 1.1 99.8 N8176 TABLE 3.9--Distribution of Students Successfully Completing Student Teaching Annually at Participating Institutions, 1970. Successful Student Teaching Experience Ranges 0 150 500 1,000 to to to to Over Subjects 149 499 999 1.999 2,000 Totals Number 50 74 31 18 3 176 Per cent 28.4 42.0 17.6 10.2 1.7 99.9 N=l76 29 institutions are delineated. The distribution, as reported by the 176 respondents, shows that approximately 70 per cent of the schools have less than 500 student teachers completing the reapective programs annually. Only 1.7 per cent of the institutions graduate more than 2,000 from their student teaching programs annually. Desigp of the Study A questionnaire was designed consisting of criteria selected from the literature referred to earlier in this study. Of particular importance were those specifications suggested in the Johnson and Inlow studies, both of which provided pertinent criteria critical to this inquiry. A c0py of the questionnaire and the cover letter are included in A endix B, while the tabulated results from the total number of reSponses given to each criterion can be found in Appendix C. A pilot study and pretest of the questionnaire were administered to the staff of Michigan State University's Macomb Teacher Education Center in Warren, Michigan, in order to eliminate ambiguities and redundancy. Having done this, and since no changes were needed or suggested, copies of the questionnaire were then sent to each member on the mailing list of the Southeastern Regional Association for Student Teaching during April, 1970. Some names were deleted because of death, retirement, change of status, or relocation, thus 3O reducing the original potential population to 206. Some of the questionnaire information has already been discussed. Among the questions included on the instrument was an inquiry to determine the willingness of the respondent to participate in.a personal interview. Table 3.10 indicates the distribution of affirmative and.negative responses, with 132 respondents, or 75 per cent of the total, answering in the affirmative. TABLE 3.10-~Popu1ation Distribution of Respondents Indicating Willingness to Participate in Interviews and Further Research, 1970. Response Number Per cent 1. Affirmative 132 75.0 2. Negative 44 25.0 N-176 100.0 From these 132 positive responses, 20 administrators of student teaching programs were representatively selected and interviewed. ‘dppppddg_d indicates the location of the institutions represented by these respondents. Some pref- erence to location was given to assure an equal distribu- tion of states in.the sampling. The size of the institution and its status as a public or privately controlled school was also considered to present some balance. Unfortunately, some states were not represented because of negative responses to 31 the interview by the respondents, or because of complications in the administrators' schedules. Arrangements for the personal interview were made by telephone and letter and two trips were made to the Southeast during April and May, 1970. All interviews were completed by May 20, 1970, and were carried out without complication. A number of the interviews were secured by attending the spring meeting of the Carolina Association for Student Teaching held April 18, 1970, at Charleston, South Carolina. All of the interviews centered around four questions: 1. Do you believe that a list of job specifications or criteria are necessary or useful when interviewing or selecting supervisor candidates? 2. Do you believe that the list of criteria contained in this questionnaire are important to the success of future college supervisors? 3. Would you like to change or add to these criteria for selection? 4. Does your institution have job requirements, criteria, or specifications for the position of college supervisor of student teaching? The results of these interviews will be covered in the next chapter. 32 8mm The preceding pages of Chapter III have described the procedures, methods, and sources of data used to investigate job specifications and criteria used for the selection of college supervisors of student teaching by student teaching administrators. Twenty-eight criteria were selected from the literature to form the basis and rationale for a question- naire which was then circulated, after preliminary pre- testing, to 206 members of the Southeastern Regional Associ- ation for Student Teaching. From this population, with a return of better than 85 per cent, a sample of student teach- ing administrators was representatively selected to be inter- viewed frcm the 132 positive responses to an instrument question. Of the twenty student teaching administrators selected, ten represented state supported institutions, and ten represented private schools. Not all of the ten states of the association were represented in the interviewing process due to negative responses to an item on the question- naire. W contains the names, positions, and the institutions of those interviewed. An analysis of the data collected will be described in the following chapter. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction This chapter contains the analysis of data which were gathered to support the basic hypotheses which were: 1. "The established criteria presently used for the selec- tion of college supervisors of student teaching at the institutions represented in this study shows some con- currence.” 2. "There is agreement among student teaching administrators of the institutions of this study that the use of a list of criteria would contribute to the success of college supervisors.” A discussion of various implications and recommendations resulting from the analysis of the data will follow in Chapter V. Hypothesis One In order to test this hypothesis, twenty-eight criteria or job specifications were synthesized from the literature of teacher education. These criteria were then incorporated in.a questionnaire which was, after a preliminary pilot study, sent to selected members of the Southeastern Regional 33 34 Association for Student Teaching because (1) they are actively involved in student teaching and teacher prepara- tion, and (2) because they share a mutual concern for the selection of competent college supervisors. Apppndix C contains the responses to the questionnaire criteria. From this population twenty administrators were representatively selected and interviewed. The interviews centered around the following four questions: 1. Do you believe that a list of job specifications or criteria are necessary or useful when.interview1ng or selecting supervisor candidates? 2. Do you believe that the list of criteria contained in this questionnaire is important to the success of future college supervisors? 3. Would you like to change or add to these criteria for selection? 4. Does your'institution or department have job require- ments, criteria, or Specifications for the position of college supervisor of student teaching? Table 4.1 indicates that Hypothesis One should be re- jected on the basis of the testimony of the participating stu- dent teaching administrators. None of the institutions repre- sented.have 'established criteria presently used for the selection of college supervisors of student teaching . . . .' All of the administrators were in agreement that established lists of criteria were not being employed by their institu- tions for selecting college supervisors of student teaching. 35 TABLE*4.l--Distribution of Responses to Interview Questions, 1970. Question Responses Number Per cent 1 all affirmative 20 100.0 2 all affirmative 20 100.0 3 all negative 20 100.0 4 all negative 20 100.0 *Appendix D contains the names and positions of the admini- strators interviewed, as well as the institutions that they represent. It should be noted that the responses to the criteria noted in Appendix C indicate that these respondents of the Southeastern Regional Association for Student Teaching, do concur in their perceptions that twenty of the twenty-eight criteria are "basic, necessary requirements" when selecting college supervisors. The eight criteria not considered basic requirements for hiring college supervisors were, however, perceived by the respondents to have some impor- tance. None of the twenty-eight criteria were considered by a majority of the respondents to have no importance. The eight criteria in question were numbers three, five, six, nine, ten, fourteen, fifteen, and twenty-two. Table 4.2 shows the twenty criteria perceived to be basic and important ranging from a low of 53.4 per cent of the respondents, (Criterion Twenty-three), to a high of 98.8 per cent of the TAE Cri Cr: 36 TABLE 4.2--Responses of A.S.T. Membership to Selected Criteria, 1970. Has Has Is Some No Criterion Important Importance Importance 1 N 148 23 5 J 84-0 1L9 34.8...— 2 J 1315...] 20.3 g 1]. 3L. 3 N 27 ll 3 .1 11.1 64L 41.3..— “ N 154 22 O _1 81,5 12.5 o 5 N 29 93 54 __z 16A .8 30 .6 6 N 32 11 28 _1 18,1 85,9 15.9 7 N 160 14 2 __Z 9012, 42a9 0111_____ 8 N 173 3 O J 28.2 41.7 9 9 g 53 lgl 22 O 1 7.3 12 N 25 8 23 1° % 3.1.-3 226 im__ 11 N 163 13 0 __§ 2.6 2.3 O 12 E 0 __§ .7 2.2 o 13 29 O 2 83_.5 _1_¢_S.4 0 1g g 6% 102 13 .2 15 N E84 £34; hid—— 1 ' 74.7 48.;, 3.9 16 i 12: 8 in. g .2 17 N 114'" 5 J §4.1 3M 3.4 18 N 152 20 4 .1 J 11.3 212—. 19 N 17 2 0 it 28,8 1,1 0 20 N l 10 O __2 94.3 5.ég SQ_______ 37 TABLE 4.2--Continued Has Has Is Some No Criterion Important Importance Importance N 171 5 0 21 a: 97.1 2.8 o 22 N 19 85’ 15 fl E01 “802 8.: 23 g .1» gm 3'2 2" J 152 22,], 1.1 25 __§ 14% 32 3 26 N ’EE’J'I 113‘; 21‘1— it 92,51 16’18 ‘14.— 27 N 162 1 o .1 %2_.2 7 Q__ 28 N l 3 1 1 J 924.6 M .5__ N8176 respondents, (Criterion Nineteen). The eight criteria con- sidered to be somewhat important, but not necessarily basic requirements, ranged from a low of 48.2 per cent, (Criteria Fifteen and Twenty-two), to a high of 57.3 per cent, (Cri- terion Nine). Criteria Three and Five were perceived by 20.4 per cent and 30.6 per cent of the respondents respectively, to have no importance in.aelection. On nineteen of the twenty- eight criteria, 100 or'more of the 176 respondents indicated that they considered these criteria to be 'basic and.important' in the selecting of supervisors of student teaching. Table 4.2 indicates a majority of the respondents agree that twenty of the twenty-eight criteria are 'basic and.necessary' in.the selection process. 38 Hyppthesis Two Table 4.1 indicates that Hypothesis Two of this study can be accepted on the basis of the 100 per cent affirmative response of the interviewed administrators to both questions one and two. Although the sampling is small, it does include persons who have the responsibility for selecting college supervisors of student teaching. It also indicates the positive belief held by the respondents for the use of selection criteria. uali 1 Remarks A space was provided on the questionnaire for qualifying remarks, thus enabling the respondents to clarify their posi- tions or to make any suggestions or criticisms that they deemed pertinent. Certain of the criteria were commented upon repeatedly, while others were left unquestioned. On the criteria about which there was some disagreement as to imporb tence, as indicated by Table 4.2, the accompanying comments provided.insights into the perceptions of the respondents. For example, thirty-six respondents felt that the possession of a doctorate was not a necessary requirement, while twenty- sevon others felt it was a basic, necessary requirement. Another one hundred thirteen perceived that although it was not 'a basic,“ they felt it had some importance. Responding to this, six people felt that 'a sensitivity to the needs of children.and a knowledge of effective methods” was much more important. 39 Fifty-four respondents perceived that "some adminis- trative experience and course work in administration was not important, and several of these wrote that l'a knowledge of the overall school program was more desirable.” Seven respondents commented on the importance of being a specialist and working exclusively in the area of major preparation on the secondary level. Fifty-three felt that this was a necessary requirement. Eight respondents seemed to feel that Criterion Ten should be applied to the super- vision of elementary teachers only. With reference to Criterion Fourteen dealing with the concept of course work in human relations or communication theory, the following comments were made by respondents: 'It is not necessary if he already has a good way of working with people." 'He should have an 'expertise' which has been acquired in ways other than formal course work.“ And several made the following comment: I'Some have this natural or innate ability which has been acquired or strengthened in ways other than formal course work.” Only thirteen of the one hundred seventy-six respondents perceived this criterion as having no importance. Criterion Eighteen is worded in the following manner: "Should respect and recognize the worth and dignity of every individual regardless of race or creed and should be questioned on this position.“ One hundred fifty-two of the respondents concluded that this was a basic, necessary no requirement, while only four submitted that it was not important. Another twenty felt it had some importance but that it was not a basic requirement. There seemed to be some disagreement about this criterion based on the added comments. For example, one person said, 'I hesitate on the last part of this statement." Another six respondents added, "I question the last part,“ while still another group of five respondents said, I'the last part bothers me." One lady wrote the following: ''this was not important when I was selected, so why should it be stressed now." Finally, one other person wrote that I'all should be extensively questioned on this matter--ameni” Criterion Twenty-two is worded in this way: "Should have had or will contractually agree to take a graduate course in the supervision of student teaching.“ One respondent said that "one course is n23 sufficient,” while two others wrote that “this is a very desirable requirement.” Four respondents said that "it depends on the individual's background," while three others thought it "should be strongly recommended but not required." Comparative Analysis Upon completion of the study in the Southeastern states, the same questionnaire was administered to a group of 32 public school supervising teachers representing both the secondary and elementary levels. The institutional 41 information was omitted, but the 32 supervising teachers were asked to fill out that part of the instrument containing the same twenty-eight criteria as had been completed by Southeastern A.S.T. members. Table 4.3 indicates the responses of the supervising teachers. TABLE 4.3--Responses of Supervising Teachers to Selected Criteria, 1970. Has Has Is Some No Criterion Important Importance Importance 1 N 27 3 2 __% 8h.3 9.3 6.2 2 N 11 15 6 % _3h.3 #6.8 18.7 3 “N’ 1 8* 23 % 3.1 25.0 71.8 1+ 33 6 3 g 8 5 ‘5 12:. I: o 1;. 6 N If» .% u§£8 43.2 9.3 7 :2 13: o 8 3 3 N t 1 1 6'__ __1L _96,8 3.1 O 9 N 7 17 8 J jLL 25.0 10 N 9 17 6 __1 28.1 53:; 1§,2 11 N 29 3 0 ,_J§ 90.6. 913 O 12 N 30 2 0 J 91.? a: 0____..... 13 N 23 7 2 _1 71.8 2 5,2 114, N 15 1 3 5 “M 43.7 9.3 42 TABLE h.3--Continued Has Has Is Some No Criterion Important Importance Importance N 13 15 n 15 x 80.6 116.8 12.5 16 N 7 15 16 % 21.8 #6.8 31.2 17 2 3:. .1. 3 18 N O 5; __§%1 87.5 12.5_ o 19 30 2 6 5 9 .7 6.2 0 2° 1% 37 g 3 lg . . .1 21 3° 2‘2 4 93.7 6.2 o 22 i6 8 18 o I; 1 23 "é 12 7. . 3% 37.5 534; 9,3 2g N 19 13 o __z__ 59.3 40.6. o 25 N 2b 7 1 __ZL1_ 7§l9 21:8 3-1 26 N 27 0 __§ 8%,3 15.6 o 1 o 27 __§ 33.8 3,11 0 28 5 o 3% 84.3 15.6 o N=32 The data from the returned rating forms werethen quanti- fied and.chi-square tests of homogeneity were conducted for each criterion at the .05 level of significance. The J- sample test of equality of proportions, (J2:2), is used for two-sample dichotomous situations, similar to the respondents 43 from A.S.T. and the 32 supervising teachers, and may be written in the following manner: HO : P1 = P2 = P0 1 H1 : P1 # P2 Therefore, if the computed chi-square value exceeded the value at the .05 level of significance, then it is indi- cated that the two groups were not from the same population and were seemingly not in agreement as to their reSponses on the criteria. Table #.4 shows the tabulation results with the significance levels. The critical value at the .05 level of significance, with two degrees of freedom, was 5.95, while with one degree of freedom the critical value was 3.8h. The two groups were not in agreement on criteria numbers two, three, five, six, thirteen, sixteen, and twenty. Summagy Hypothesis One was rejected because ppm; of the insti- tutions represented by the administrators who participated in the questionnaire study and the subsequent interview had "established criteria presently used for the selection of college supervisors of student teaching.I It was noted, however, that "some concurrence” was found in the agreement of the perceptions of the respondents to twenty of the twenty-eight criteria. 1w1111an L. Hays, Statistics, (New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1963), pp. $53-353. Hm.H o N on o : NFH NH ma. 0 m on 0 ma moa HH N». w 5H m, mm mm mm 0H nw.n m 5H n «N HOH mm m mm. o H an o n nsH m oa.m o o um _ m ea owe a .ma.ua . n ea ma mu eHH an e wme.e n me He an mm mm m «N. o n mm . o «a ewe e .nm.ma mm m H on nae am n woo.:: e we Ha n ow ans N no. N n . an n mm mad H fin. fine -ufl a... new. .2. h... an... 3...... no: oz elem oz elem huaesowOIom Essence upweosonuem mafia... Emma... ham...“ .B.m.< nhoumdonpflom .ahozoeoa wad-«5096 one unsousonwom co haaoaomonom no names onusumcane no cases couuasnsauue.e mgm