.I‘ Av.-- ‘ up . .55.“... Pqu‘. b-.- -I! 4 ['1 :9 . .9 . ‘ “'e F ‘735 .“‘“:-vse 5“: 0“ 0' ,l . ‘ Sutvol S."S:p~ :- ABSTRACT TEACHER EDUCATION AS AN INTEGRAL COMPONENT OF A SCHOOL SYSTEM: IMPACT ON THE BANGOR TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS BY Kenneth R. Wahl The purpose of this Study was to examine the impact upon a school system when the philOSOphy of the student teaching program is an integral part of the total school philosophy. In the study the opinions of supervising teachers, student teachers, and school administrators surveyed in the Student Teacher Impact Study} (1969) were compared with the opinions held by the supervising teachers, student teachers, and school administrators in the BEAM Student Teaching Program of the Bangor Township Public Schools. Central Michigan University and Bangor Township Schools'have develOped the BEAM Program.(§angor Education Affiliation Model) to give the student teachers and 1Committee of Deans and Directors, Impact of Stud- ent Teaching Program.upon the CooperatingPublic SchoOis in Michigan. . J g . ".n-y .D:~:~Iv- \nr-A :'..~.o l' "-5.... 6“.- n . . u- Luca-:O- A. wrh as '- .... udu-nbodu v.--»- o :z- .":':‘”.'.a .5: v‘h¢...-~-'..“ - I a ”2;" ';-’;,v in "a. -. ‘ \ \a. .“‘. a v- I u... ~-¢-.o b» .0. on I .’ av! i: ‘.:v P" F In:- ~_~‘ .v ' a '_"O 1-. ..,,.‘ 5-. n'. ‘I . § “" :hkna U. :‘~“* VbHV— . ‘ a:~.p' “ ~n "ill5. ‘ AO-NID It“:1 ‘F “. 00's-.. . activities The effeCt 51 use of 5320‘ 351% rs . The in In Ho:};, 5“. VQS‘~- I b....' M 1/0 0 Kenneth R. Wahl O) U Bangor Township Schools the greatest possible advantage in the education process. The key to this process is that each prospective teacher, each individual student, and each staff member be helped to deve10p to his fullest potential. The BEAM Program is designed for greater involve- ment of public school teachers and public school administra- tors in teacher education. It is hoped that the results of this study will help to extend such involvement to other school systems. Ten hypotheses were formulated and analysis of the data showed that all ten were supported by the data. These hypotheses dealt with: The effect student teachers had upon certain activities with students. The effect student teachers had on school activities in addition to classroom instruction. The effect student teachers had upon the perform- ance of supervising teachers and regular staff members. The investment which supervising teachers made in working with their student teachers. The use supervising teachers made of instructional materials, aids, or ideas provided by their student teacher. The amount of time supervising teachers took from their students because of the presence of a stud- ent teacher. The role which student teachers took on in the operation of the classroom. The help which the university coordinator provided. ‘ 9. --- C ~"“b-S .3: -~‘— .. r“ ‘ ‘- ,. 4 >00 ".'3 S. "-:n‘ y 5..-. n- ‘ a... . .. :;.. 9:: u-OOWO .v:':e:s ...erL-: _ :“F'aQO .. .F’- I. ~-- - - ' .0. -..- 00- I - Q 5:- ‘. ‘ I 1"" ‘2 alt-O cg-.- v.1-) s. «H» ' c 'o-.- ' ."‘ q. C‘“;v~-~----. a.- up. U‘~.. ..:‘.. I an ~- z.~ . . -: ‘.“" to V " 'u-.. ~x- N 'E‘e \u‘-¢«;3: N O .‘ u- ." SH 6..“ ‘.3a .U- ‘. ‘: :'- Pt» 7 -. ‘32s ~10 -- 5 o 5.35;: 5-- c.‘ oz... ‘s_" P - .‘ . ‘ * . r .- - ‘l .- A. “ u.) l V'. \: ::\H ‘ “'i M . Aayscr 18 ‘h "“n \ ‘- “Jr‘s “I5 of r». t.» $3.3 . s Q . D Clal t‘ "i. 3‘ ’.‘ . ‘.‘S h'- “ta‘ ‘ . “ C« 123+ b . ~ ‘ § 451*...~ ”1‘53“!- -U‘ TO"~_ c 'h a.~ .. Kenneth R. Wahl The subjects of the Study were 25 student teachers assigned by Central Michigan University during the fall semester of 1972, 23 supervising teachers to whom these student teachers were assigned, and six building principals. The survey instrument develOped for the teachers in the Impact Study was adapted for use in the BEAM survey. Res- ponses of supervising teachers, student teachers, and school administrators surveyed in the Student Teacher Im- pact Study were compared with those of the supervising teachers, student teachers, and school administrators in the BEAM Program.' The study showed that the hypotheses which were tested resulted in positive reactions to varying degrees. The positive results may be attributed to several factors. The main factor is the philosophy of the BEAM Program in which members of the Program believe that each child is a unique and special being who will develop to his own poten- tial at his own deve10pmental rate if given a prOper envir- onmental climate. This philosophy is part of the philOSOphy of the Bangor Township Schools. The BEAM Program is based upon the fact that per- sonal success is dependent upon people caring for people. The program calls for total involvement. Each person in the program has special talents and each must be given an Opportunity to develop these special talents in a team situation which will help to build an :‘n:q..3'e ly'.a'e 8)-. be "~".a'. o... ‘I n .1 hr .c. t on v u b... I C"A"U‘ .'~ 5 .- "'vb'. .n-i - - J v as Ov n . a :.":... H 34‘. 5 bUivn.‘ OI .- 0:».0-v. O‘Ia fir.’\0ro ."“" HI» bv'uv-P I I-'.“. ‘po ‘H': '. .— nabu pug .‘H O.‘ Kenneth R. Wahl atmosphere where each child can deve10p in his own way in his own time. Supervising teachers participate in on-going in- service education activities so that they may be able to reinforce the concepts which are developed in the seminars in which the student teachers must participate. '— waajmgl _ ”‘ n-‘: c . TEACHER EDUCATION AS AN INTEGRAL COMPONENT OF A SCHOOL SYSTEM: IMPACT ON THE BANGOR TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS By s ..;-< ‘h Kenneth R? Wahl A DISSERTATION Submitted to . Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1974 'V .1 n '7‘ ’ .". “.6 ‘ " 'f.;':.‘ A. y'— "nI-O-..'Ol "Q' "' 0 . u- _ A.....- n- .-.O on: L‘- . .U 'A ‘ c .. luse 53-59, ‘IDCQ~.‘-‘ .mn— . vi:.v.‘..':' t2ar... Na "- ‘ 41...: 3f 29:52: O 5 --\ ... ‘M-o‘-a.‘.. '. p “.9 Hrlte: 2'. ' \. ‘.:’ "V a. ... . U‘ ‘.‘l 3‘7: n .' a. .g 3-39 :r’fli‘j . "3‘ Q 57:, "PV'. u 'vlfind I.- Ivn . . . Coa:0‘(s is :v . x " "r I A 3' ad g&'.'& V C O‘ D.- ‘5': -~. 3125+ c s C‘ a I. .. -. .‘: ' . a“. .‘i d.‘ ’- ‘9dr‘: ‘I s.‘: e; M‘- Lul t‘» s MES I‘- '_ .w :C ‘ u‘~ all.. \* V? 518 g.- 1:23., 5" «rs. Hc‘r " a T. .‘: ‘ ACKNOWLEDGMENT S The writer gratefully acknowledges the help and cooperation given him by his committee in completing this project. The committee members are Dr. Charles Blackman, Dr. Louise Sause, Dr. James Anderson, and Dr. Arden Moon. I especially thank Dr. Blackman, committee chairman; he is the kind of person everyone would like to have as a commit- tee chairman. The writer is thankful for the time and encourage- ment that Mrs. Margaret Jones and Mrs. Elaine MacDonald gave to the project. They are two of the finest people he has ever worked with. Thanks is also due the writer's sons, Michael and Mark, who gave in many ways so that Dad could work on his thesis. Most of all, the writer's appreciation is extended to his wife, Mary, for keeping home a happy place during this time. This thesis is dedicated to the writer's mother, who has always encouraged him in all of his educational endeavors“ Her abiding love and support always helped in his achievements . ii "h. .. -.. '. ' - ' .'~_v -.a'-.. . O“ §‘.. 5 ‘1 on...-~U . . ?\--I n"- - , ' c.‘ - 00-.'~\'. hum-91A“ K . O UeC‘Slsw- ”3“ h at “38:: F. ‘ pdpilatm I... The QiE‘S‘ Bevel ‘5. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. II. III. IV. INT RODUG ION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The BEAM Program . . . . . . . . . . . . The Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . Overview of Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . Perceptual Differences between Professional Educators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Competencies Needed by Good Supervising Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Education for Supervising Teachers . . . . . Conferences between Supervising Teachers and Student Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . Education of Student Teacher . . . . . . . . Decision-Making in Teacher Education . . . . THE DESIGN 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 0 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . Deve10pment of the Survey Instrument Data Collection Procedures . . . . . Procedures for Treatment of Data . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . Population and Percent of Returns . . ReSponses of Student Teachers . . . . Responses of the Supervising Teachers Responses of Administrators . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Page 21 23 29 34 36 38 4O 40 41 42 47 47 SO 52 53 S4 59 65 192 'I-I... a I 0—.- I”. . c o o a... ' ‘ AI ‘n-l § W‘IQ u..--.a 0' :'-"3V" U‘. ‘g' g “‘0‘ ~:~ bv.1~.‘_. : J o p 5“. 4.. w n :E‘-*oc' 4 A --.o--.,_ '."‘ - A). . .“-OQL.‘- . O . . .. 1... “a“ h‘u..h'.b- .A -\ 9 "'A3. . . . """v- . , ofiuzh- _ . A o \“'H--. -' U..‘:..» .. R GAAPD' rl Ownb‘.-‘ .— \‘ . QQ‘ h-b-n‘.‘ :‘v: on... .. ‘ “v.., v— a": Chapter V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the Hypotheses . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . Implications for Further Research . . APPENDICES O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O A. Application for Cooperating in Bangor Education Affiliation Model, Bangor Township Schools . . . . . . . . . B. Student Teacher Questionnaire . . . . C. Teacher Questionnaire . . . . . . . . D. Administrator Questionnaire . . . . . BIBLIOGMPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iv Page 193 193 195 202 204 205 207 207 210 219 229 236 .. . ‘3 LII . «q.- I a. I» 9 O ( f 7 g“; 1“ q‘ '1'“ U; ._u o .3 s..‘a-. . s \‘w, ~th r‘ 1 '5'. V‘ I “treSe‘n. -1 hvrA‘ ‘b-\‘ "in. Y“. “J ‘I ‘IV | \ “a w. '5 .v'r 0‘ ‘ Cho4‘ 1 ' E LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Student teachers all-college grade point average. Scale: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=l, E=0 . . 55 2. Age of student teacher at beginning of student teaching contact . . . . . . . . . . 56 3. Number of times student teacher has taught, including current assignment . . . . . . . . S6 4. Reason why student teacher was assigned to a particular situation . . . . . . . . . . . 58 5. Years of teaching the supervising teacher had completed including the year in which the survey was taken . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 6. Current teaching assignment of supervising teaCher O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 61 7. Number of student teachers supervising teacher has worked with in past five years including current student teacher . . . . . . 62 8. Number of teacher training institutions represented by the student teachers with whom you have worked . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 9. Number of weeks student teacher was scheduled in assignment . . . . . . . . . . . 64 lO. Present administrative assignment . . . . . . 66 11. Years experience as a school administrator . 67 12. Administrators' years of experience in present building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 13. Number of teachers assigned to adminis- trator's building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 V O g. ,a 3‘ "00 4.. 6 Ou‘- | 0“- . O. O. a. 56'“ . ~- a -0. I n. ' I no. .§ 6. ‘5 v». ”n VG.— HI Av ‘. Q ‘O o O. 3. 0 Au ‘e In at. a. C 5 o. t .3 C h C r. S n 9. .3 O. .u Cu O» -. D. ‘5 H. S . .n r. . . .u c. u a.“ n. .. .5 a. .. e .5.“ .«q a. 4. a .7 5. .3 .u. 5. o. .. n. a» .. x an n. x .. 0» Ya 3. an. .0. us an. an. “I in nu~ a: ‘n . 2..." .3. Table Page 14. Number of years student teachers have been assigned to the building the administrator is presently assigned . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 15. Change in amount of small group instruc- tion O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 72 16. Individual attention to, or tutoring, of pupils O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 74 17. Extent student teacher worked with (i.e., instructed, counseled, tutored) individual pupils O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 76 18. Extent to which supervising teacher worked with individual pupils as compared to when he does not have a student teacher . . . . . 78 19. Extent of time supervising teacher spent giving help to individual students changed because of student teacher's presence . . . . 79 20. Effect student teachers had on the indivi- dual instruction or tutoring of pupils . . . 81 21. Supervision of study periods . . . . . . . . 83 22. Effect on provision for make-up work . . . . 84 23. Effect student teachers had on follow-up Of exalns O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 86 24. Effect student teachers had on discipline . 88 25. Effect student teachers had on the motiva- tion Of pupils O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 90 26. To what extent was individual help or counseling provided your pupils during non-class hours as compared to what would have been possible if you had not had a student teacher? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 27. The extent to which student teachers super- vised youth groups in meetings, programs, trips, tours, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 vi . ‘Ol 0.. l! 1“ :I03.. 9 A v 5-... .V ‘a‘ks :c ' vi .a p O Q "I“ O |-~ 0: .0135 Ea“ bra... .,. v.-bi. 5_ hall-ways, ‘O :a'a': v.5. .‘ ‘0- FSAOp‘A ~‘ h.\,v. 6 :‘ s‘a“ ' o 0 ‘1‘ ‘ -Uec feign assis; 2:1: because Cf :3: hOOect t}.e.‘ O... . swarms 1:: ‘. .1316 affc P C . staaESSICr ’ .n ‘esut of '1 ! \ l l as: , 9°: ”ac-r 0.1 r. Table Page 28. Extent to which student teachers gave talks to parent groups . . . . . . . . . . . 96 29. To what extent did student teachers con- tribute to the supervision of playgrounds, hallways, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 30. Overall quality of instruction as viewed by school administrators . . . . . . . . . . 99 31. Extent student teaching affords super- vising teacher added time for committee work in the school with pupils and/or staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 32. Added time the supervising teacher can assist principal or other teachers because of student teaching program . . . . . 103 33. Effect student teacher has on supervising teachers' visitations in other classrooms or SChOOIS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 105 34. Effect that the student teacher had on supervising teacher's time for research . . . 107 35. Time afforded supervising teachers for professional reading or writing as a result of student teaching program . . . . . 109 36. Effect working with a student teacher had on the performance of the supervising teaCher O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 110 37. Effect working with student teachers has had on the teaching performance of your supervising teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 138. Effect student teachers have had on the teaching performance of your teachers . . . . 113 339. Student teachers relieving regular staff by teaching for them . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 40. Student teachers relieving regular staff by chaperoning for them . . . . . . . . . . . 117 41. Student teachers relieving regular staff from supervision of lunch duty . . . . . . . 119 vii I‘. 1.. ' l 1E. .0“ 5-1 ‘I I'. i.. :O \fiaat O.- I-‘Uu—on- .- O’rh' 5.1“.3' OOOH i..-‘ c. '43—5 c; 'O“v00b .- raw ;. by... -__. I. O;OO a; .‘.. Vch- A O Q...- .._a ‘ "~‘~.L‘- ' q 0'. g __ U)I-Eout s. o o'.’ F F. Sb O. V€§m. . '5‘. {9‘33'33 . “:53: S: .; 3 1'. .~Je 84'9“ a4‘ :7“ ' \ NH“ O‘. h 1 \ Eh‘EPHO“ I‘ Jues w; ? ‘ M.‘ ”"1 tie SU“Q,_ a-Qn 1" r '1 val pvt. aging a‘ t Table 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51O 52. 53. 54. Student teachers relieving regular staff from supervision of playgrounds . . . . . . . Student teachers relieving regular staff so they may make visitations in other classrooms or schools . . . . . . . . . . . . Extent student teachers relieved regular staff permitting them to participate in committee work in the school . . . . . . . . Extent student teacher relieved regular staff permitting them to engage in research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Extent student teachers relieved regular staff penmitting regular staff time for professional reading or writing . . . . . . . Participation in supervising teacher seminars or other in-service activities dealing with student teaching while student teacher was teaching . . . . . . . . Time supervising teacher spent fulfilling social obligations resulting from student teacher's presence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Time supervising teacher spent preparing additional reports because of having a student teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect student teachers had on the average number of hours per week supervising teacher spent at school compared to when they did not have a student teacher . . . . . . . . . Time supervising teacher Spent holding telephone conversations or other confer— ences with their student teacher . . . . . . Time supervising teacher spent evaluating student teacher's progress or activities . . Time supervising teacher Spent planning with or for student teacher . . . . . . . . . Time supervising teacher spent making addi- tional preparations for teaching because of having a student teacher . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 120 122 124 126 127 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 143 II It. '3 '7. h . r- I.’ O ‘I-nuo A. . «Io-b HO O’cavw' 3‘ haw-aadas 4 "QVA . Suva-t 5%“ 4 9 O y! :aOEObags '. I u I Icu‘h ."F:.-.- '0... 5“... -Q A, '4‘0I6 ' .u l"-... T... ."_ '.I dame Sg~€‘ . O v‘h O u s.q‘£, ..‘. .“-. far 7.}:‘0 « c. < ‘40:... ‘ 93! teaCher S“. O“ n ‘ ":9". e: Table 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. Amount of new or different instructional materials student teachers introduced . . . Aids and ideas student teachers provided or suggested other than instructional materials O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Use supervising teachers made of instruc- tional materials, aids, or ideas student teachers developed, provided or suggested . Time supervising teacher Spent conferring with student teacher so she had less time for individual work with pupils . . . . . . Time supervising teacher spent planning with student teacher so she had less time for individual work with pupils . . . . . . To what extent was re-teaching necessary after student teacher taught . . . . . . . Amount of material covered changed because of student teacher's presence . . . . . . . Number of hours per week on the average student teachers taught assigned classes . Hours per week on the average supervising teacher was able to be away from classroom while student teacher taught assigned classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To what extent was the time supervising teacher spent teaching changed because of student teacher's presence? . . . . . . . . To what extent was the time supervising teacher spent lesson planning changed because of student teacher's presence? . . To what extent was the time supervising teachers spent paper grading changed because of student teacher's presence? . . Help university coordinator provided . . . Number of times the university coordinator of student teachers visited your school during the student teaching contact . . . . ix Page 146 148 149 152 154 155 157 160 162 164 166 167 169 171 Q. .' 335 the '.'..' O 'pA-i I o to '6‘ H. . a :8in b'L‘ 1’: what an; ’ a AO (.,.‘a'. Vb usua-.._ 1511323! 6. ‘52“3‘3v N OBU'..‘. . v . '0 ‘ '9 O..- F " II P -'.U i...- o ‘ n .‘.' fl he. V439. “I I 51.9“ ‘1‘ i "’“ 5v AK..." AL... - “"5. S -. . | ‘ . 5~-:e::t tec MIA ' Q tuna-e. :e.: h Table 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. Page Has the university coordinator been helpful to you with any matters not directly con- cerned with student teaching? . . . . . . . . 173 To what extent has the university coordinator of student teachers been available to admin- istrator and staff during the student teacher contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Help university coordinator provided as viewed by student teachers . . . . . . . . . 177 Extent to which supervising teacher and/or other school personnel were helpful to student teachers on matters not directly concerned with student teaching . . . . . . . 179 Would you accept a teaching position if offered for next year in the building or sys- tem in which you did your student teaching? . 180 Attitude of the administrators and teachers in the school to which you were assigned in terms of student teachers, as viewed by student teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Attitude of administrators and teachers about working with student teachers . . . . . 183 Would student teacher and supervising teacher accept or recommend a student teaching situation under the same general circumr stances? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Extent supervising teachers encouraged stud- ent teachers to have a variety of experiences outside the assigned classroom . . . . . . . 187 Effect student teachers had on overall quality of instruction . . . . . . . . . . . 188 What is the optimum number of student teachers you can accommodate in your building each year . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 .Maximum number of student teachers a super- vising teacher should have in one year as viewed by administrators . . . . . . . . . . 191 X CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Need Teacher education needs much more than a tink- ering job. What is called for is a re-examination of the problem in the light of our changing social needs and purposes on the one hand, and our new understandings about human behavior and learning on the other. 1 Arthur W. Combs The complexity of today's world necessitates the development of highly qualified teachers. The accelerated rate of change in mass media, the Speed of communication, the increase in the production of goods and services, have brought about a change in our way of life. Along with these changes are problems in our involvement in Asia, problems in world economy, and the ever increasing drug problems and crime rates. These changes and problems have brought about a change in the way different pe0ple cope with life. As a result, young peOple come to school with many different experience backgrounds. A teacher education program is demanded which will produce skilled teachers 1Arthur W. Combs, The Professional Education of Teachers (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965). u.. on Ova-7;- A - . I -o- W .va':OI. I ‘ ' 5“”.1' Out-Ova.-. O. . . .M .14. I. 5..-- ‘0 o. ‘ L' ~ .— .... ...-.e . 5- ;. :::‘ ’0-"O a. a...‘ 5-.-- O I.. ‘ . ‘ ~‘ :Ro. 3. 3“ s. ‘5.-_‘ .‘~ u... :éz" .g' ‘0 "\...e . ‘9 re ‘- :3 ‘u . we ‘ at“ “‘-21 I". ~‘ . “ \ 'h‘n/qh *u‘cvl -\"s_ . \.:3 f3 "-5 0: s a y. “9 s+~ ,: 'L .‘ $‘A‘ ‘vJ,,° . NI l‘O’JO‘ " 'L i ‘E“‘s .“ 4 ‘ anJO-‘i‘. ‘ ‘VEF‘Q H .5": “ SGH’Q \‘ .tth ‘o V\ “-DC: able to program to meet the needs Of today's young people. There appears to be little doubt that teacher education needs to be different from what it has been. Teacher education institutions need to take a care- ful look at their teacher preparation programs. It appears that there is some agreement among these institutions that at least a portion of teacher preparation should be placed in an actual laboratory classroom setting. Teacher educa- tion means more than gathering information and listening to experts telling how to teach. Teacher education must provide the student teacher with Opportunities for commitment and close involvement with students in the classroom. Combs says that students in a professional program should be involved as actors, not simply as spectators. They must feel a part of the process in which they are involved.2 Most teacher education programs reflect a commit- ment to the idea that teachers-to-be need to be involved with children. This is done through observations and limited forms of participation. The student teacher should be given the Opportunity to become involved in all kinds of settings. He should become involved with other classrooms and other teachers, special service peOple, and with fellow students. The cooperating teacher and the student teacher should share 2Ibid., p. 50. n— “A PH tra- ~— 0 t a .,O0;pfi ‘Ar I u I- I.-nb.ot’ be. 8 "‘3. ‘OFA'.~.'¢ . ‘0'.“ vu- b. ...1.. ‘ an “OI-Ha,- A.. .- .O'.o '4 . 0, V‘- on. ;‘6= ‘35 .55. ‘ ""' .“b .9 5 .0: 33:95 3. '- ...E "‘“':I-: U .‘V:O*~ O “f." ‘."$“"‘ F. bu g: I 'h' . O .‘A . I . I."~ 01". Is ‘ a I‘ Or. I ‘ ‘a'°n ‘ . On... 3“-" ‘ " cw. 4 h..- A :--.I | Oh. - HA :“ 8‘80! at: ‘ .'.,.,;. In . “'.‘Ouc’ “I: a O 6“; ‘ i. ‘5 a mg." 0" "O\\ ' 0.0“.e tazfi‘ha‘ "bta~‘ 311;... - "’ be as ce' :29 t'nk . .3“t dlrc in planning for the class. The student teacher must be given Opportunities to become involved with the excitement of trying out new ideas, and finally the day arrives when he does the total planning and takes over the classroom. James B. Conant says, The programs in many institutions seem to have been develOped not by careful consideration of a group but by a process that might be called aca- demic log-rolling. (I am not unfamiliar with the bargaining between departments when it comes to dividing up a student's time.) In any event, one finds a complete lack of agreement on what consti- tutes a satisfactory general education program for future teachers. Teacher education is presently in a state of flux. Many educators as well as lay peOple feel a need for change. If society is ready for a change in teacher education, let society be as certain as possible that they are changing in the right direction. The BEAM Program Central Michigan University and the Bangor Township Schools have developed the BEAM Program. The term BEAM is an acronym for Bangor Education Affiliation Model. This program is designed for greater involvement of public school administrators in teacher education. Students who 3James B. Conant, The Education of the American Teacher (New York: McGraw Hill, 1963), p. 209. *‘L I .1...- 7‘, . 1 .— _.I‘A.I.'. ' . v... ‘I .A' ..e Lu. C. .V. .“ . a . p ' '9... I- O" “A :- h . ..~u.- >5 v ‘. O ..'.0.- ' 7 7 . n“v-.;U l“ 80‘ .u 6::nnayt F37” In. .vdhl-bu H‘- e :0 ‘I‘IO ‘::~L‘ pm .. -.-u-..L Lyuvo-go-U - 2“. Ivnoz‘ '0': ~00. 'VIIbCO.IH‘ ’ I”: “ cw .I'OO we 1.... a. - :': .OA F .ln'. .‘ “a 7". no ‘ va aye‘.a‘ E .f: ‘f‘ a ‘ L. "" ' Ml 5022:: “Av( u “4‘ o'q.‘ ' «1‘ M» ‘ U . i'N-t \.' tag’ SCEC' '.I 2‘ . . MN Obwt to Swap l ‘ “‘ ._ m: b nmdlcasn.‘ n ‘ r: 0". Kif‘n tug Chlldr . s 5:; s.‘ e.‘eS. Rh O '1 «e StUdc {3: ‘b sign up for the BEAM Program spend sixteen weeks in Bangor Township Schools. The BEAM student teachers become TOTALLY INVOLVED in all facets of the school Operation. BEAM stud- ent teachers participate in the following activities: two student teaching classroom experiences which may include self contained, activity centered, Open areas, upper level, lower level classrooms and middle school classrooms: two types of visitations--an initial one with special service personnel and an extended visitation with a choice of two or three special service personnel with whom they would like to spend more time. The special service people who work out of the Board of Education building are the reading and speech con- sultant, school social worker, and diagnostician. These service peOple test individual students, interpret the tests, diagnose problems, write prescriptions to remediate problems, evaluate, and do follow-up work. Other service people with whom the student teachers may elect to spend time are the school counselors, teachers of the handicapped--such as blind children, deaf and hard- Of-hearing children, and children who have learning dis- abilities. The student teacher coordinator holds weekly sem- inars with the student teachers. These seminars serve as a bridge between practicum and theory. The seminars involve the students in behavioral objective planning and the ovvyvao~avs ' an... IO‘OOVOC C. O 73 3:5. 59:1: 3: '3‘,” mavi- .- 1 l.‘ .0 “JO“.JA— « q. .. ‘ , A. late S‘s-n29. l:.. A‘ 8‘“ OA‘-‘ {at J. “.e 5VOG. k. 3:315 in. ":- —u.'o:s actlr.: : I . 7": S“ 0-... teszIOa's n.- ‘H-‘. .‘l'.' o. o- 1 -~-~-3e 26.3t9i incorporation of the unit methods of teaching in the class- room and seminar experience. In addition, the student teacher coordinator holds other seminars on pertinent top- ics. The student teacher is encouraged to be an integral part of the total school system. An advisory board has been active since the origin- ation of the BEAM Program. The function of this committee includes acting as a sounding board and as mediators for student teachers and COOperating teachers, handling corres- pondence related to the program, and establishing visita- tion schedules. General planning for and evaluation of the total efforts of all facets of the BEAM Program are also services performed by the advisory board. The cooperating teachers in BEAM are active parti- cipants in the Program's philosophy of TOTAL INVOLVEMENT. All cooperating teachers have participated in the same sem- inars and training programs that are provided for the stud- ent teachers, thus assuring continuity between practical and theoretical experiences. COOperating teachers meet in weekly seminars for planning, studying, evaluating effec- tiveness of their combined efforts, sharing professional skills, and acting as leaders in in-service education for fellow professionals. Great care is given in the selection of supervis- ing teachers. An application form is given to teachers who are interested in BEAM. It is completed and turned in .. at; :I“i:flnv a: hat on. Ouvg.‘ my; HI 0L5. h. t uh... . y‘abuo I. "‘9‘. OR 41....-— "~‘ I8 Joauiu- .oo ~a:..s 3:0 """uv .. .5...;;,‘ ‘V . a H h." §q.l..“..: ~' o .':' “:9 n‘ 5 L ‘...-‘.. d. ...p ‘v . vl‘ "- neat tr- 1."!- k‘ub:s. s‘zch a 7" maths advisory board. A general meeting of the advisory board is then held with all applicants and the advisory board to discuss the BEAM Program and answer any questions. Applicants who are still interested are then interviewed individually by the advisory board and Dr. Allan Quick, Chainman of the Department of Student Teaching, Central Michigan University, and as many as can be accommodated are then selected from this group. People who become supervising teachers in the BEAM Program treat the appointment as very serious professional business. Supervising teachers in BEAM also offer their services to other classroom teachers who are not in BEAM. This is done in two major ways: First, the supervising teacher offers to take regular teachers' classrooms while these teachers attend some of the in-service programs: secondly, various supervising teachers Offer a variety of in-service programs. The supervising teacher's classes are taken over by the student teacher during these times. The Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the Bangor Township School System to determine the impact which the BEAM Student Teaching Program had upon the total system when the philOSOphy of the student teaching program is a part of the total school philOSOphy. Central to the BEAM Program are the following: -_>- q__‘ _. .h Total commitment and total involvement of student teachers in all facets of a school situation is furthered. The central philosophy is one of peOple believing in and helping peOple develop to their fullest potential. A close relationship exists between the public school and the teacher education institution. Hypotheses The main point to be tested in this study is to see if a closer relationship, caused by greater involvement of school teachers, student teachers and school administrators in COOperation with teacher education institutions make for a more positive student teaching situation. This was done by comparing the views held by student teachers, supervising teachers, and school administrators surveyed in the Student Teaching Impact Study with the views held by supervising teachers, student teachers, and school administrators in the BEAM Program. The following hypotheses were tested: The presence of student teachers is perceived to have a more positive effect upon certain instruc- tional activities for pupils in the BEAM Program than it had in the Impact Study. The presence of student teachers is perceived to have a more positive effect on school activities in addition to classroom instruction in the BEAM Program than it had in the Impact Study. V9.— Jh-‘I I 2. c. .Z'C v.- €337. p e. .3 .a an CU “ Vs. .n. ‘I Am.» Pa .2 a: u A \_:‘ ‘ Dyan.- ev' o in. 3. The presence of student teachers is perceived to enhance the performance of supervising teachers more in the BEAM Program than supervising teachers in the Impact Study. 4. The presence of student teachers is perceived to enhance the performance of regular staff in the BEAM Program more than regular staff in the Impact Study. 5. BEAM supervising teachers are perceived to have made a greater investment in working with their student teachers and in attending functions related to student teaching than supervising teachers in the Impact Study. 6. BEAM supervising teachers are perceived to have used instructional materials, aids or ideas provided by their student teachers more than supervising teachers in the Impact Study. 7. BEAM supervising teachers are perceived to have taken less time from their students because of having a student teacher than supervising teachers in the Impact Study. 8. BEAM student teachers are perceived to have taken on a greater role in the Operation of the class- room than student teachers in the Impact Study. 9. The university coordinator is perceived as being more helpful in the BEAM Program than in the Impact Study. 10. The presence of student teachers is perceived to be more positive in schools which had the BEAM Program than is reported in the Impact Study. Limitations of the Study Information gathered in the Impact Study represented responses of student teachers, supervising teachers, and principals, who worked together during the fall quarter or semester of 1969. Information gathered in the BEAM study represented reSponseS of student teachers, supervising l1‘r‘~’ -d.§7 3’ c O F u-OOV: )0. u ;:—:.OI Batu! ‘ n ‘ ‘ fi‘. :.."‘H g a p.333“. Oa‘ but- I. .- :..a~. "‘f‘ 0.. use... Univ.‘ . '4~.,,- I. u \ .' ave ‘ 3 ' "- 2': "" \w'.‘ o::";' van' _. “on... UO"‘* 3 o ... u ‘ i ‘ O, n. I - “HA-o News. .“““"‘:a O o s s:."=:l- OI:‘ .H‘ ‘ .- ubet 545‘. “a .0- H v a ..“UhI-.3:‘ 47-”. ‘ .~.-'u=~: A H A . ‘U J. “a r a ~‘r . .‘A “‘"h‘ A” ‘ "‘4“ C ‘hL ca“- “ntft \ ' the E h s '\ ’ btficdgn S‘E ~$3,121!!- . C'O‘tslng ‘ .2 -. “E C u ~i~|e graqc‘ “ 2‘. .. ., teachers, and principals who worked together during the fall semester of 1972. The time lapse between the information gathered in the Student Teacher Impact Study of 1969 and the information gathered in the BEAM survey taken in 1972 may have a limit- ing effect upon differences in the responses than if both surveys were taken in the same year, because the student teacher programs which were surveyed in 1969 may have made Similar changes to those described in the BEAM Program between that date and 1972. Information gathered in the Impact Study represented reSponses of people working in kindergarten through twelve. Information gathered in the BEAM Study represented responses of peOple working in kindergarten through eight. Slightly less than forty percent of the supervising teachers in the BEAM Program were assigned to grades kinder- garten through second and approximately eighteen percent of the supervising teachers in the Impact Study were assigned to the same grades. Many educators believe that early elementary teachers tend to be more child-oriented. The BEAM philosophy is a part of the Bangor Town- ship Schools' philosophy and therefore results may appear more positive. The fact that the superintendent Of the Bangor Township Schools is the director of the BEAM Program and is one of the key persons contributing to the philosophy ‘fffi7 " “wk 9 Li . , - 9 'FR':- 0 O. H ‘ at! DOC n:v‘un~'3 D a: 1'“ .gb.:-ma- one» '0. 1... . In no. up”. O‘D- V ~; .1...“ 5 DE . b ‘— ‘ O I Q -IDO Ob..- OR‘: F Irv-4 -a. -v.“ ‘ o “0‘ -H" “V r t "':o H ‘O ~~= 5:: FL PI‘A p \§.=‘ L . 4a; 5““.7 .51., s.‘.' O '0 . .. ‘ Noe 3+.‘.‘" 5“! . O ”h-_‘_ “‘3... pov- ‘ ~‘ I'- "s: ML '8 O ‘A'e 313:.- 4 ‘~n‘ .5 \d ..\‘ ‘v ' \ ~‘5'A-O“ .“: VA“ H‘V e; are o ‘a 5‘ 2‘1‘ V e ’ s C‘.‘ A «Q:- J WE: 10 of the Program may have influenced the responses of some of the participants. There was a small margin of error in some of the percentages in the Impact Study. This was caused by calcu- lating the percentages on the individual questions based upon the total number of respondents rather than on the total number of respondents to that particular question; less in some cases because some peOple who responded did not reSpond to the question. Overview Of Thesis This study will be organized into five chapters. Chapter I is the introductory chapter. There the writer has shown a need for the study, the purposes of the study, stated the hypotheses, and given some limitations of the study. Chapter II gives a review of the relevant litera- ture. The yearbooks of the Association for Student Teach- ing, texts, and professional journals relating to teacher preparation are reviewed. In Chapter III, descriptions are given including the population, the instrument used to collect the data, data collection procedures, and procedures for treatment of data. In Chapter IV, findings are presented relative to ‘the hypotheses stated in Chapter I. An analysis is given . - u .3 0-D RRszvac " u out. O ”Oiobbvocu I '---.. 2.4.. .4 , "I‘vb UOII‘ AIU \ ‘ O 3' ”‘Fgron‘ . O. ‘66 inc...- . o u ’ '.t '3"; ”‘0'. .33-, thuog. . .N ‘ E v ‘ a I. x... :" 't—ovdl 11 of the comparisons found in the questionnaires between the Impact Study and the BEAM Study. In Chapter V, an overall summary of conclusions, together with recommendations for further research, is pre- sented. ‘n 'I d‘ C “I“: V ‘ ‘ ‘A 5' Secessarg .- V316 we 1179 ‘b F‘ ' . ;:-_-cat;on has 1‘. good hard lcsk ' ‘. ‘2 \‘: “13:13 have t. «mg a trun ‘ :5“ a ‘ Np e"Per; “E EAL 9st}. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE After years of taking it for granted, we have suddenly discovered that education is absolute- ly necessary for our way of life. To keep the world we live in running requires the production of intelligent peOple in ever-increasing numbers. Education has become essential to survival! As a consequence, peOple everywhere are taking a good hard look at our public schools to find out if they truly meet our needs.1 There can be little doubt that the student teaching experience is one of the most important, if not the most important experience in the initial preparation of teachers. Before being given complete control of a classroom, a teacher should have opportunities under close supervision to actually teach in the classroom. Teacher education institutions have been assigning prosPective teachers with- out having a true partnership with local schools. By true partnership experience the writer means one in which both the school and the institution have a direct input into each other's philOSOphy and have some say in the make-up and controls of the program. 1Arthur W. Combs, The Professional Education of geachers (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Tic. , I965T. 12 hizatever 5'- ;c T: assure a c V Essential to p: ., :. . s “e “75 $52—31 the.- ‘h‘ llzeteenth Cent is man as St: a“Pietzsn of a 363“"; 13 Whatever we do in education depends upon good teach- ing. To assure a continuance of good teaching practices it is essential to provide the kind of student teaching experi- ence that will perpetuate the best in teaching. If the survival of good teaching depends upon the kinds of student teacher education programs we Operate, it becomes necessary to review the history of the use of student teachers in training programs. Although one may be unable to find sources which record the first use of student teachers it can be assumed that the concept develOped prior to the nineteenth century. It is also apparent that what is known as student teaching today developed as an adaptation of a practice which has existed for centuries, the practice of the beginner working with the master to develOp and to prove his ability. The major uses of student teaching, however, did not occur until the Pestallozzian methods of teach- ing were accepted. The methods introduced by Pesta— lozzi required more skillful teaching, hence the develOpment of student teaching.2 While we may associate the first major development of student teaching with the model or practice, school which was a part of the normal school, it did not remain long within these limited facil- ities. Records indicate that attempts were made as early as 1873 to use public schools for the provision of the experience of student teaching. It may be that the first use of the public schools dates even earlier than this because the thirty- seventh annual report of the Secretary of the Board of Education in Massachusetts indicates that these schools were being utilized for practical training. It is evident from the reading of the minutes of this body that when a normal school was developed a school or schools in the commun- ity became the laboratory for the work of those 2V. L. Mangum, The American Normal School: Its Rise and Development in Massachusetts (Baltimore: Warwick and—York, Inc., 1928), p. 386. 14 preparing to teach. In fact in 1894 the state of Massachusetts required each community in which a normal school was to be located to assure the State Board of Education that facilities would be provided for practice schools.3 The traditional view of student teacher placement and supervision has become one in which the student has been assigned by a college to a supervising teacher; assign- ments appeared to be just doled out. Sometimes the assign- ment was given to a "good" teacher, sometimes it was given on a rotation basis, or it might be made because of an over- load situation and the teacher might be given some remuner- ation for the additional duty. Unless there was a serious problem, the student began the assignment by being assigned to a period of observation of the supervising teacher in the classroom. The observation might be followed by teach- ing one subject area or working with a small group such as the so-called "slow" readers. He or she was finally per- mitted to take over the class. However, at no time did the teacher relinquish authority. The supervising teacher was content to let the student grow without too much attention. There was little time spent on daily planning on a shared basis or instruction as in a team situation. Most colleges no longer use this system of placing student teachers. 3Association for Student Teaching, ”Professional Growth In Service of the Supervising Teacher,” Fort -Fifth Year Book (Columbia University, New York, 1966), pp. - . _\ I111: 53:3..1 "' " char: mi 5:: 0 bd I f:: acre aid r 3336 kZC'I'T. C: . AQAh ' ~‘|.A . =3-me. Euuyg_ ‘ - -"a.fl ‘.'f\“~h “"i“‘ 50.bvul<. ‘ ‘ N“ P7 '0. 4. 5.....81 “0...... . .‘.I' ‘n' “’3 “" ‘Vh a..u C r- ‘ Q 5" c-go'h :‘ ..3. “Nb“, ._ OI: .yn.4 "A A ‘ N . _ bu» Aub.ou .‘ ‘. ”pugs: ?-3ur.... ‘ o.--u-- _“‘¥‘- - M u.q~,:..~“ P: ‘ "“U-.uh Ls I .A' ~“'A . o" a a“ .‘H'I. (I! :6 "'AH ~k* d ““4" H5 3;“ 4‘ V ‘3... L Qua: fittEI SAL 5‘. :5. 3‘ U.“ ._ ‘ ' ‘1' .AE. ”ta v ~ . .6: , 1., ,_ ““' Inf/five. . n ‘ ‘ VQ ‘a .3R‘ ~Ea»:ers Ck : v‘ .- o.“ I.“ EY'CH IL‘. whe its I)“ re St 15 Within school systems, administrators and COOperat- ing teachers look to the colleges and universities for more and more active participation in what has become known as the laboratory or clinical phase of teacher education. COOperative teaching centers formed through efforts of schools and college per- sonnel provide a structure to maximize responsibi- lity for and participation with prospective teach- ers. Smith, E. Brooks, Promises and Pit Falls in the Trend Toward Collaboration. Partnership in Teacher Education. Washington, D.C. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and for Student Teaching. 1968, p. 28. If education is so essential to the survival of our way of life it is imperative that we take a long hard look at our teacher education practices. Some of the improvements we seek in education can be brought about by spending more money, by build- ing better schools, by introducing new courses of study, new standards or new equipment. But the really important changes will only come about as teachers change. Dorothy M. McGeoch, Editor of Yearbooks, Teachers College, Columbia University, says, Even where student teaching retains something like its present form, it is likely that the public schools, supported by federal funds, will assume increased reSponsibility for the induction of new members into the profession. Whatever the Specific arrangement or title used, there will be need for professionally prepared teachegs to work closely with beginners in the schools. 4James E. Kerber and Donald W. Protheroe, ”Guiding Student Teaching EXperiences in a COOperative Structure,” Association of Teacher Educators Bulletin 33 (Washington, D.C., 15737. 5Combs, op. cit., p. v. 6Dorothy M. McGeoch, ed., Forty—Fifth Yearbook, Association for Student Teaching (New York: Columbia Univer- sity, 1966), p. x. on» .OBus‘ :pers ta be 52:9 on; on. ‘ ‘ I ": hf: we e/J'ucate ’. AL- . _. ” °' ed . . “"' than.... '32. h‘» .u'. is call. I; A: . 'Hinh a! Altkh 33:5 h: vs the la“ ..\“‘“1 H v A e w . . 111 ‘53s. . 16 The writer concludes from the readings that there appears to be some agreement that changes must be made in the way we educate students to be teachers. Combs says that teacher education needs more than just a tinkering job. What is called for is a re-examination of the prob- lem in the light of our changing social needs and purposes on the one hand, and our new understandings about human behavior and learning on the other. A modern philosophical- psychological base is needed on which to base our thinking and experimentation. Fortunately, it seems to be at hand.‘7 Combs goes on to say that whatever we do in teacher education must depend on our having some idea of the nature of good teaching. To plan effective programs we need the very best definition of good teaching we can get. How to arrive at such definitions, however, has proven a most difficult prob1em.8 Consensus about what constitutes good teaching has not been attained. Practitioners, theorists and research- ers continue to search for an acceptable definition of good teaching. Although the competent supervising teacher is aware of the lack of agreement as to the components of good teaching he will continuously attempt to increase his 'understanding of good teaching and the traits, 7Combs, 02. cit., p. vi. 81bid., p. 1. «a A :I-OVI .13::r.3 §acs ' ’ I ‘ u. ‘3”""‘ ‘F ‘ v '2 ""::\‘ -...S k '- Q o , . . In;v: -:.e "FA” 0“... ‘.u d v“ 4 .. I ‘ ., q.- _ ' I 0'05. g 593‘ 9'. A a-.. o n "5: " Va”. .' \... .0- \ a ‘ "" ‘c - l .. an; , dI h. , ‘Q ”an I . ‘N‘E‘Qp In ‘9; t \‘ N's-:- h‘ ; N s o' “dc h a.” . persons ‘\ “‘3‘ K“ ‘ ‘ “'8 Vin Sn.‘ Q‘.‘ ' (I‘D :1 I, 1‘11“ (‘1’: ‘ I r . i () H 1: H- H H "' ‘0 da . 7’3 nee; y, a: 13.9 “ “5 Of 1. =-.: ”‘rpOS “‘ ma .93 1* 1? characteristics, and behaviors which comprise it.9 A review of the literature on supervising teachers has caused this writer to conclude that not all good teachers made good supervising teachers; however, all good supervising teachers should be good teachers. Combs says that a good teacher is primarily a unique personality with certain qualities which contribute to effective teaching. However, he says, "A good teacher is first and foremost 'a person,‘ and this fact is the most important and determining thing about him.u10 Some of the literature on teacher education programs talks about particular, measurable, competencies which we must develOp in teachers, and that all teachers must have these basic competencies. Combs goes on to say, Teacher education programs must concern themselves with persons rather than competencies. It means that the individualization of instruction we have sought for the public schools must be applied to these programs as well. It calls for the produc- tion of creative individuals, capable of shifting and changing to meet the demands and Opportunities afforded in daily tasks. Such a teacher will not behave in a set way. His behavior will change from moment to moment, from day to day, adjusting continually and smoothly to the needs of his students, the situations he is in, the purposes he seeks to fulfill, and the methods and materials at his command. 9Association for Student Teaching, FortyrFifth Year- BOOk' OE. Cit. ' Pp. 72-730 10Combs, op. cit., p. 6. 11xbid., p. 9. \ 4CI A.b .o. um. q \ c. a. . . .. z. . . I . 3‘ p a “H .n m” . n . q. "a .H a ~ . A o 2 o p. . . ”a“ x S. .f I S E .u '9 ..Ab q d s: ab Va TA Fr 6. aKS'a -0. t 4 a - ~ 3 c 2 P .. h h.“ 0' .1 AU a» .n 2. l S v T. .3. t; 1 \w— 5: .‘.¢ nan a a.» t 3.1 a .3 C .~\ NV Q\ 5. 9 2r. .. . I 0 5 .1 r. : : .e w. : L .1... a. S O" ““4 .l 18 The above quote from Combs raises the questions: 1. Do we want supervising teachers to develop specific competencies in student teachers? 2. Do we want supervising teachers to see their role in teacher education as develOping a student centered curriculum for student teach- ers as we would hope these student teachers would someday do in their own classrooms? 3. Do supervising teachers need to be concerned about the self concepts student teachers are develOping? 4. How do we best nurture creativity in a human being? 5. Do supervising teachers need to be sensitive of others? 6. Is a good teacher a scholar or a professional practitioner? In answer to these questions, the writer again refers to some quotes from Combs: The task of the teacher is not one of prescribing, making, molding, forcing, coercing, coaxing, or cajoling; it is one of ministering to a process already in being. The role required of the teacher is that of facilitator, encourager, helperé assist- er, colleague and friend of his students. Combs would have supervising teachers put less impor- tance on authority, proof and evidence but encourage their student teachers to do their own looking, discovering and thinking about professional problems.13 In terms of one's self Combs says that any item of information will affect an individual's behavior only in 12Ibid., p. 16 13Ibid., pp. 37-38 19 the degree to which he has discovered its personal meaning for him. The production of effective teachers will require helping each student to explore and discover his personal meaning about subject matter, peOple, purposes, and learn- ing about methods and about himself.14 In terms of sensitivity, Combs says the teacher education program must develOp this in its students. Combs says that sensitivity is a matter of feelings, beliefs, understandings, the ability to put oneself in the other fellow's shoes and to see the way things are with him.15 Charles Silberman reflects much the same feelings about sensitivity and humanness in teacher education. He quotes from Philip W. Jackson, Our most pressing educational problem is learning how to create and maintain a human environment in our schools. Technological aids--filmstrips, pro- grammed instruction, instructional television-~may help in the process, but they will not substitute for a firm sense of direction and a commitment to the preservation of human values.16 Silberman goes on to say that we must make sure that teachers are equipped with a firm sense of direction and a commitment to the preservation and enlargement of 14Ibid., p. 28. 151bid., p. 64. 16Philip W. Jackson, The Teacher and the Machine (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh'Press, £1968) quoted in Charles E. Silberman, Crisis in the Class- Inaom (New York: Random.House, 1970), p. 573. Q .03 iii: VLSES, 3.... :D... 4: '- ::...—C.;t an. 59.. I t 6' O m m D in b 1 w o l? ‘ 9 1' (h (T c? ’f‘ ‘V‘ a. ‘H “‘5 my; ‘.‘ -.. 5' . a .18 StJCEI‘. ~.‘ -‘Hv '_ ' Q! 5:93:25 a; .'.:. . ‘ rrepareg ~ 3: .“rn T r vu‘ezs ' .;~ “ 20 human values, and that they should be able to transmit that commitment and sense of direction to their students.17 Teachers are practitioners. Their concern is with the dissemination, application and use of informa- tion. It is to be hOped they might be scholars too, but not in the same sense as one would expect of 18 the student preparing to spend his life in research. Robert Schaefer, in The School as the Center of Inquipy, speaks about the teacher as a scholar. He says that the present state of knowledge about teaching and learning is such that the teacher who would live rationally must be a competent scholar of teaching and learning. He must be prepared to create and test out solutions to educa- tional problems, to create and study, and to research,if necessary,curriculum materials prepared by other peOple.19 He puts further emphasis on scholarship saying that we cannot ”Wind the teacher up like an old victrola and h0pe that he will play sweet cerebral music forever.” Con— tinuous scholarship renews him and adds to his knowledge about education. He masters a range of teaching strategies derived from different views of learning and more important, controls techniques for developing new ones.20 17Charles E. Silberman, Crisis in the Classroom, (New York: Random House, 1970), p. 574} 18Combs, op. cit., p. 48. 19Robert Schaefer, ”The School as the Center of In- quiry,“ Perspectives for Reform in Teacher Education (New York, 1971 ' p. 80 2°Ibid.. pp. 12-13 a a- v" "I ’I '4 ..--. ..7. Q ‘l 1:~ un1$ ‘. “-ouow but 6"(i'c "- o ‘::Qba' ‘- . y 4 on ‘ "V ~‘ ' 0“. ‘V‘ .“ 3‘ ‘ V rcflh -- A g I W»...“:h 0.... . H ' “‘ I 4 E... \OI 5'.‘ ‘ \“.f . i.ug’ CQ’K‘ “’C ‘ ‘a ‘L :I ‘ ‘- h ‘ k ‘ tonne“ 4 qtl xifl‘. “a ~36 . \‘ aceh“ idate q :il'.‘ N ' 'h 21 Perceptual Differences Between Professional Educators The University of Florida has investigated the per- ceptual differences between good and poor professional workers in teaching, counseling, and the ministry. Internal-External Frame of Reference: The good teacher seems sensitive to and concerned with how things seem to others with whom he interacts and uses this as a basis for his own behavior. People-Things Orientation: The good teacher is concerned with peOple and their reactions rather than with things and events. Meanings-Facts Orientation: The good teacher is more concerned with the perceptual experiences of humans than with the objective events. He is sensitive to how things seem to people rather than being exclusively con- cerned with concrete events. Immediate-Historical Causation: The good teacher seeks the causes of peOple's behavior in their current thinking, feelings, beliefs, and understandings, rather than in objective descriptions of the forces exerted upon them now or in the past. Able-Unable: The good teacher sees others as being able to deal with their problems. He believes they can find adequate solutions. He does not doubt the capacity of peOple to handle themselves and their lives. . I . . 5 Cy .I . E . 3. a a“ .«w “a r a .3 .u . .. n“ r . n . r .n . a? a” on .hu 1 3. v. a d a. an 5. e H.” a» “.8 my T. 9a .FU .u. b. e a u. _ A... Cu n1. 1|; {Q I 3a k i a "I 5 S I C. .3 Au a“ 1. a a. a. o . a» b a“ .2 an. . a .. a .u" w“ w“ ... ”I .m mu 0 n .: NJ. 3: u. n . m_ .Mm a wm NW an m« Etentia § s..: D n.‘ - u 22 Friendly-Unfriendly: The good teacher sees others as being friendly and enhancing. He sees them as well in- tentional rather than evil intentional. WOrthy-Unworthy: The good teacher tends to see others as being worthy rather than unworthy. He sees them as possessing a dignity and integrity which must be respected. Internally-Externally Motivated: The good teacher sees peOple and their behavior as essentially developing from within rather than as a product of external events to be molded, directed; sees people as creative, dynamic, rather than passive or inert. Dependable-Undependable: The good teacher sees peOple as essentially trustworthy and dependable. Helpful-Hindering: The good teacher sees people as being potentially fulfilling and enhancing to self rather than threatening. He regards people as important sources of satisfaction.21 In selecting supervising teachers it would appear that we must select people who will have a warm positive influence upon others. We must select teachers who will be concerned about how the student teacher perceives and reacts to other peOple and things and can use this as a basis for their own behavior, teachers who seek the causes of the student's behavior in their current feelings and 21Combs, op. cit., pp. 54, 55, 56. 2.3:, teachers 3.: 9.0-1, .‘a“ .5 ' -3-—=~ ex-.. '3‘ ::..S hav: ’1. ""wu. ‘00. ..‘,o. “VA-H? R-. L“: u.¢-;:~¢. D V. .‘n“‘~‘ J». I‘M“...u :.:"TI\ A: \:‘ A ‘u U‘ a “H - S .01 C ‘ h.‘ ‘\“ ‘e “k ‘ a\_ l b‘ 0;s.‘ ‘ KR.“ dch Ca '17: ‘a V K 23 beliefs rather than focusing upon forces exerted in the past, teachers who see behavior develOping from within rather than externally motivated, teachers who believe that students have the capacity to deal with and adequately solve problems. It would further appear that we must select teach- ers who can create an atmosphere for the student teacher that will allow him to express his deeper self. An atmos- phere must be provided that allows for creativity. Creativity cannot take place in a restricted climate. Competencies Needed by Good SupervisingTeachers "The earliest conception of the good teacher was that of a scholar. It was assumed that a person who knew 22 Research has proven that just know- could teach others." ing is simply not enough. The Forty-Fifth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching gives five categories and the competencies within each category that all supervising teachers should have. I. Competencies related primarily to classroom procedure and techniques. 1. Gives suggestions in matters of discipline. 2. Acquaints the student with "routine" matters. 22Combs, 0p. cit., p. l. '- O.” “on-“ “"v- . “‘5' . ‘ o O. IN- QO. V‘-’etg' ‘0 lg_ “q “£3 (70.77 m rf H II. 6. 24 Displays accuracy in keeping records. Creates a democratic setting for learning-- one in which pupils share in some decision- making experiences. Assists student teachers in setting reason- able standards of performances for his classes. Encourages creative thinking and planning by pupils and by the student teacher. Competencies related primarily to the working relationship between the supervising teacher and the student teacher. 1. 2. 10. Is available for consultation and moral support when needed. Analyzes with the student teacher the value of experiences; helps the student teacher to dis- cover which ones are most worthwhile. Helps the student teacher set his goals and formulate his educational philosophy. Shares in planning with the student teacher. Plans and teaches through another adult: originates and suggests new ideas without dominating the student teacher's thoughts and actions. Establishes a feeling of security on the part of the student teacher by clarifying his res- ponsibilities throughout the student teaching period. Recognizes and helps relieve tension in pupils and in the student teacher. Offers criticism--continuous, specific, and constructive--in a sympathetic manner. Helps the student teacher develOp understanding of his own strengths and weaknesses, and to build a healthy self-concept. Invites the student teacher to participate in the professional and social activities of the staff. ‘90 0“ l 3 3"‘H 5 ”t3-._ ‘i'n bag“. I 61‘ c H 4 -, 0 $5, a". Cer:ete: tEILSti might b flusng one. ‘ 3.3:: I “in: + - 0 mJ’Se 5; c,‘ §‘>I 25 11. Shows willingness to consider new and different techniques in an Open minded manner. III. Competencies related primarily to the transition from the relatively inactive status Of the student teacher at the beginning Of student teaching to his active status later in the assignment. 1. Gradually lets the student teacher accept increasing responsibility until full teaching responsibility is assumed. Helps the student teacher understand his job in relation to the entire school program. Helps the student teacher build teaching skills through Observation Of his (cooperating teach- er's) teaching. Assists the student teacher in recognizing theories in practice--child develOpment, psycho- logical principles, and so forth. IV. Competencies related primarily to personal charac- teristics or traits of the supervising teacher that might be emulated by the student teacher. 1. 3. Sets a good example for the student teacher in personal appearance, grooming, speech and apprOpriate mannerisms. Makes rational judgements, takes appropriate action and accepts reSponsibilities for the consequences. Knows his own strengths apg weaknesses and accepts himself as he is. Carl Rogers discusses the importance Of being and accepting one's self. Quoting from his book On Becoming_a Person, ”I find I am more effective when I can listen accep- tantly to myself . . . to realize I am angry, or that I can feel full of warmth and affection . . . I become more 23 Association for Student Teaching, Forty-Fifth :gearbook, pp. 19, 20. _ q , , 3.32.312 1F. tea‘ +f-e 2‘ 92:! tea 3° Fla 53:: adequate in letting myself be what I am." 4. 5. 6. 26 24 Reflects a positive professional attitude and a real liking and respect for teaching. Exhibits interest in continuous self improve- ment and educational advancement. Reflects a mature personality with enthusiasm and broad interests. V. Competencies related primarily to developing broad professional and school responsibilities. 1. 8. Is an active participant in local and state teachers' organizations and is familiar with the purposes and work of the N.E.A. Perceives the Opportunity to work with future teachers as a professional Opportunity. Places primary emphasis upon his service to society rather than upon his personal gain. Actively participates with his colleagues in develOping and enforcing standards fundamental to continuous improvement of his profession, and abides by those standards in his own prac- tice. Exhibits willingness to accept out-of-class responsibilities. Participates effectively in faculty meetings and work Of professional committees. Is acquainted with sources of current thinking-- journals, conferences, yearbooks, workshops. Exhibits a cooperative attitude in relations with other members of the staff.25 The above list of competencies covers a broad range of abilities needed by a supervising teacher. If one 24Carl R. Rogers, On Becoming a Person (Boston: Houghton Mifflin CO., 1961), p. 17. 25 Association for Student Teaching, Forty-Fifth Yearbook, p. 20. 1 P"... o“" a ‘3. C evoVi~ “ _ - ‘Q.. a .l' D .O‘ .C b b... ._ {'5'6 ‘L ‘.b‘ but l'>' 27 studies these competencies carefully, however, and thinks about them in depth, they are very similar to the major perceptual organization Combs speaks about in The Profession- al Education of Teachers.26 A few years ago the teacher turn-over was so great that it was difficult to select and educate teachers in these major areas of competencies. Now that our teacher turn-over is so much lower (less than 4% in the school sys- tem where the writer did his research), public schools and teacher education institutions should be working together to develop these competencies in prOSpective supervising teachers. The competencies will not only help in the education of new teachers, but will also assure better classroom teachers for our young peOple. This has become possible today because we can now attract, educate, and retain our best teachers in the field Of education. Recent research tells us that the effective teacher is one who sees his role as freeing students so that they may be creative rather than controlling. He must be a facilitator or learning enabler. We must help teachers develop skills so that they can be personally involved, willing to enter into interaction. Up to this point it may appear that this writer does not place emphasis on the importance Of the good 26Combs, Op. cit., p. 20. . ‘34:.” “or '- vvoucb. U» .Q I ':"‘ a ODH'I'HQQV- —"b I Nah/.vdidn. I luv.“ -‘.~-. . ‘ .' a 4 “‘fin n" “‘I‘Jobtu 51“"3‘“ -;nv f""ub h-u' O . a . -.,- 3. ~ . V.“ ‘ ‘L. - ~..'_‘ he .- 7‘98 ca‘ awhf: ‘ “‘ "51"; . On ‘ A:a"n - ‘ui‘ \ Q r: -.. “V. I ‘ "zt' “b‘-‘h“ . N F F A tb‘ \P.,; ‘- \u‘Cav-I. “ \ ‘0. U‘ I. we nu u sf“. ‘ .‘a .. . ‘V‘S a" n ‘y f. y a 9-. ..~ iv v ““3 (‘C “‘«I‘. 7 :u. "t in»: 'H a: e c.’ ‘L‘ 28 teacher being well informed. It is important that teachers have a thorough knowledge Of their subject field. However, this is one competency which teacher education institutions have emphasized to such a degree that the subject matter experience may cause a problem in teacher education. Some teachers have become so subject matter oriented that they have failed to develop some or, possibly, many of the com- petencies talked about earlier. The way one is taught has a great influence on how he will teach. Students tend to teach the way they have been taught rather than the way we have taught them to teach. The following quote summarizes the competencies of a supervising teacher. Again, in 1961, in its yearbook entitled Teacher ggpcation and the Public Schools, the Association for Student Teaching returned to a consideration of the qualifications of the supervising teacher. McCuskey approached the problem by identifying the essential competencies needed by a supervisor of student teaching. These were: (1) scholarly control of knowledge; (2) the expertness in the teaching-learning process; (3) skills in decision making; and (4) insight into one's self as a pro- fessional.2 If student teachers are to be guided by supervising teachers who have the qualities and competencies outlined here and are going to keep up to date in the field of educa- tion, the teacher education institutions and/or public 27Association for Student Teaching, Forty-Fifth Yearbook, p. 102. .- o. . .‘O u ..~--u.‘ . Q . .r -.;" .I :‘.~. 5‘“ .- N. :58 (I) K) 29 schools must provide adequate in-service education for the supervising teacher. Education for Supervising Teachers In reviewing the literature dealing with in-service education for supervising teachers, the writer was disap- pointed that there was not more written on this topic. For years educators have been saying that supervisors of stud- ent teachers should have education. In the article written for the 1939 Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching, Dr. Raleigh Schorling reported on the results of a questionnaire returned to him by five hundred critic teachers. More than 95 percent of the respondents agreed that supervisors Of student teachers should have adequate education in professional education. No inquiry was made at that time about the content of adequate education.28 Supervising teachers need to have in-service educa- tion during the school year so that they may continue to grow intellectually. If supervising teachers are going to do the kind of job we need to have done with our student teachers, they need to keep up to date regarding new develOpments in education. 281bid., p. 102. . —. 2. . . n. u. ... .a. .. . 2‘ u .u. . . .. C. .n‘ a». L. "I. . . Qq. 3‘ p§‘ .h. A» u c P‘ a T... v. :. .... .p.. . . : L. a. .2 ., a. a 5. a. a. nu «a &. Au 2; ‘1. .w v. . .l .. . v. .2 .3 .. a. v. a.» u - . n i. .. . . S. 3. .. v. ~<. .u 3. ~.. 5. . ; v .— ,s .3 s. o. v. u» .- .... 9v .s i. u. . :- .. .. u. :- vn .: a e m.“ :o. .... I. . h. ._.. lam 2‘ . . .. . .:.. .:. ..... ..... .:. .:.. _.r .# 30 The supervising teacher who has been working with student teachers for a period Of years has seen some marked changes in the availability of teach- ing aids. The last decade has brought dramatic changes. For the future, it is certain that changes will continue both in the addition Of new teaching materials, techniques, devices, and pro- cedures, and in the knowledge of ways to use those already existing. Those who work with student teachers need to keep in mind that the career teacher of the future will be Spending his class- room years in the midst Of new teaching aids.2 Over the years many teacher education institutions have recognized the need for in-service education for super- vising teachers. From time to time a course in the super- vision Of student teachers has been Offered. In some cases teachers have taken such a course at their own expense, and in some cases the teacher education institution has paid for it. However, in no case did the writer find a situation where an institution required that such a course had to be taken before a supervising teacher could have a student teacher. The writer was disappointed that there was so little evidence of organized partnership programs between teacher education institutions and public schools, which would lead to education of supervising teachers as well as student teachers. The institutions which have expressed a need for a better working program have done very little in terms of educating all supervising teachers on an organized basis. The following quote is an example: 29Ibid., p. 70. p— M a *—-lhv-t . - . 'a'.-.- '-c- - .- -n- a..- .. :"‘ 5::- nn.‘ -‘v . 0 9 “9‘. -- ~ ."~.-— 4 O a- .- - 1 b..- -v -' -- On: .lo ”- -:~ ~-... :-.‘. v “‘ v s " c.‘- - ‘ 'u--. , ~ '- ‘ n -~-.. - N"""~‘ . x,‘ o. u--c_- ., ‘ D .IIZFO.‘ ~.. : . be ‘: "u,‘ 5 .-.~ ‘ .'¢e t". -. a \ . ~.. ’A u.‘-"# “* a“ .A ‘2‘ u b»!- “.36" ’t. ‘h .‘C. . ‘o ‘2‘ ‘o Q“. ~ .. H~CH. S ~‘ ' ,. a .. -‘-.:“ ‘~ fl ' ‘V-. 1 ‘ Qt. .‘\ 31 Finally the faculty at Indiana State University believes that it is vitally important that good rapport exist between the student teaching per- sonnel (University supervisors, supervising teachers, and student teachers) and other uni- versity and public school personnel. To this end the university makes every effort to provide free and easy lines Of communication so that little problems do not become big ones and so that every- one is working toward a common goal. The writer noted that Indiana State University puts great importance on communication in terms Of working with supervising teachers in public schools; however, more than communication is needed in a good student teacher program. The efforts of even the most skillful mechanic are ineffective without adequate tools and equipment. The best prepared physician must read the most recent medical journals and attend modern clinics to keep in touch with the latest medical develOp- ments. The classroom teacher who welcomes a stud- ent teacher as a partner in instructing the pupils for whom he is reSponsible assumes a leadership role that has no parallel in the entire educational enterprise. The whole level of teacher competency can be raised if each supervising teacher will take the initiative in utilizing the Opportunities that are available to him for professional improve- ment and put them to use in assisting student teachers. 1 When one studies the above quote it becomes evident that supervising teachers need a great deal of on-going education if they are to be outstanding supervising teach- ers. This in-service education may be accomplished in dif- ferent ways. 3olbid., p. 96. 31Ibid., p. 67. U) .DOAA- Q1 “.3533 v. .. n--vu-.o‘ I ' O-‘QI‘On C 9 ”;° 1'va- *-~~ by”... - . o. . ‘ .:.: P. ‘ 0‘ V. ‘ D. s g. .._,_ . 1 D a a. ..C ‘~. .“V .md: . . :z‘.n - v‘.-‘ .:‘aL .““e:s o A a, ‘.. o . .‘s‘:H' ‘ s‘f S‘. '5 \:"~ s‘.“ ‘Q- . up. - .'-:_ "' ~-~ s~::‘ 3‘ I Kn ‘ s“F ~‘ ~ ‘ -.‘ . us. - ¥ .a “pile. » - ‘ ‘. ‘sln. hat u 1 5“at ] .‘ ' “l‘a. “ '3. U 32 Some teacher education institutions have formed com- mittees of teachers to give suggestions on how the student teaching program could be improved. These suggestions are then considered by the institutions and in many cases adOpted. This partnership relation helps to develOp good rapport between schools and teacher education institutions. The teacher committee in some cases has become a means Of in-service education for members within the com- mittee. Experienced supervising teachers can provide one of the most effective means of aiding less experienced teachers in their preparation for serving as supervising teachers. Some supervising teachers have access to a good professional library. The writer is acquainted with cases where professional library service is furnished in student teaching centers by the college. In other cases the col- lege gives the supervising teachers the right to use the library service within the institution. There are super- vising teachers who have been able to build their own professional library. However, it is sad for the super- vising teacher who has no access to a professional library. The competent teacher of children and youth needs to be knowledgeable in his field of specialization. He needs also to be well informed about what is happening in the world around him. For the super- vising teacher this requires a personal library that will keep him up to date in these areas so that he will not only be a competent teachgr of children but of student teachers as well.3 32Ibid., p. 68. 33 Group conference is another method of keeping super- vising teachers up to date. Many times institutions hold one day conferences on the campus for the supervising teach- ers who have student teachers from their institution. These conferences are held after the student teacher has been in a school system long enough to be able to take over the supervising teacher's class so that she may attend the on- campus conference. These conferences usually consist of a speaker who talks on a topic relative to supervision. Following the speaker the supervising teachers break up into discussion groups to talk over specific areas of supervision. Some teacher education institutions have Offered courses and/or workshOps in teacher education. There are teacher education institutions which pay the tuition for the education courses, and in some cases the supervising teacher has to pay the tuition. How a supervising teacher receives his/her education may vary, but one thing is cer- tain, they dO need education. Individuals who care enough about their work to be selected for the supervision of student teachers are those who have a commitment to improve their professional skills and they will not be content until they feel that they can competently meet the demands. It is important that the institutions involved, public school and college or university, assure the individual teacher that the resources necessary for his self improvement are available. Materials and peOple that can provide assistance should be easily accessible, and he should be per- mitted time to make his preparation. Because the regular work of the teacher is becoming more ' 0— ;IE ... C- a F 3: .- :1 a... ' ...u 1 d . ‘2:""_ 5"... _ u .' v‘ -‘~ A A P .._ ‘ A Vs- ‘u a." ‘ v. .. ‘ 2 0'1 5 $Z~L_ . 1.60:: M: o ‘ t :2". \ II~ 3“ ‘ ‘ U a "I ‘ 3 . :‘k .. I. ‘ . ‘5 34 extensive and complex, it cannot be expected that he will continually be able to improve himself unless he is provided time to do so. It has been found that the most successful in-service programs are those that provide the time for this purpose as a part Of the regular load Of the teacher. Since the supervising teacher accepts the new res- ponsibility in order that he may assist in provid- ing a more adequately qualified supply of beginning teachers rather than for personal gain, it is quite logical to request that his preparation time be a part Of his regular schedule. Conferences between Supervising Teacher and Student Teacher The experiences outside Of the classroom are also important in terms of a student teacher's development. One important place where professional develOpment may take place is in the student-teacher conference. The teaching of the student teacher occurs prim- arily in the individualized teaching situation of the conference. It is during the conference bet- ween student teacher and his supervisor that there is an Opportunity to talk about the central con- cern Of the student Of teaching--the nature of teaching itself.3 The conference should give guidance to the Student teacher. This is a time when the supervising teacher should develop a good relationship between student teacher and sup- ervising teacher. 33Ibid., p. 12. 4"Supervisory Conference as Individualized Teach- ing," Associationgor Student Teaching Bulletin 28 (Wash- ington, D.C. , I969), p._§: i u~~~.-V c. -‘ H .. vvdvoov. Vb - F . o—«wfi—O . -‘.9A-- 3, ‘ ‘ v-vu-vpau ‘4 ~ in 0“ - V 4 n “"C'A-c—g‘. ~ "' Nov-«cw,- ~‘ '1 -v‘. on - ._ ..I_ ;-. .-.M__ u... ->-~ “‘7 v‘- .5. ‘.- ”Pu .- ‘u‘ ‘ 3‘; n-.. . . --- 35 In getting ready for the conference the supervising teacher should have good plans and know what he is going to talk about and how he will approach the Situation. He must remember that this is a live teaching situation and that emotions are involved. It must be remembered that both individuals should get a chance to express their thinking and concerns. The major objective of any conference with a stud- ent teacher is to provide guidance in develOping the teach- ing competencies Of the beginning teacher. Stratemeyer and Lindsey suggest that through the conference the student teacher should be helped to: 1. See more clearly the relationship between theory and practice. 2. Gain a broad vision of the work Of the teacher and the role of the school in the community. 3. Grow in self-analysis and self-improvement. 4. DevelOp a professional attitude that is a workable guide to action. 5. Formulate a more conscious educational point of view. 6. Seek increasingly better solutions to problems by raising questions, discussing ways of work- ing, and outlining ways to test ideas exper- imentally.3 It is Obvious that the conference serves many pur- poses. The important thing is that a supervising teacher develop the necessary skills to hold an adequate conference. 35Ibid., p. 7. VIIFW‘ I ‘ no ao¢flwfll .:....v-- I (I) u _. ‘ :“ Ou- ‘od “. : a. :“;V‘ Q ~ 7“".-ool I hssc‘.t‘ n 1‘ We ‘- \ N.at \ u. ‘ ‘1 s F 36 The supervising teacher must realized that a good working relationship contributes to a good program. Education of Student Teacher Supervising teachers need to look at the experiences and the education the student teacher has encountered before entering student teaching. Many times student teachers have been exposed to information, but this does not mean they have synthesized and made it a part of their total being. Teaching education, like education, generally has done pretty well in two Of its phases. It has been quite successful in gathering information and in making information available to students. We have done this by gathering information in our libraries and in the minds of brilliant teachers. We have learned also to make this information available to other people through lectures, demon- strations and the whole new world of audio-visual techniques. We are experts at telling people what they need to know, and we measure the success of teaching by requiring students to tell it back to us. If they do this satisfactorily we commend them for knowing and rest content that we have taught them well. Much Of education practice never gets beyond this level of learning. But there is a third phase Of the learning process essential for teacher education, with which we have not done so well. It is helping peOple to discover the personal meaning of information so that they behave differently as a result of teach- ing. Research has shown that both ood teachers and bad know what they ought to do. Many times people in various areas of education have treated the elementary teacher as a second-class citizen. 36Combs, Op. cit., p. 27. W 7m m' vl-l'r 5 55.3335, ’G u 37 They have felt that the elementary teacher lacked depth in subject material. They did not realize that the elementary teacher's background was one of general education. The content for general education is broader. Unhappily the level of teaching in general educa- tion programs in many of our colleges leaves much to be desired. Overwhelmed with students and charged with the reSponsibility for "weeding them out," harassed instructors Often cover the subject as best they can and escape as quickly as possible to teaching the majors. As a consequence, general education programs are Often badly taught and deadly dull. This is not good for any student. For education students it is disastrous.3 In reviewing the literature on teacher education courses, the writer found a trend toward making the courses more practical. This was done in many cases by getting the prospective teacher out working with students in one way or another. There was also a trend toward lengthening the clinical experience. Some of the literature reviews stated that later elementary teachers need more subject material training than do early elementary teachers. This too was debated, however. Men like Combs feel that human development needs to be stressed more at all levels. Combs feels that teach- ers are not failing because of a lack of subject knowledge, but are failing because of a lack of human understanding. 37Combs, op. cit., p. 43. 2‘ S a : . Any 8 e C s t v. a . e a” C .1. n E C T. 4.. . Y C. R» s C. V. 0 t 38 Decision-Makingpin Teacher Education In reviewing the literature on student teaching, the writer found that many authors put great emphasis on the college supervisor. He is the main liaison between the teacher training institution and the public school. He needs excellent Skill in public relations, and should have a broad knowledge of teacher education. The supervising teacher should involve himself more in the planning and implementing Of teacher education programs. The teaching profession Should build attitudes among its members which will enable the supervising teacher to do a bet— ter job Of preparing teachers. He should be given the status of a professional partner in the teach- er education program. He Should be provided with a planned setting which will develOp a student teaching experience of the highest quality. The teaching profession should re-examine present resources, seeking to provide the supervising teacher the time and Opportunity to participate effectively. It should Shake itself of a compla— cent attitude, Often expressed as a "practical" point of view, and work for long-range goals. Only vision and courage, applied and implemented vigorously, will enable the teaching profession to take its place of imporatance in society. Other literature stressed the importance of the involvement of the staff in the public school in decision- making as far as teacher education is concerned. However, nowhere did the writer truly find a joint relationship between teacher education institutions and public schools 38Commission on Standards, ”The Supervising Teacher, An AST Position Paper, Association for Student Teaching (Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company, 1966), p. x. *— r "E‘ .. . luv-H 1H. .9: .e.:.a.u\: 'v" I --:.~..u‘:fig - ”CUOO‘UCUIJ M“ p, ~..., cod-n vv l. (I) (II tn vu:5.5..5. A, ’,. W'Ov‘vQV-n .1 ' ‘ I . ‘0“~' "‘"' A» «och»- HO:' 5“ . 39 regarding teacher education. Usually the teacher education institution made all decisions in terms of teacher prepara- tion courses and then when it came to student teaching the institution had little to say about the public school in which they chose to put their student teachers. CHAPTER III THE DESIGN The steps which were taken while conducting the study are described in this chapter. The sections discussed include (1) pOpulation, (2) the data instrument, (3) data collection procedures, and (4) procedures for treatment Of data. Popplation This study was concerned with the views held by various groups Of people in relation to student teaching. The following groups were included: 1. Teachers 2. Student Teachers 3. Administrators The subjects Of this study consisted Of 23 supervis- ing teachers and six administrators who were a part of the Bangor Township Schools staff, and 25 student teachers assigned by Central Michigan University to the supervising teachers. Even though not a part of the pOpulation, this group was compared to 4,397 supervising teachers, 4,483 student teachers, and 1,001 principals who responded to the survey which was a part Of the Impact Study. The responses 40 u ‘0- .‘u. . a». . a“ 6 4 -sb I :‘w t ‘-- ‘ . -9 __ ‘V‘u " H If U") " n, '.l. ’1. ’1 C) ’1' tan. ‘Q ‘ 5..“le “‘ ‘v \ I'D 9?: b A.‘ 41 On a questionnaire which had been taken from the Impact Study and given to the three BEAM groups was then compared to the same three groups in the Impact Study. The Questionnaire The original questionnaire was developed for the Impact Study which was done in 1969. The Impact Study was a result Of the laboratory schools going out of existence at teacher education insti- tutions and moving the student teaching experience to public school. Consequently, questions have arisen as the nature and extent of the benefits accruing to each the partners in the school experience. At a meeting of the Council of State College Presidents Of Michigan in December of 1968 when student teaching was under review, the question was asked, 'What is the impact of a student teach- ing program upon the school cOOperating in such a venture?‘ Since hard data were not available to answer this question, the investigation commonly refer- red to as the Student Teaching Impact Study was born. The assignment to conduct such a study was given to the Deans and Directors of Teacher Educa- tion Programs group which have been meeting regu- larly in Michigan for the past four years. More than 10,000 teachers, student teachers, and school administrators were involved in what is probably the most comprehensive study of student teaching ever conducted in this country. 1 gan, The Impact Of Spudent Teachin Programs upon the Cooperating Public Schools in Michigan, p. Forward. the to of Deans and Directors of Student Teaching in Michi- 6,:‘i.-u.‘ babhb‘vdub krscf 2g :0 :e avAI-VVI-c Hod-4. .‘d- D d .;..ne “bib Q “9"Qi- 9"- 3...... .3; a R ':‘ hi“ had.-- (I) (n “Ol A“.§os AA "“O‘~b':.: N...‘ ‘~ "bvfi' U- "' " "u... ."“ v...: .A' A; to UV. v. 5 ".:‘ng' Hod. fl gnu“. . C . I... ‘2 Huh»- 3 .I"I~ . "w: he: - 55'6 ‘ H ‘5 C‘ t ‘oien (“c- 42 Develgpment Of the Survey Instrument The Presidents of state-supported baccalaureate institutions in Michigan last year requested their Deans of Education and Directors of Student Teach- ing to determine the effect of student teaching programs upon COOperating public schools. The com- mittee established to initiate and conduct such a study was made up of a Dr. Malcolm A. Lowther, Chairman Of the School Of Education Undergraduate Committee, University of Michigan; Dr. Alan F. Quick, Director Of Student Teaching, Central Mich- igan University; and Dr. W. Henry Kennedy, Direc- tor Of Student Teaching, Michigan State University, Chairman. Education researchers from the three institu- tions were involved by the committee in the plan- ning of the study, and the research consultation service of Michigan State University was used ex- tensively in the design Of the study and develop- ment of the survey instruments. Among the factors given special attention was the need for complete Objectivity in the instruments used for data gathering. In the winter Of 1969, instruments were dev- elOped and reviewed by the parent group, student teaching faculties of the various institutions, and members Of the profession. During the spring term of 1969, eight institutions participated in a pilot study to test the instruments and proce- dures. They were then refined, limitations were corrected, and procedures sharpened. At several stages during the development Of the pilot study, as well as in the preparation of the final version of the instruments, Michigan Education Association Officials and the committee on teaching from the Detroit Federation of Teach- ers were involved and appraised of the progress. Each of these groups provided suggestions and both groups made contributions to the items in the instruments. The survey instrument develOped for the Impact Study was also used in the BEAM survey with a few minor changes. 2Ibid., p. Forward. «a. L ..: 3.2.2395 ‘c 1 ‘0 “in? a: V- 1 Na. 1 ‘b. I :5» ., «3:635 in “:'S:;: - DUES. \ l: v. D‘m 43 The changes were as follows: On the administrator question- naire in the Impact Study, question one was: 1. Which Of the following are you now? 1. A single student teacher 2. A married student teacher 3. A supervising (COOperating, Sponsoring) teacher 4. A supervising teacher but with a part- time administrative assignment in addi- tion to teaching 5. A single school administrator 6. A married school administrator The BEAM survey question one was changed to: 1. Which of the following are you now? a. A single school administrator b. A married school administrator The writer made this change since only school admin- istrators in the BEAM Program received the administrator's questionnaire. Question three on the administrator questionnaire in the Impact Study was as follows: 3. What is your present administrative assignment? 1. Building Principal — elementary school 2. Building Principal - middle School 3. Building Principal - junior high school 4. Building Principal - combined junior-senior high school . Q "' “a 1 l o. .5 o.- - - ‘ - 'N. ha. I2: .1“ “A “A 1.: nu . \ R 1 “-.\,e ‘5 ‘~ 5'.” I \‘. :? ME ~. . I q \h :3: A,“ “S o: .:. 44 5. Building Principal - senior high school 6. Other Question three in the administrator questionnaire in the BEAM Study was as follows: 3. What is your present administrative assignment? a. Building Principal - elementary school b. Building Principal - middle school c. Building Principal junior high school d. Building Principal - combined junior-senior high school The writer made this change Since the questionnaire was not given to high school administrators because there are no high school administrators in the BEAM Program. Since there are two classrooms of sixth graders, and four rooms are used by the high school in the junior high where the BEAM Program is held, the writer left the choice, b. Building Principal - middle school c. Building Principal - combined junior-senior high school in case the Bangor Junior High principal elected to choose one of these instead Of __c. Building Principal - junior high school Question four on the administrator questionnaire and question three on both the supervising teacher question- naire and the student teacher questionnaire which describes the community were omitted from the BEAM survey since all -. r '2‘ I . A. 0.! L. v. in..- ‘ O 0'! -u I 0-4. .A...’ O :61“: v dv.._- .. -.‘ u '1‘.“ n‘\ O u. ‘ #4 v '4 \ “ ‘\A4‘ ‘1 45 of the Bangor Township Schools are in the same area. The survey instrument developed for the teachers in the Impact Study was also used in the BEAM survey with a few minor changes. The changes were as follows: On the teachers questionnaire in the Impact Study question one was: 1. Which Of the following are you now? 1. A single student teacher 2. A married student teacher 3. A supervising (COOperating, Sponsoring) teacher 4. A supervising teacher with a part-time administrative assignment in addition to teaching 5. A school administrator The teachers questionnaire for the BEAM survey question one was changed to: 1. Which of the following are you __a. A supervising (cooperating, Sponsoring) teacher __b. A supervising teacher but with a part-time administrative assignment in addition to teaching The writer made this change Since the questionnaire was given only to supervising teachers. The survey instrument developed for the student teachers in the Impact Study was also used in the BEAM sur- vey with a few minor changes. On the student teacher ques- tionnaire in the Impact Study question one was: SH 11‘ pa. 46 1. Which Of the following are you now? 1. a Single student teacher 2. A married student teacher 3. A supervising (COOperating, Sponsoring) teacher 4. A supervising teacher but with a part-time administrative assignment in addition to teaching 5. A school administrator The student teacher questionnaire for the BEAM sur- vey question one was changed to read: 1. Which Of the following are you now? a. A single student teacher __b. A married student teacher The writer made this change because the question- naire was given only to student teachers. Questions eight, ten, eleven, twelve, and thirteen (with all sub-topics) in the Student teacher questionnaire of the Impact Study were purposely omitted from the student teacher questionnaire of the BEAM survey because the writer felt that they did not apply to the situation in the Bangor Township Schools. Question eight was omitted because all or 100% Of the students in BEAM were assigned to the Bangor Township Schools full time. Questions 10, ll, 12, and 13 were omitted because all or 100% of the student teachers in BEAM were earning elementary teaching certificates. The final change made affected all three areas n It. 0 d-?flv ..:.' '.' ‘ . - . r." "' ‘.‘-06‘ . a. "" .. wt3 - a — n a \ It . ... .. -. I l .1 4 .. a . a. .9. .G a .3 .3 3. .. ‘ u—Iv nan-u h be i. \ u‘p‘ ‘ \ ~¢. .nt an“. ..-N sunk .ofiw <1 G“ ‘ 47 (administrative, supervising teachers and student teachers) of the Impact Study. The writer used letters to identify each sub-tOpic under the questions in the BEAM survey in— stead Of the whole numbers used in the Impact questionnaire. Data Collection Procedures In this section a review is made of the procedures used in collecting the data. Copies Of the student teacher questionnaire, teacher questionnaire, and administrator questionnaire used to collect the data from the BEAM peOple appear in the appendix Of this study.3 The BEAM questionnaires were given out to each individual group. A student teacher, supervising teacher, and administrator were given the directions by the writer for administering the questionnaire. They in turn gave the questionnaire to each of the members of their group in a group setting and collected them upon completion. Members of each group were given assurance that no individual ques- tionnaire would be identified. The questionnaires were then turned over to the writer. The questionnaires were then posted on a ledger sheet designed for tabulating responses for various groups. Procedures for Treatment of Data The broad purpose Of this study is to take a criti- cal look at the Opinions of supervising teachers, student 3See questionnaires in Appendix A. 2. 3. . a .. e .3 L” l“ :. .u .pu .7 . . a . .. s . ... 1- I. a: .. .. pay an. a . nu. on v. o. o . .— .3 .a 4.. It...,.. ‘h i..- I- a. \ 48 teachers, and school administrators surveyed in the Student Teacher Impact Study_and compare them with the Opinions of the supervising teachers, student teachers, and school administrators in the BEAM Program. In order to achieve this purpose, totals were taken on the ledger sheets of each response for each of the groups. Frequency counts and percentages will be displayed in tables for each response which is related to a particular hypothesis. In some cases chi squares will be run to Show significant differences. The following hypotheses will be tested: Hypothesis I: The presence of student teachers is perceived to have a more positive effect upon certain in- structional activities for pupils in the BEAM Program than it had in the Impact Study. Hypothesis II: The presence of student teachers is perceived to have a more positive effect on school activi- ties in addition to classroom instruction for pupils in the BEAM Program than it had for pupils in the Impact Study. Hypothesis III: The presence of student teachers is perceived to enhance the performance of supervising teachers more in the BEAM Program than supervising teachers in the Impact Study. Hypothesis IV: The presence of student teachers is perceived to enhance the performance of regular staff in . -. --.__ ‘ I. .--‘Vao- ‘ Q ~"' 4'. u.... . o . o. -:A- a" -’ ~ "V. ‘n “A ‘= .5.“ V- \“ ‘ “3 c s n *‘ - I. ‘ .‘s . Q’s ‘H 8.- \ --.~ ~ ‘ ‘.‘ ~ . Q" ' 's P. ‘ ‘ a.“ ~A ‘ . A ‘xtkt \ \ 49 the BEAM Program more than regular staff in the Impact Study. Hypothesis V: BEAM supervising teachers are per- ceived to have made a greater investment in working with their student teachers and attending functions related to student teaching than supervising teachers in the Impact Study. Hypothesis VI: BEAM supervising teachers are per- ceived to have used instructional materials, aids or ideas, provided by their student teachers more than supervising teachers in the Impact Study. Hypothesis VII: The presence Of student teachers is perceived to be more positive in schools which had the BEAM Program than in schools which had the Impact Study. Hypothesis VIII: BEAM student teachers are per- ceived to have taken on a greater role in the Operation of the classroom than student teachers in the Impact Study. Hypgthesis IX: The university coordinator is per- ceived as being more helpful in the BEAM Program than in the Impact Study. Hypothesis X: BEAM supervising teachers are per- ceived to have taken less time from their students because of having a student teacher than supervising teachers in the Impact Study. -l'.” .I‘. In '.‘. nun-cu - a ‘. -~.. '.‘-4‘ g o . ’.‘-'.'. '.' '.“‘¢.- ‘ ’.- - '.n‘, '-o. .:.. ‘.— — "-‘~..: '- I 9‘. 1.. . "‘vo. = ‘. o ‘ . ‘-‘ "‘ -~: ‘4 ‘ ~-.. o “v ‘.‘ a w. ox. u‘s no .Q_ ’12.. ‘5 c it. a u u - .'. ."v~ ' ‘2’ ‘ t I ‘n .. ‘.‘. ‘— ‘.‘ y 1 :\ ' ‘u ‘ u I‘. ‘n. 1‘“ ‘ V Q'- ‘ 7‘ A '- \t. V 5" w: ‘. I“‘ .s v, v. N "‘E v n ‘ ‘-‘ ‘ 50 Summary The writer has stated earlier in this chapter that this is a study comparing the BEAM Program with the Impact Study. The hOpe is that the BEAM Program Of TOTAL INVOLVE- MENT in all facets Of the school Operation, which include working with trained cooperating teachers in two student teaching classroom experiences, two types of student visi- tations with special service personnel, two weekly seminars which serve to bridge the gap between practicum and theory, and the acceptance Of the student teacher as a part of the regular staff and a member Of the community, tends to make for a more positive teaching situation. The writer is taking a critical look at the BEAM Program as compared to the Impact Study by testing out the ten hypotheses stated previously. The ten hypotheses deal with the effect which the presence of the student teacher has had upon certain activities for pupils in the BEAM Pro- gram, upon activities in addition to classroom instruction, and upon the performance Of the supervising teacher and the regular staff members as compared to the Impact Study. The hypotheses deal with the effect Of the amount of work done and time Spent by the supervisory teacher in working with the student teachers and uSing materials, aids, and ideas provided by the student as compared with the Impact Study. From these hypotheses then, the writer concludes that the presence of student teachers enhances the performance \ .‘§§ ”I. ‘ '6‘. .".h.. S h (It 51 Of the Bangor Township Schools in a more positive way because of the BEAM Program being an integral part of the total school philOSOphy. Chapter III discussed the design Of the study which dealt with the following: 1. 2. Defining the pOpulation. The history Of the development Of the instrument for collecting the data. The data collection procedures. The process and the results of the analysis Of the data. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Findings are presented in this chapter relative to the Objectives which were: 1. The To see if greater involvement of supervising teachers, student teachers, and school admin- istrators make for a more positive student teaching situation when the philOSOphy Of the student teaching program is an integral part Of the philosophy of the school system. To compare the views held by student teachers, supervising teachers, and school administrators in the BEAM Program to the views held by super- vising teachers, student teachers, and school administrators in the Student Teaching Impact Study. following hypotheses were tested. The presence of student teachers is perceived to have a more positive effect upon certain instructional activities for pupils in the BEAM Program than it had in the Impact Study. The presence of student teachers is perceived to have a more positive effect on school activities in addition to classroom instruc- tion for pupils in the BEAM Program than it had for pupils in the Impact Study. The presence of student teachers is perceived to enhance the performance Of supervising teachers more in the BEAM Program than super- vising teachers in the Impact Study. The presence Of student teachers is perceived to enhance the performance of regular staff in the BEAM Program more than regular staff in the Impact Study. 52 I" (n r? c' f' (I) (I) r) r'f (11 DJ (11 {'1 f' 1"? A5 in< 2.9in A ‘ n“ldde: u v" SJpeI—Vi a 11 :3!- , “lnClna ‘3‘: 53 5. BEAM supervising teachers are perceived to have made a greater investment in working with their student teachers and in attending functions related to student teaching, than supervising teachers in the Impact Study. 6. BEAM supervising teachers are perceived to have used instructional materials, aids or ideas provided by their student teachers more than supervising teachers in the Impact Study. 7. BEAM supervising teachers in the BEAM Program are perceived to have taken less time from their students because Of having a student teacher than supervising teachers in the Impact Study. 8. BEAM student teachers are perceived to have taken on a greater role in the Operation of the classroom than student teachers in the Impact Study. 9. The University coordinator is perceived as being more helpful in the BEAM Program than in the Impact Study. 10. The presence of student teachers is perceived to be more positive in schools which had the BEAM Program than in schools which had the Impact Study. POpulation and Percent Of Returns As indicated in Chapter I, the subjects in this study included: 1. supervising teachers 2. student teachers 3. principals Subjects of the Impact Study (1969) consisted of 4,397 supervising teachers, 4,483 student teachers, and 1,001 principals. This group was compared to 23 supervis- ing teachers, 25 student teachers and six principals went" .J.-‘.ny _f V. v ‘ ' "’ ”A" Any“... ‘ '.' EC Mia‘s-u “'3.- h... to.» 0...: :6 'VA.‘ :6: ‘.‘“ '3‘ :uunr... Ufll :. "t. i‘""""€ a an... ._“..' ‘U' “u 1: vitn t :55 .C 11"“ t ‘.‘.“ ”5' me re .. “. . ~\ Ru. 6. R b. “U“‘ta;r C. v‘ N:S::A U‘.s frf“ \II I, 51.3% w; u. A.‘ u: ‘u szuare ' “v. Q \' V. '.‘.“i Sta 1 54 surveyed during the fall of 1973 in the BEAM Program. The Impact Study included the entire population of student teachers assigned for student teaching by Michigan institutions, all of the supervising teachers working with these student teachers, and all of the building principals in which student teachers were assigned. The BEAM population included all of the student teachers assigned to BEAM, all of the supervising teachers working with these student teachers and all of the princi- pals to whom these student teachers were assigned. The results of the responses from the returned questionnaires will be tabulated on ledger sheets and like questions from like groups in the Impact Study and BEAM Program will be compared by percentages. On major questions, chi square will be done; the .05 level will be considered significant in the study. Responses of Student Teachers The first group examined was the student teachers. This was done by comparing the BEAM student teachers to the student teachers in the Impact Study on certain questions in the survey. Questions four, five, six and seven were used to make these comparisons. Table 1 shows the comparison on question four in the student teacher questionnaire which asks, "What is your all-college grade point average?" (WW-.4.) LA— A-aa'n - . ‘~---o.— . A9 a...‘ «1‘ «1d af— q<~ g. ‘. nu .. .3 Q» s. 5.. as mu .0 . . . a. :. u. . a at a: L .. L. L .. V. "y .3 A. 2. .3. a. .sa s. . . .i .\. . o .. .. v. s. k. i. ..u .r. .A‘ .u. u . a ... uu r. g. .: Ln .,. ... \- Is w \ .I- a u a u 5.1- V? o . —.¢ . s .1. o n k. . .n s‘. . v . v 0 55 Table 1. Student teachers all-college grade point average. Scale: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, E=0. Impact BEAM Response Choices No. % No. % Below 2.0 9 .2 2.0 - 2.5 1,255 28.0 7 28.0 2.5 - 3.0 1,775 39.6 ll 44.0 3.0 - 3.5 1,103 24.6 5 20.0 Above 3.5 278 6.2 2 8.0 Omissions 63 1.4 Errors — - - — Total 4,483 100.0 25 100.0 When studying Table 1, one finds the two groups very similar in grade point average. Table 2 shows the comparison on question five in the student teacher questionnaire which asks, "How old were you at the beginning of this student teaching contact?" In studying Table 2, one finds the student teachers in the BEAM Program tend to be a little younger than the student teachers in the Impact Study. Forty-four percent of the student teachers in the BEAM program were 21 years old or under as compared to 20.8% in the Impact Study. Table 3 shows the comparison on question six in the student teacher questionnaire which asks, "How many times have you taught, including the current assignment?" V ._' l . ‘.‘—L..- i I § ‘. .. " '2- .0 Ifi—4 ‘.’ 6|- ‘ .. by 1 ca , Q I O. . h a. ‘ ‘a a A. "'r a :‘ ‘. ‘.‘...“ “ vh.‘~-‘ ‘ 'Vv.’.. .‘._§: ‘ .‘3 ._“- .\‘e ‘ 56 Table 2. Age of student teacher at beginning of student teaching contact. Impact BEAM Response Choices No. % No. % 21 Years or under 932 20.8 11 44.0 21 to 21-1/2 Years 861 19.2 5 20.0 21-1/2 to 22 Years 686 15.3 3 12.0 22 to 23 Years 1,139 25.4 6 24.0 Over 23 Years 807 18.0 Omissions 58 1.3 Errors - - - - Total 4,483 100.0 25 100.0 Table 3. Number of times student teacher has taught, including current assignment. Impact BEAM Response Choices No. % No. % One 3,842 85.7 24 96.0 Two 493 11.0 1 4.0 Three 85 1.9 Omissions 63 1.4 Errors - - - - Totals 4,483 100.0 25 100.0 2a Ov Al. ’.‘. o O Q ~ 4 1‘ ’.‘-p o Q 00- . a: . n». o. n. .nu .4. ~.. «— .o O. u.. .‘u r. § 5 .c a» A a ‘u u.- .»u ~-. 2. ~u. .. A: 4. §. .a. ... .3 I. O ‘1 V .. .. ..: .... 57 In studying Table 3, one finds that 96% of the stud- ent teachers in the BEAM Program were student teaching for the first time, while 85.7% of the student teachers in the Impact Study were student teaching for the first time. Eighty—five, or 1.9%, of the student teachers in the Impact Study are student teaching for the third time, while none of the student teachers in the BEAM Program fall in this category. Table 4 shows the comparison on question 74 in the student teacher questionnaire which asks, "Why were you assigned to this particular student teaching situation?" In studying Table 4, one finds the reasons for assignment of student teachers to prospective schools very similar. However, 52% of the student teachers in the Impact Study said they requested the school or area they were placed in, while 48% of the BEAM student teachers gave this response to the same question. When one looks at the second response which states, "I requested this kind of program," only 9.3% of the student teachers in the Impact Study checked this, while 20% of the BEAM student teachers res- ponded. The reSponse which states, "I really preferred a different assignment but was placed in this one by my col- lege, or university," was checked by 12.7% of the student teachers in the Impact Study and 16% in the BEAM Program. pg. 4 . - -mi . ‘33?“ ‘ I I r . n ‘1) - l::"._.-1 "" 'no1 o 0 V D i . 5. I. ”I! '1 (I, D '- DO" "I in (n '1! o (u f) 58 Table 4. Reason why student teacher was assigned to a particular situation. Impact BEAM Response Choices No. % No. % I requested this school or area 2,331 52.0 12 48.0 I requested this kind of program 417 9.3 S 20.0 I had no particular preference 986 22.0 4 16.0 I preferred a different assignment but was placed in this one 569 12.7 4 16.0 I was required to accept this assignment even though I express strong preference for another one 99 202 " - Omissions 81 1.8 Errors Totals 4,483 100.0 25 100.0 59 Responses of the Supervising Teachers The reSponses of the BEAM supervising teachers were compared with those of the supervising teachers in the Impact Study on certain questions in the survey. Questions three, ten, five, four, and nine were used to make these comparisons. Table 5 shows the comparison on question three in the teacher questionnaire which asks, "How many years of teaching have you completed including this year?" Table 5. Years of teaching the supervising teacher had completed including the year in which the survey was taken. Impact BEAM Response Choices No. % No. % Three or Less 378 8.6 3 13.0 Four to Seven 1,108 25.2 11 47.8 Eight to Twelve 1,073 24.4 7 30.4 More than Twelve 1,794 40.8 2 8.7 Omissions 44 1.0 Errors - - - .1 Totals 4,397 100.0 23 100.0 When one examines Table 5, it is obvious that the supervising teachers in the Impact Study in general have more years teaching experience than the supervising teachers 1" E .ks'MW-E—nq ‘ ’ _-.'A #2. ' ‘ . 60 in the BEAM Program. It is interesting to note that 78.2% of the supervising teachers in BEAM fall between four and twelve year experience while only 49.6% of the supervising teachers in the Impact Study fall in this category, and over 40.8% of the supervising teachers in the Impact Study have over twelve years of experience while only 8.5% of the BEAM supervising teachers have had over twelve years teach- ing experience. The writer believes that the years of eXperience between the two groups was due to the fact that the only teachers who joined BEAM were teachers who were not already involved in another student teaching program in the Bangor District. Teachers with a number of years experience may have already joined other student teaching programs previous to the starting of BEAM. Table 6 shows the comparison on question ten in the teacher questionnaire which asks, "What is your own current teaching assignment?" When one studies Table 6, it is evident that the BEAM Program has more elementary supervising teachers than the Impact Study. In the Impact Study 35% of the supervis- ing teachers were at the Senior High level while there were no senior high supervising teachers in the BEAM Program. Both programs were similar at the junior high level. The BEAM Program had .6% more junior high supervising teachers than the Impact Study. 61 Table 6. Current teaching assignments of supervising teacher. Response Choices Impact BEAM No. % No. % Grades K, 1, 2 809 18.4 9 39.1 Grades 3, 4 506 11.5 6 26.1 Grades 5, 6 413 9.4 3 13.0 All Elementary Grades 172 3.9 - - Middle School 57 1.3 1 4.3 Junior High School 739 16.8 4 17.4 Senior High School 1,539 35.0 - - All grades K-12 48 1.1 - - Omissions 114 2.6 Errors .1 Totals 4,397 100.0 23 100.0 62 Table 7 shows the comparison on question five in the teacher questionnaire which asks, "With how many stud- ent teachers have you worked in the last five years? (Include your current student teacher)." Table 7. Number of student teachers supervising teacher has worked within past five years including current student teacher. Response Choices NoImpact % NOBEAM % One 1,187 27.0 — - Two 778 17.7 3 13.0 Three 611 13.9 Four 453 10.3 2 8.7 Five 387 8.8 - - Six to Ten 629 14.3 10 43.5 More than Ten 299 6.8 8 34.8 Omission 53 1.2 Errors - - - - Totals 4,397 100.0 23 100.0 In studying Table 7, one finds that better than one- fourth or 27% of the supervising teachers in the Impact Study were working with their first student teacher at the same time there were no BEAM supervising teachers in this category. Seventy-eight and three tenths percent of the 63 supervising teachers in the BEAM Program have experienced working with six or more student teachers while only 21.1% of the supervising teachers in the Impact Study have worked with six or more student teachers during their career. It is interesting to note that Table 5 indicated that the Impact supervising teachers on a whole had more years teaching experience while Table 7 shows that the BEAM super- vising teachers have had more experience working with stud- ent teachers even though they have less years teaching experience. Table 8 shows the comparison on question four in the teacher questionnaire which asks, "How many different colleges or universities have been represented by the stud- ent teachers with whom you have worked?" Table 8 reveals the fact that BEAM supervising teachers in general have experienced working with more teacher educating institutions than have supervising teach- ers in the Impact Study. The one exception to this is the fact that .8% of the supervising teachers in the Impact Study have worked with more than six different teacher training institutions during their career while no super- vising teacher in the BEAM Program has had student teach- ers from more than six teacher training institutions. Table 9 shows the comparison on question nine in the teacher questionnaire which asks, "How many weeks is your student teacher scheduled in this assignment?" 64 Table 8. Number of teacher training institutions represented by the student teachers with whom you have worked. Impact BEAM Response Choices No. % No. % Only One 2,502 56.9 9 39.1 Two 1,090 24.8 7 30.4 Three 466 10.6 5 21.7 Four to Six 251 5.7 2 8.7 More than Six 35 .8 - - Omissions 53 1.2 — - Errors - - - .1 Totals 4,397 100.0 23 100.0 Table 9. Number of weeks student teacher was scheduled in assignment. Impact BEAM Response Choices No. % No. % 5 weeks or less 26 .6 - - 6 or 7 weeks 70 1.6 - - 8 or 9 weeks 558 12.7 3 13.0 10 to 11 weeks 884 20.1 - - 12 to 14 weeks 1,275 29.0 - - More than 14 weeks 1,486 33.8 20 87.0 Omissions 98 2.2 - - Errors - - - - Totals 4,397 100.0 23 100.0 65 In studying Table 9 one finds that 87% of the student teachers were assigned to the supervising teachers in the BEAM Program fourteen weeks or more while 33.8% of the student teachers in the Impact Study were assigned to their supervising teachers fourteen weeks or more. The writer would like to point out, however, that most BEAM student teachers are assigned for sixteen weeks with half- day assignments. For example, a student teacher may be assigned mornings for sixteen weeks to a first grade and during that same sixteen week period be assigned afternoons to a fourth grade, giving the student two different assign- ments each sixteen weeks long. Responses of Administrators The responses of the BEAM administrators were com- pared with those of the administrators in the Impact Study on certain questions in the survey. Questions three, four, five, seven and eight were used to make these comparisons. Table 10 shows the comparison on question three in the administrators questionnaire, which asks, "What is your present administrative assignment?" When one examines Table 10, one finds that all of the BEAM administrators are either elementary or junior high, while 16.1% of the principals in the Impact Study are senior high principals. At the time the survey was taken the BEAM Program was not Operating at the high school level. I'vi 1'8 ‘A ‘v she 66 Table 10. Present administrative assignment. . Impact BEAM Response Choices No. % No. % Building Principal - Elementary School 545 54.4 4 66.7 Building Principal - Middle School 28 2.8 - - Building Principal - Jr. High School 140 14.0 2 33.3 Building Principal - Jr.-Sr. High School 29 2.9 - — Building Principal - Senior High School 161 16.1 - - Omissions 18 1.8 - - Totals 1,001 100.0 6 100.0 Table 11 shows the comparison on question four in the administrators questionnaire which asks, "For how many years have you been a school administrator?" When one studies Table 11, one finds the administra- tors in the Impact Study on an average have had more years experience as a school administrator than have administrators in the BEAM Program. Fifty percent of the BEAM administra- tors have had two or less years of experience while only 10.6% of the administrators in the Impact Study have had two or less years experience as a school administrator. Thirty and three tenths percent of the administrators in :‘te I::a< :I;‘h. a: ‘.‘.E 33.3}! :L‘ an “‘.'.e -30 issmrse \ J: C! 1e Three to Six to N: be: tc T‘." ‘E’e A . afiz‘fi h 2h . 67 the Impact Study had more than twelve years experience as a school administrator while 16.7% of the administrators in the BEAM group fell in this category. Table 11. Years experience as a school administrator. Response Choices Impact BEAM No. % No. % Two or less 106 10.6 3 50.0 Three to five 216 21.6 2 33.3 Six to Nine 232 23.2 - - Ten to Twelve 136 13.6 - - More than Twelve 303 30.3 1 16.7 Omissions 8 .8 Errors —.1 Totals 1,001 100.0 6 100.0 Table 12 shows the comparison on question five in the administrators questionnaire which asks, "For how many years have you been an administrator in your present build- ing?" One finds that Table 12 reveals the fact that the majority of administrators in the Impact Study have more years experience as an administrator in the building they were administering at the time of the Study than did the BEAM administrators. Table 11 shows that 30.3% of the 68 Impact administrators have more than twelve years experi- ence as a school administrator and only 16.7% of the BEAM administrators fall in this category; however, Table 12 reveals the fact that only 11.7% of the administrators in the Impact Study have been an administrator in the building they were in during the time of the study for more than twelve years and 16.7% of the BEAM administrators fall in this category. Table 12. Administrators' years of experience in present building. Impact BEAM Response Choices No. % No. % Two or Less 271 27.1 4 66.7 Three to Five 333 33.3 1 16.7 Six to Nine 191 19.1 - - Ten to Twelve 78 7.8 - - More than Twelve 117 11.7 1 16.7 Omissions 11 1.1 - - Errors - -.1 - -.1 Totals 1,001 100.0 6 100.0 Table 13 shows the comparison of question seven in the administrators questionnaire which asks, "How many teachers are assigned in your building?" 69 Table 13. Number of teachers assigned to administrator's building. Impact BEAM Response Choices No. % No. % 10 or less 36 3.6 1 16.7 11 to 20 253 25.3 - - 21 to 30 299 29.9 5 83.3 31 to 40 131 13.1 - - 41 to 50 108 10.8 - - 51 to 60 57 5.7 - - 61 to 70 26 2.6 - - 71 to 80 22 2.2 - - 81 to 90 13 1.3 - - 91 or more 48 4.8 - - Omissions 8 .8 - - Errors - -.l - - Totals 1,001 100.0 6 100.0 .L. A." 70 One finds by looking at Table 13 that the majority of BEAM administrators have fewer teachers assigned to their building than do the administrators in the Impact Study. All of the BEAM administrators have thirty or less teachers assigned to their building while just over half or 58.8% of the administrators in the Impact Study have thirty or less teachers assigned to the building they are administering. Table 14 shows the comparison of question eight in the administrators questionnaire which asks, "For how many years have student teachers been assigned in the building in which you are presently the administrator?" Table 14. Number of years student teachers have been assigned to the building the administrator is presently assigned. Response Choices Impact BEAM No. % No. % Three or less 210 21.0 2 33.3 Four to six 217 21.7 2 33.3 Seven to nine 168 16.8 2 33.3 Ten to twelve 137 13.7 - - Thirteen to fifteen 61 6.1 - - More than fifteen 183 18.3 - - Omissions 25 2.5 - - Errors -.1 - +.1 Totals 1,001 100.0 6 100.0 In st fine been ass 1'OV10‘A S it. .31.. u.v‘ :vaever, the years in the ‘ ‘aaau «mars an: idlinistra: 71 In studying Table 14 one finds that student teachers have been assigned for more years in the buildings of admin- istrators in the Impact Study than in the BEAM group. However, there was a larger group between four and nine years in the BEAM schools than in the schools in the Impact Study. In summary, the writer found that supervising teachers and administrators in the Impact Study, in general, had more years experience than did supervising teachers and administrators in the BEAM Program; however, supervising teachers in the BEAM Program had worked with a greater num- ber of student teachers. Hypothesis I states: The presence of student teachers is perceived to have a more positive effect upon certain instructional activities for pupils in the BEAM Program than it had in the Impact Study. To test this hypothesis the writer used data collected from questions in the questionnaires which dealt with: 1. Effect change in the amount of small group instruction. 2. Effect on individual instruction. 3. Effect on provisions for make-up work. 4. Effect on discipline. 5. Effect on motivation of pupils. Table 15 shows the comparisons on question 14 in the student teacher questionnaire, question 19 in the "V2 N Mic-H >-V~n-~urh nst...\A NK NeN. MU: ------------ 0.00H em 0.00H Hmmm o.ooH w c.00H HQOH o.o0H mm c.00H hmmw c.00H mm c.00H mmwv HmuOB H.| uouum m.H mmH m. m m.H hm m.H we con anEO m.H H m.m Hem o.¢ H m.n Hem 30oz “TGOQ v. me H. H m. mm m. mm mme £092 m.H H m.m mam m. m m.v H o.v mnH m.H mm mde umnswaom H.HH m N.Hv Hnov 0.0m oom >.m m ~.ov mohH o.mH v a.mv MOHN mmcmco OZ n.0v mm m.mm HHmm 0.0m m m.~m mmm m.om n w.mm hme o.mv NH a.mm HmNH mme umszmeom v.ev om m.mH nmmH 0.0m m a.mm mmm m.mm MH v.mH new o.mm m a.mH How duos 3052 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 m .02 w .02 w .02 m .02 mOOwOEU zmmmDm Bzmaaam .GOHuoswumsH msoum HHmEm mo assess sH mmsmnu .mH mHnma ~"c:'~ - livvb. A. O s "'1 v 5"“ I. 33...." ‘&.“‘St tion be: 53339 t‘“ 4“ .5.2g {I 73 teacher questionnaire, and question 26 in the administrator questionnaire which asks, "To what extent was the amount of small group instruction for pupils changed because of the presence of the student teacher?" In studying Table 15 one finds that a greater num- ber of BEAM student teachers, supervising teachers, and administrators felt that there was more small group instruc- tion because of the presence of student teachers than did the same three groups in the Impact Study. Forty-four and four tenths percent of the BEAM groups responded that there was much more small group instruction, and 40.7% reSponded somewhat more, or 85.1% of the BEAM groups responded that the presence of student teachers had caused more small group instruction for their pupils. When one looks at the same three groups in the Impact Study one finds that only 15.2% responded that there was much more small group instruc- tion and 35.5% responded somewhat more, or 50.7% of the groups in the Impact Study responded that the presence of student teachers had resulted in more small group instruc- tion for their pupils. Forty—one and two tenths of the peOple in the Impact Study responded that there was no change while only 11.1% of the peOple in the BEAM group responded that there was no change. Table 16 shows the comparisons on questions 17 in the student teacher questionnaire, question 22 in the teacher questionnaire and question 29 in the administrators 2%» h L.<~— Luna. — 2 ~ zn~< - ...-~y v<...~.~.. -...-~y.d<....~.~. UZ~ whH>-v~a~Dm p~.2.~.~n-~p~.m Illlllllil ‘ .l [{‘l 74 0.00H vm o.OOH wam o.OOH m 0.00H HOQH o.OOH MN o.OOH hmmv c.00H mm o.OOH mmov HmuOB H . mHOHHm m.H HmH ~.H NH A.H ms e.H so mcon -mHeo o.m oom s.m com sons a.moo m. ma H. H m. mm m. mm mama nos: N.~ NNN m. m m.m amH 4.H mo mmmq ums3osom m.mm ommm 8.4H msH a.mm ANOH 0.0m m¢MH mmcmnu oz ¢.Hm mm m.mv mmhv m.mm N m.mw ovw m.mm MH «.mm vomm o.Nm MH m.Hv HmmH OHOE umc3oeom H.mv mm n.mH memH n.oo v h.mH hmH m.m¢ OH m.mH mHm o.mv NH h.mH mmm one: 5052 w .oz w .oz m .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 m .02 w .oz mmoHono 24mm HowdEH Edmm pommEH Edam pummEH Edam uommEH oncommmm mH¢BOB onammBmHszad ammumma mmmumma qumH>mmmDm Bzmooam .mHHmsm mo .msHuousu no .0» coHucwuum HmspH>Hch .mH mHnma . “"6!" on IIBU ..Ul O ”Hint; U'U‘I-fi ‘ {Oi-an. 'V'Uboo - 75 questionnaire which asks, "To what extent was individual attention to, or tutoring of, pupils changed because of student teachers' presence?" In studying Table 16 one finds that 100% of the student teachers, supervising teachers, and administrators in the BEAM Program felt that there was more individual attention to, or tutoring of pupils because of the presence of student teachers, and 67.2% of the peOple in the Impact Study reSponded to the same question. Twenty-five and five tenths percent of the people in the Impact Study said there was no change, 2.7% said there was less individual attention to, or tutoring of pupils because of student teachers and 3.0% responded that they didn't know. Table 17 shows the comparisons on question eight in the student teacher questionnaire, and question 13 in the teacher questionnaire which asks, "To what extent did student teachers work with (instruct, counsel, tutor) individual pupils?" Table 17 does not include administrators; however, when comparing student teachers and supervising teachers, one finds that the peOple in the BEAM Program felt that student teachers worked with, instructed, counseled, and tutored individual pupils more than did the same groups of people in the Impact Study. It is interesting to note that 72% of the student teachers in the BEAM Program responded that they had worked with, instructed, counseled, and .ZHHCZQ Haunsmufi>m~sn~fi «TLLOEJL .VCHCECZCU \TOaUSNUQCfi \o0-flv Sufi: UQXNO3 H3SUQQU UCQEUUW Ucmuxm -hN @NQQE 76 HEOOH mv 00H ommm o.ooH mN 0.00H Ammo o.ooH mN c.00H mmvw mHmuoa I I H.+ I I I I I I I I I muouuu I I m.H NmH I I m.H mm I I m.H so msoHanEo I I m.m va I I o.¢ th I I m.m me HH< um uoz N.v N N.MN owoN m.v H m.¢N NmOH 0.8 H m.HN Nmm uwm mHuuHH < m.mm wH N.H¢ mmmm m.mv 0H s.N¢ msmH o.vN m h.mm oth ucmuxm 060m 09 m.Nm om ¢.om NosN N.Nm NH N.hN mmHH o.Np mH m.mm momH Hmwo umouw < a .02 a .02 a .02 fl .02 a .02 n .02 mmUHonu zmumDm mmmuHch Apmnousu .pmHmmcsoo .pmuosuumcH ..m.HV cuH3 pmxuos Hmsommu Hampsun ucmuxm .hH oHnma . . O'Vtfl'l‘fi ’- uws'fiu lI .l I u 5..., v “29. Sbiue'. sh. . ~, fl\ . “93 “as I '6'!“ ~ g -: ‘ 'IIVI."\,Q . v n {n . r .1- (n () I h a“ Afi- h‘ UVn-t' a: 77 tutored individual pupils a great deal and only 33.6% of the student teachers in the Impact Study reSponded to the same question. It appears that the supervising teachers responded in a similar manner, because fifty-two and two tenths of the BEAM supervising teachers responded favorably as compared to the twenty-seven and two tenths of the Impact Study supervising teachers who responded favorably. Table 18 shows the comparisons on question nine in the student teacher questionnaire and question 14 in the teacher questionnaire which asks, "To what extent did the supervising teacher work with individual pupils as compared to when you do not have a student teacher?" Table 18 does not include administrators; however, again the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program felt that supervising teachers worked more ‘with individual students as compared to when they did not have a student teacher than did the same groups in the Innpact Study. Seventy-five and one tenth percent of the ‘two groups in the BEAM Program felt that supervising ‘teachers worked with individual pupils much more or some- vflmat more than usual when they had a student teacher as compared to when they did not, while 38% of the two groups iJi the Impact Study felt the same way. Table 19 shows the comparisons on questions 54 in the student teacher questionnaire and 59 in the teacher questionnaire which asks, "To what extent was the time you l.- ~-r~n~3'“ ~ ' L ~ N5 'Nz A NUDfim ll |IlIllll||| I ‘I' ' .l|\|.|'ll‘ . I II. [ ‘l|||' 'I‘llll 'I'V : l VIII {'0 IV 1 a Q r \ I Vifi'UILl'V '. >1. II 3 I I l \(J I ‘ I I . \ V \ | I I'll! I I fl ‘ Q .13 IIICIHI' ,. '. YO. V I. C I C ‘. ~I.’ .- '.‘VII‘ . If U . ~ I‘l- IA llIV U iIhII ‘14. 1! ‘QQ Id~.\ cI 78 00H mv OOH ommm cocoa mm 0.00H band 0.00H mm 0.00H mmvv mHmuoe N.I muouua I I b.H meH I I m.H um I I H.N Nm mCOHmmHEO m.m m a.mH mNHH I I I I o.NH m o.m~ MNHH 30cm u.com N.v N m.N mmN I I b.v hON o.m N H.H ma Hanna cone mumH EUSE I I v.0 vmm I I H.HH mma I I b.H on Hmst saga mmmH umczmsom m.¢H h a.mm momm m.¢ H H.om MNmH o.¢N m m.m¢ mmON Hanna mm mEmm on» usond a.mv HN a.mN vmmN m.om aH a.mm mbmH o.mN n m.>H mmh HMSmD case who: vmrxusom m.Hm mH ¢.HH mHOH m.vm m a.mH m¢> o.mN h H.m msN Henna cosh «MOE cos: m .02 m .02 w .02 w .02 m .02 m .02 mmOHonU Edam uommEH Edam powdEH Edam vommEH oncommmm deBOB mamUdaa wszH>mamDm mamUdae azammam .Hmnommu usmpsun m m>ms no: moon on amns on pmummeoo mm mHHmsm HmspH>Hch saws pmxu03 Honommu mchH>Hszm EOHES ou ucmuxa .mH mHnma, III||IIIII' l III.III|III 1'lll III II I'll‘ll‘l'l‘.“l|\l IIll’rl ' II I avap-pdvu'.eIH.A& 9* I In punfihslI‘oh 0 W6 abut-JR-nh PK IN «Iv atfiunuPubvgafi hi:\v~,-.i~,\!¥ II. .0 nnpufidh- 5 EV ~¢Vju~¢>ununha aid .I-uptun h...u><\i Ina-nosnhlh Initnsnsnkuid \.-h‘lifl>Ihvi.h-l£ r-.-‘ u \.v s-Iu \z.s I\.~ u..u~.il..\, 79 QOOH mv 0.00H ommm 0.00H MN ooOOH hmmv cocoa mm ooooH mmdv mHMHOH I I I I I II I I I I I I muouua I I moH odd I I boH vb I I moH Nb mcowmmHEO I I o.v mmm I I I I I I Com mmm 306x u.GOQ H.N H H.m va I I h.H mu oov H wow hum Hmmo ummhw m pmuspom I I m.NH emHH I I m.oH Noe I I o.mH New ucmuxa 050m on pounnwa m.m a H.5N vovN I I a.mN nHHH o.mH v h.mN thH osmm may usond pochsmm N.¢m 0N a.mm mst m.om vH o.mv mumH o.m¢ NH o.mN oomH ucwuxa 050m 0» pmnmwuusH «.mm 5H m.NH SOHH H.mm m A.mH 0mm o.Nm m m.m sHv Home pmwuu m pmmmwuucH fl .02 fl .02 fl .02 a .02 R .02 R .02 mmUHonU Edam uumaEH Edam uumaEH Edam uuudEH unconnmm madaoe mmamumamDm mmamudae azamaem .mocmmmum m.umdommu unmpaum no umsmomn pmosmno nucwpsum HospH>Hch on men mcH>Hm usmmm Hmnommu mcHnH>H0msm «EH» «0 ucmuxa .mH mHnma 80 spent helping individual students changed because of student teacher presence?" Table 19 does not include administrators; however, when one looks at the student teachers and supervising teachers, it is evident that the peOple in the BEAM Program felt that teachers gave more time to individual students when they had a student teacher than when they did not. Eighty-nine and six tenths percent of the student teachers and supervising teachers said that the time that supervising teachers spent helping individual students increased when they had a student teacher, while 49.4% of the people in the Impact Study said it increased. Two and one tenth percent of the peOple in the BEAM Program said that help to indivi- dual students was reduced when they had a student teacher while 17.9% of the peOple in the Impact Study said help to individual students was reduced when they had a student teacher. Eight and three tenths percent of the people in the BEAM study said that help to individual students remained about the same when they had a student teacher and 27.1% of the peOple in the Impact Study reported that things remained about the same. Table 20 shows the comparison on question 37 in the administrators questionnaire which asks, "To what ex- tent did the individual instruction or tutoring of pupils change because of the presence of student teachers in your building." . nag“ :~:J\... . U“~'-\ u “‘Bu .1 :C‘ 5- .‘_ '.‘“v'” r. .m. . | F ' -' C... A. '.‘ \. . g I ~vae.. Each 1 ‘ ""59 ““V.. 13:3; "t 0 81 Table 20. Effect student teachers had on the individual instruction or tutoring of pupils. ADMINISTRATORS Impact BEAM Response Choices No. % No. % Much More 178 17.8 2 33.3 Somewhat More 692 69.1 4 66.7 No Change 112 11.2 - - Somewhat Less 5 .5 - - Much Less - - - - Omissions 14 1.4 - - Errors - - - - Totals 1001 100.0 6 100.0 Table 20 includes only administrators. In studying Table 20, it becomes evident that the administrators in the BEAM survey felt that student teachers had a greater effect on the individual instruction of pupils than did administra- tors in the Impact Study. All of the administrators in the BEAM survey felt that students received more individual in- struction because of student teachers while 86.9% of the administrators in the Impact Study felt this way. It is interesting to note that a greater percentage of administra- tors in the Impact Study felt that students got more indivi- dual instruction because of student teachers than did teachers or student teachers in the Impact Study. .of. .. .4 f . Iowan-d \ u I'd-Ives. I:I‘r »‘-. ' ' V "CN‘fi: '.‘.V‘ifis . 82 Table 21 shows the comparison on question 18 in the student teacher questionnaire, question 23 in the teacher questionnaire, and question 30 in the administrators question- naire, which asks, "To what extent was supervision of study periods changed because of student teacher presence?" Table 21 shows that the people involved in the BEAM Program felt more positively about the help student teachers gave in the supervision of study periods than did the people involved in the Impact Study. It was interesting to note that when one combines the reSponses "much better" and "somewhat better," 30.6% of the supervising teachers in the Impact Study responded and 30.0% of the supervising teachers in the BEAM survey responded. However, the BEAM student teachers and BEAM administrators had a higher percentage respond to "much better" and "somewhat better" which accounts for the total number of peOple in the BEAM Program being more positive than the peOple in the Impact Program. Table 22 shows the comparison on question 15 in the student teacher questionnaire, question 20 in the teacher questionnaire, and question 27 in the administrators' ques- tionnaire, which asks, "To what extent were provisions for make-up work changed because of student teacher presence?" Table 22 shows that the people in the BEAM Program felt that student teachers had a greater effect on provi- sion for make-up work for students than did the peOple in the Impact Study. The Impact Study had 39.4% of the peOple _. .. IIV‘wAU‘, ECHO; kivl 8!. .N nIb -~v ‘.‘: ax) ind. \.... y 83 o.o0H Hm o.OOH Hmmm c.00H o o.ooH HooH o.ooH oN o.ooH ammo o.ooH mN o.ooH nave Hence H.I H. Hanna N.m NHN N.N AN m.m mmH m.N NNH mson .38 a.mH OH G.m 4mm a.mm N o.NH m m.s «mm sons u.:oa m.HH m a.mN mva m.mN HNHH c.4N e v.NN mNNH NHmma uoz mmoa e. mm N. N m. mm m. NN Houoom nous G.m mmm o.H OH 8.4 NoN N.m meH umuoom uMESmEom m.mN NH H.mm mean m.mm N a.me 4m. a.mm N m.qm mmmH o.NH m H.mm «meH mmcmno oz a.mH OH a.mH NmmH m.mm N n.4m ham o.OH N a.mH Nam o.aN m m.eH mmn umuumm umn3maom m.mN NH N.OH NHOH m.mm N o.mH HGH o.oN 4 o.HH «we a.mN A m.m Nam Hmuumm nous m .02 a .02 m .oz m .02 a .oz a .02 w .02 a .02 mmoHonu zamm pommsH zmmm uommsH zanm nommsH zanm unmasH mucommmm mqmeoe onaamemHszom oszHsmmmow ezmoaem .mpoHumm hound mo GOHnH>H0QSm .HN poma NIH l‘Lsfl ions h‘F5Ih P-scfih phsnihu‘FE-{h‘ W\I‘FUL\V~IIIHC§.U Lsh‘uv-thhffiiu !I»IIIII .lll If I II'I. I III! llll 'llullll'llIl' Il‘ll‘l IV..IAV3 atua.|lLv9\lVP- IflIvri n-K-‘I\!.\VAVIA~ IiA- thvaiii \...h 84 0.00H Nm o.OOH Hmmm c.00H m c.00H HOOH o.ooH HN c.00H hmmw c.00H mN c.00H mmvv HmuOB H . HOHHW m.H mmH N.H NH N.N om N.H as con ImHeo m.H H m.¢ HNs ‘ 0.4 H v.m HNs sons “.:oa m. om H. H m. NN e. AN mmmq nos: N.H amH m. m a.N 60H N.H mm mmmH ums3msom m.sm mH N.Nm oon a.mN mmN A.mm 4H H.Hm NvNN a.mH a a.mm NNGN mmcmno oz m.vm mH m.om hmom 0.0m m a.mm 5mm m.¢H m h.mm waH o.mv NH h.NN mHOH Hmummuw UMESmEom a.mN mH m.m va 0.0m m H.¢H HVH o.mH v H.0H vvv o.Nm m h.m omN HOHMOHG suns a .02 w .02 a .02 w .02 N .02 m .02 w .02 N .02 mmoHoso 24mm uommEH dem pummsH zamm HommsH 24mm pommsH mmcommmm deBOB ZOHBdemHZHEQd UZHmH>mmmDm BZmQDBm .xHOS molmxmfi Hem sonH>0Hm so uowwaa .NN mHnma ‘.'\A V Ubdu S: c: 85 respond that provisions for make-up work for students were much greater or somewhat greater because of the presence of student teachers while 63.4% of the BEAM people responded. No one in BEAM felt that provision for make-up work for students was less because of student teachers; however, 2.2% of the peOple in the Impact Study felt that provision for make-up work was less because of presence of student teachers in the classroom. Table 23 shows the comparison on question 16 in the student teacher questionnaire, question 21 in the teacher questionnaire, and question 28 in the administrators ques— tionnaire, which asks, "To what extent was follow-up of exams changed because of the presence of student teachers?" Table 23 shows that again the peOple in the BEAM Program felt that student teachers had a greater positive effect on provisions for follow-up of exams than did the people in the Impact Study. The Impact Study had 32.5% of the peOple reSpond that follow-up of exams was much, or somewhat better because of the presence of student teachers while 56% of the BEAM peOple responded with either much, or somewhat better. No one in BEAM felt that follow-up of exams for students was poorer because of having student teachers; however, 2.7% of the people in the Impact Study felt that follow-up of exams was poorer because of the student teachers. I atop-INVflrv .hnb Ah-I-IzflLn ~ RUN nuc Hdflwnfl IQINmU-erfllfifibwu dPhthwQI-hv-mfi U-UMII .5...th IMMW fibNfiN'uv.“ 86 c.00H om o.o0H Hmmm o.ooH m o.ooH HQOH o.o0H 0N o.o0H hmmw o.OOH vN o.OOH mmev Hmuoe I H.I I I I I I I I I I I I I I wanna I v.m mmm I I o.H oH I I >.¢ mON I I o.N NHH sown ImHEo o.m m.n hHh I I I I I I I I m.NH m a.mH NHh 30am u.soo I v. Ha I I H. H I I m. NH I I m. NN wowoom nosE I m.N vNN I I m. m I I m.m va I I m.H no umuoom HMESmEom o.mm mH N.vm mmmm n.oH H m.om mom o.mm HH a.mm omvN N.mN n o.mm OHmN mmcmno oz 0.0m mH «.mN momN m.mm N H.om Nom c.0N v a.mN chHH 0.0m NH m.mH «mm umuumm umn3meom o.ON OH H.h Hon 0.0m m m.HH mHH o.mN m m.m vum m.m N h.¢ HHN Hmuumm nosE m .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 m .02 w .02 m .02 m .02 moOHOEU Edam uommEH Edam uommEH Edam uommEH Edam pummSH wmsommmm deBOB ZOHBdemHZHEQd mamodae mmmodaa UZHmH>mamDm azaoaam .mmem mo maIsoHH0m so on: mumnomwu usopsum uommma .MN oHnma V I.” q A. V Di U unavo- l '.' a. q 3~ dlu- .. I . A A 9 you“ now-“uni . O '.‘: vr fiw a. “ 0‘»: "‘ bnn‘ t ') u I) (I) :25, OL.‘ ‘.‘S V g “:2 87 Table 24 shows the comparison on question 21 in the student teacher questionnaire, question 26 in the teacher questionnaire and question 33 in the administrators ques- tionnaire, which asks, "To what extent did discipline in the room change because of the student teacher's presence?" In studying Table 24 one finds a more varied Opinion on the effect student teachers had on the discipline in the classroom. As a total group the BEAM people felt more pos- itively because 38.9% responded much better or somewhat better, while only 13.6% of the peOple in the ImpaCt StUdY responded much better or somewhat better. The BEAM people had 25.9% response to somewhat poorer or much poorer, and 323% of the peOple in the Impact Study responded to some- what poorer or much poorer. However, in looking at the groups individually, one finds that 52.2% of the supervis- ing teachers in the BEAM Program felt the discipline was Somewhat poorer because of the presence of student teachers and c>nly 39.1% of the people in the Impact Study responded this way to the same question. The BEAM student teachers had 44% feel that discipline was somewhat better because of their presence and only 12.8% of the student teachers in the Impact Study felt this way. It was interesting to note the great difference between the student teachers and the superVising teachers in the BEAM Program as to how they felt Student teachers affected discipline in the classroom. I I. u .. I I-I IIIII1 \a-IIII-u,\,fl.‘ sfidfivk \n.‘ I VIEW hVN..‘-.-IN. 88 .wcHHmHome :0 pm: mhmnomou usmpsun nommma o.ooH em c.00H Hmmm o.ooH m o.OOH HooH c.00H mN o.oOH name o.ooH mN c.00H mmvv Hmuoe H. Houua m.H mmH m.H mH m.H mm m.H Hm mson ImHEO m.m m o.v mmm o.NH m m.m mam 302M u.coo h.N HNN H. H N.¢ mmH m.H mm HmHOOm nosE a.mN «H N.om mmmN a.mH mmH N.Nm NH H.mm mHNH o.m N m.mN anH uwuoom umnsmeom m.mN mH m.nv mNne 0.0m m m.mm «mm H.wN m m.me NmmH o.mN h m.n¢ thN mocmsu OZ m.Hm 5H N.HH mOHH 0.0m m m.hH mNH o.mH m 0.x Nmm o.¢v HH m.NH vbm umuumm umnsmEom e.n w v.N mmN m.N mN n.m N m.H vm o.m N m.N omH umuumm nosE w .02 w .02 w .Oz w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 mmoHonU Edam powdEH Edam powdEH Edam powdEH Edam uommaH uncommom deBOB ZOHBdemHzHEQd mamUdaB mamodaa qumHamambm azaoaem fl! lll‘ .uN mHnma I“ '1' In In 89 Table 25 shows the comparison on question 22 in the student teacher questionnaire, question 27 in the teacher questionnaire and question 34 in the administrator ques- tionnaire, which asks, "To what extent did the motivation of pupils change because of student teacher's presence?" Table 25 shows that the peOple in the BEAM Program felt that student teachers caused a more positive effect on the motivation of pupils than did the people in the Impact Study. It is interesting to note that 100% of the admin- istraitors in the BEAM Program felt that student teachers in a classroom made far better motivation of pupils. There were 13.1% of the peOple in the Impact Study who felt that the presence of student teachers made far poorer motivation Of Pupils while no one in the BEAM Program felt this way. Tables 15 through 25 support Hypothesis I which Sta‘tes: The presence of student teachers is perceived to have a more positive effect upon certain instructional activities for pupils in the BEAM Program than it had in the Impact Study . Hypothesis II states: The presence of student teaChers is perceived to have a more positive effect on School activities in addition to classroom instruction for Pupils in the BEAM Program than it had for pupils in the Impact Study . I P- H - ans-A.- Iunu a~.§v H at) u 95:: uI-q‘ Faun n~l§an IIIi III-«VII.I!,\ Iii-£191.. elu ..\I.\P.\ \ ‘3‘ IA. .w‘ >~N,.\!..~. 90 o.oOH vm o.ooH Hmmm o.ooH o o.o0H HooH o.ooH mN o.ooH name o.ooH mN o.o0H move Hmuos I H.I I I I H.I I H. I I I I I I I nouns I H.N moN I I m.H mH I I o.N mm I I N.N mm mcon ImHEo I m.n NHN I I I I I I I I I I a.mH 5H5 30cm 3:8 I o.H mm I I N. N I I m.H as I I v. mH nmuoom nosE I H.NH cONH I I m.m mm I I a.mH mum I I h.m mmN Houoom nonsmEom a.mN «H m.mm Nomm I I o.mm omm H.mm m N.He NemH o.ON m n.mm oomH mmcmsu oz n.mm mN a.mm nmNm m.mm m m.m¢ mmv m.bv HH H.mN omNH o.Nm mH H.mm vmvH Hmuumm uMESwEom ¢.ON HH H.m moo >.mH H H.m Ho o.mH m m.m mMN o.mN h m.m mom Hmuuom sosE .oz a .02 m .02 m .02 m .02 w .02 a .02 w .02 mmOHosU Edam nommfia Edam powdEH Edam uommEH Edam uommEH anaconda deBOB onedemHZHEQd mamUdaB mamUdaB oszH>mamom azaoo9m # III .3 633. .mHHmsm mo cowum>wu05 0:» :0 pm: mhwsommu acmpsum uomuma . r-fg ~- 6: ‘s '.‘ '.‘. I O- 1.6] 54 91 To test this hypothesis the writer used data collected from questions in the questionnaire which dealt with: 1. Effect on help or counseling provided the student teachers during non-class hours. 2. Effect student teachers had on the supervision of youth groups in meetings, programs, trips, tours, etc. 3. Amount of talks student teachers gave to parent groups. 4. Effect student teachers had on the supervision of playgrounds, hallways, etc. 5. Administrators' Opinion on the overall quality of instruction. Table 26 shows the comparisons on question 10 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 15 in the tea<=her questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent was inddlxridual help or counseling provided pupils during non- CIaEBEB hours as compared to what would have been possible if 1there had not been student teachers?" In studying Table 26 one finds that the student teacher and supervising teachers in the Impact Study and the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Stuéty were somewhat similar. The BEAM group had 41.3% of the Inembers who felt there was much more, or somewhat more. indiAridual help or counseling provided pupils during non- class hours because of student teachers and the Impact group had 31%. ~> .Ii-v - \f- hv-n - I!I\ah~da V a... h .o.~ h '.'-ud- u>~uv-. Db.I.I\" .u-nab u V530 U PII-3 A Univ F... N ~§FII.~. 92 o.ooH mu o.OOH ommm o.ooH Hm o.ooH some o.o0H mm o.oOH mmve mHmuoa H.I I I I I I I I I I I I Momma I I H.N mmH I I H.N um I I H.N em msowmmwac m.OH m m.mH HNHH I I I I o.o~ m o.m~ HNHH 30:: a.mom N.N H H.H um I I H.H we o.v H H.H me Human and» mmmH san N.N H m.m mam m.v H m.m NFH I I h.H an Hmsma can» mmmH umnzmsom m.mv om v.om whee H.5m NH v.vm mmmm a.mm m m.mv mmom Hmsms mm 95mm may usond ¢.om eH m.mm moom m.m~ m H.m~ omNH o.mm m m.nH mmh Hmnms cosy whoa umnzmfiom m.0H m n.n omm m.¢H m v.m MHv o.m N H.m mum Hanna swan whoa nonE m .02 w .02 w .02 w .oz a .02 w .02 mmowono Edam pummEH Edam uommEH Edam uommEH mmcommmm quaoa mamodaa UszH>mamDm mamodae azamaam mumnommu unmpsum a pm: no: pm: :0» MH anwmmom smmn m>mn vHso3 umn3 ou vmummfioo mm mhfiOE mmMHOIGoc mnfihsv .mN mHQMB mHHmdm H50» wmcw>0Hm mememcdoo Ho mHmn Hmsaa>aOCH mm3 ucmuxm umn3 OB - 9 pp- MB 50 “I n n '2‘ I I 93 The BEAM student teachers and supervising teachers had 4.4% of whom felt that there was somewhat less or much less individual help or counseling provided pupils during non-class hours because of student teachers. The Impact student teachers and supervising teachers had 3.9% who felt the same way. The BEAM student teachers and supervising teachers had 43.5% who felt individual help or counseling provided Pupils during non-class hours remained about the same as usual with or without student teachers, while 50.4% of the Student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study felt this way. Table 27 shows the comparison on question 23 in the Stu(itent teacher questionnaire, question 28 in the teacher questionnaire and question 14 in the administrators ques- tionnaire, which asks, "To what extent did student teachers suPervise youth groups in meetings, programs, trips, tours, etc- ?n Table 27 shows that the peOple in the BEAM Program felt that student teachers supervised youth groups in meet- ings , programs, trips, tours, etc., more than the peOple in the Impact Study did. There were 50.9% of the people in the BEAM Study who responded that often or sometimes student teachers supervised youth groups in meetings, programs, trj-P8p tours, etc., while 39.7% of the peOple in the Impact Study responded. However, it is interesting to note that I .I.v.u HIV \ nunIdzele \ Bali Ii 0 \ Afi-uhlLVIH \JpU..~ 5% |In§tiunu OIIlI-un an. It!.n«fii,h§n aha-sud) Nu.il‘.> IIU-WQIiOIi IiIlletfluvvl,u!UIU, inuoiind Uni -\LV‘I\3 «I i finfi).v.¢¥fl.i |!-\.~. I\-l fiIUNIIQtII\I 94 .mmCHummE cm mmsomm Eusow wmmm>mmm9m mmwnommu ucmtsum cums: 0» and» x0 0E8 o.OOH mm o.OOH Hmmm o.o0H p o.ooH HooH o.ooH mm o.ooH name o.ooH mm o.ooH mace mHmuoe I I I I H.I I I I H. I I I I I I I momma I I m.H omH I I ~.H NH I I m.H me I I m.H mm meonmHso m.H H m.H meH I I m. m m.H H ~.m HeH I I I I 30cm u.:oo m.H H e. oe e.eH H o.v oe I I I I I I I I mHmmm mos moon m.me em m.om ompm I I m.mH mmH p.mo «H «.mm mHmm o.oe OH a.mm mHmm ddoz p.mm Hm p.mm mHmm e.ee v m.ep pep e.- m e.om omnH o.me NH m.m~ mmmH mmsmu ImEom H.HH p H.p «op e.mH H N.¢H NOH H.m m m.e mHN o.~H m e.p emm cmumo m .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 m .02 w .02 m .02 w .02 mmomozu Edam mommsm zamm mommsm admm mommsm Edam mommam wmcommdm mmdeoe moedmamHszod «anodes mamudme 02mmm>mamom azaoaem “HIV II I . summomm .oum .mmaou .mmmmu m .hm «Hams In] {‘1 AL.‘ (I (’7' 'I'1 (I! 95 When one compares the supervising teachers in the Impact Study to the supervising teachers in the BEAM Program, the Impact supervising teachers had 35.6% who responded that often or sometimes their student teacher supervised youth groups in meetings, programs, trips, tours, etc., while the BEAM supervising teachers had 31.8% who responded this way. Table 28 shows the comparisons on question 24 in the student teacher questionnaire, question 29 in the teacher questionnaire, and question 15 in the administrators questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent did student t"zacliers give talks to parent groups?" In studying Table 28 one finds that a greater num- ber of BEAM student teachers and supervising teachers felt that student teachers often or sometimes gave talks to Parent groups than did these same groups in the Impact Study. The BEAM student teachers and supervising teachers had 39.6% who responded that they often or sometimes gave talks to Parent groups, while only 13.0% of the same groups in the Impact Study responded to the same question. However, when Studying the administrators' responses, one finds that none 0f the administrators in the BEAM Program reSponded to "Often" or "sometimes" the student teachers gave talks to parent groups, but 14.8% of the administrators in the Impact Study responded that often or sometimes student teachers did give talks to parent groups. on. nuuAv nut p nuvam Helm A D I.“ r .' IV IN '.'K’ IIV ‘Id HI.“ I” NIUI!HIIrUIA,..III II.- I‘I.I‘J'.I,Id c 'IIIJ 96 0.00H mm 0.00H Hmmm o.ooa m c.00H HOQH o.o0H mm o.ooa name o.ooa «N o.ooa mmvv mamuoa H.I I m.+ I I I I I I I I I I I I I momma I I m.H mmH I I ~.H «H I I d.H «m I I m.H em mconmHso I I ~.H NNH I I H.N Hm I I m.~ HeH I I I I 30cm a.moo m.H H e. He e.eH H H.e. Ha I I I I I I I I EHamm no: mmom m.mo mm a.mm mama m.mm m m.«e m«e m.om «H a.ma m«em «.mm «H a.mm omem mcoz o.«m mH «.NH mmmH I I a.mH mmH m.«m m o.OH o«« m.H« OH m.«H cam mmsmm ImEom d.H H e. «e I I ~.H «H m.« H a. am I I m. on cmumo e .02 a .02 a .02 m .02 a .02 a .02 a .02 m .02 mmomono Edam uumaam Edam momasm Edam mommsm - Edam upmaEH mmdommma madsoe moadaemHzHEad aamodae aamodaa ozmmm>aaapm szaoaam .mmsomm ucmmmm om mwau o>mm mmmnommu ucmpsum sown? om usomxa .mm mHnms r15 I'? 97 Table 29 shows the comparisons on question 19 in the student teacher questionnaire, question 24 in the teacher questionnaire, and question 31 in the administrators ques- tionnaire, which asks, "To what extent did the supervision of playgrounds, hallways, etc., change because of student teacher presence?" In studying Table 29 one finds that a greater num- ber of BEAM student teachers, supervising teachers, and administrators felt that student teachers helped make for better supervision of playgrounds, hallways, etc., than did the same three groups in the Impact Study. The BEAM groups had 61.1% of the peOple who felt that the supervision of playgrounds, hallways, etc., was much better or somewhat better because of student teachers, while 22% of the same three groups felt this way in the Impact Study. There were 2.7% of the peOple in the Impact Study who felt that the supervision of playgrounds, hallways, etc., was somewhat poorer or much poorer because of the presence of student teachers, while BEAM had 1.9% of the same groups who felt this way. Table 30 shows the results of using the chi square on question 38 in the administrators questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent was the overall quality of instruc- tion changed because of the presence of the student teachers in your building?" In. I...- u o..- u. >l~linulan~ I~l~ 1‘ I .U E Ion-a. - Ii IV - fin. VIII! INIHO'I‘IIIEIWI. OU‘muV \ n6.\n-It3N. N. f. UnhrihnII-Iunfl EV‘NV E \ INNV n-uHUIH \Ivkh 9V N. «W ~I.F'Ifi 2,19 Vivi-‘2 94“. o.o0H vm 0.00H Hmmm o.ooa m o.ooH HOOH o.ooH mm o.ooa bmmw o.oca mm c.00H nave mHmUOB H.I I H.I I I I I I I I I I I I I I momma I I «.m mmm I I m.H mH I I m.~ HHH I I m.~ moH mdonmHeo m.H H H.m mom I I I I I I I I o.¢ H m.m mom 30cm u.coo «.e « m.o~ mama I I I I «.eH « m.om ammH I I a.mm HmmH EHmmm HOG mmoa m.H H m. am I I I I I I m. mm o.« .H m. mm mmmoom Eer I I H.N «em I I m. m I I ~.m H«H I I ~.H «m Homood umn3060m m.hN mH v.mv emmv m.mm N o.mo Hmm m.vm m «.mm NMhH o.o~ m ¢.Nv HomH mmcmno oz a.mv mm a.mH vwma 0.0m m o.mN 0mm v.om b a.ma mmo o.mm MH m.MH mom mmuumn umnsmEom m.mH 0H N.o HHw h.oH H N.@ no v.5H v m.h hem o.o~ m m.v mom mmuumn EooE m .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 m .oz w .02 w .02 mwomosu Edam momdsm Edam moomsm Edam mommsm Edam monasm mmdodmma andsos aosdasmmzHEod aamodas aamodas ozmmm>aamom azaoosm .ouw .mhmzaHmn .mQGEOHDEMHQ mo conH>mmem 0:» on musnmmucoo mmmnommu ucmcsum can mcmuxo ums3 09 .mm mHQma 99 a I .m.o ao.~H u mumsom Has m«. m«. I «m.H «m.H I mH. HN.m « n¢.h mm. N mmoummmmm IEHEUd Edam on 00. m«.mh om mm.H «o.mHm Ham oo. mh.h~m rum «0. Hm.mm hm mmoummmmm Ismacd mommaH msom NE a o Na a 0 NE a o «x a o o momoom mmsmnu oz mmuuwm uMESmEom mmuumm EonE .mmoummmmmcmacm Hoonom an vmsmm> mm comuoammmcm mo muaHmav HHmmw>o .om mHnma 100 In studying Table 30 one finds x2 significant when comparing the administrators in the Impact Study to the administrators in the BEAM Program. One can plainly see from this that the administrators in the BEAM Program felt more positively about the effect student teachers had on the over-all quality of instruction. Hypothesis III states: The presence of student teachers is perceived to enhance the performance of super- vising teachers more in the BEAM Program than supervising teachers in the Impact Study. To test this hypothesis the writer used data collected from questions in the questionnaire which dealt With : 1. Extent to which the student teacher affords supervising teacher added time for committee work in the school with pupils and/or staff. 2. Effect the student teacher has on supervising teacher's visitation in other classrooms or schools. 3. Effect student teacher had on supervising teacher's time for research, or professional reading or writing. 4. Effect that working with a student teacher had on the performance of the supervising teacher. Table 31 shows the comparison on question 32 in the Student teacher questionnaire, question 37 in the teacher questionnaire, and question 51 in the administrators ques- tionnaire, which asks, "To what extent did the supervising 101 o.ooa em 0.00H Hmmm o.OOH m o.ooa HOOH o.oca.m~ o.ooa hand o.ooa mm o.OOH mmvv mamuoa I I I I I I H.I I H.+ I I I I I I I momma I I «.H mMH I I h.H 5H I I «.H Hm I I «.H Hm mconmHEO >.m N m.0H m«OH I I I I I I I I o.m N m.mN m«oH Sosa o. . coo I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Hmsma sane mama EUEE I I H. m I I m. m I I I I I I I I Hmsma sane mama N.NN NH N.«m mnmm I I m.m« mm« H.mm m o.H« momH o.NH m m.«N NHHH HHHm um mocv mmamno oz a.mm om o.m« NmN« o.OOH m o.m« om« m.n« HH m.m« mmHN o.Nm mH o.hm mmmH ucouxa meow 09 m.mH OH n.0H anH I I N.m Nm o.MH m H.m oo« o.mN n m.mH mom Homo mmmmw d w .02 w .02 m .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 mmOHOEU Edam uomaEH Edam mommEH Edam uomaEH Edam uommEH mmcommmm deBOB mmOEdm BmH ZHZQd mamodma mamvdaa OZHmH>mmme Bzmabem .mmmum m0\psm mHHmsm nuwz Hoosom may cw xuo3 mmuuwssoo tom 23 poop... .668» meHmHfiomem momommm 3.333 “88$ “:8me .3 283 n‘ y (A) 4') l (.7 102 teacher engage in committee work in the school with pupils and/or staff during the time student teacher was teaching?" Table 31 shows that the peOple in the BEAM Program believed that supervising teachers engaged more in commit- tee work in the school with pupils and/or staff during the time that the student teacher was teaching than did peOple in the Impact Study. There were 74.1% of the peOple in the BEAM Study who responded that a great deal, or to some ex- tent, supervising teachers engaged in committee work in the school with pupils and/or staff during the time the student teacher was teaching. Fifty-three and seven tenths percent of the people in the Impact Study responded to the same question; however, it is interesting to note that when one compares the supervising teachers in the Impact Study to the supervising teachers in the BEAM Program, the BEAM supervis- ing teachers had 60.8% who responded that a great deal or to some extent they had engaged in committee work in the school with pupils and/or staff during the time the student teacher was teaching and 57.6% of the supervising teachers in the Impact Study responded the same way to the same question. Table 32 shows the comparison on question 37 in the student teacher questionnaire, question 42 in the teacher questionnaire and question 55 in the administrators question- naire, which asks, "To what extent did supervising teachers assist the principal or other teachers during the time the student teacher was teaching?" 0.00H em c.00H Hmmm c.00H m 0.00H HOOH c.00H mm c.00H hmmv c.00H mm o.ooH mmvv mHmuoe Hall II In .I II I Holy ' Ho ' II I. I- | | I HOHHM I m.H 00H I I m.H mH I I h.H eh I I m.H mm mCOHmmHEO m.H H N.NH HmNH I I I I I I I I o.v H m.hm HmNH 30cm 103 u.EOQ I I H I I H. H I I I I I I I I Hana: cane mama EUEE I H. n I I n. h I I I I I I I I Hana: Emma mama m.m m o.om momN n.mH H o.«« o«« m.« H m.mm HmmH o.NH m m.HN mom HHHm mm mocv mocmnu oz N.Nh mm H.n« Hmm« m.mm m o.m« om« m.Hm HN H.mm mN«N o.Nm MH a.mm m«nH ucmuxa 050m 09 a.mH m m.m .N«m I I m.m mm m.« H n.n mmm o.Nm m o.OH m«« Hmmm umwmw d .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .oz w .02 mmUHOEU Edam uomaEH Edam uomaEH Edam moamEH Edam uommEH mmEOQmmm deBOB mmOEdmemHzHEad mamUdme mamodafi OZHmH>mmmDm Bzmosem .Emmmomm msHEommm mammsum mo mmsmomn mmmsommu mmnuo mo HmmHusHmm umHmmm cmo mmmomwu mGHmH>m0msm man meu mmmnd .Nm mHnma 104 In studying Table 32 one finds that a greater number of BEAM student teachers, supervising teachers, and admin- istrators felt that supervising teachers were able to assist the principal or other teachers because of the student teaching program than did the same three groups in the Impact Study. Eighty-eight and nine tenths percent of the peOple in the BEAM Program felt that supervising teachers were able to assist the principal or other teachers more because of the student teaching program. When one looks at the same three groups in the Impact Study, one finds that 55.6% reSponded to the same question in the same way. Table 33 shows the comparison on question 31 in the student teaching questionnaire, question 36 in the teacher questionnaire, and question 50 in the administrators ques- tionnaire, which asks, "To what extent did supervising teachers engage in visitations in other classrooms or schools while student teacher was teaching?" Table 33 shows that the student teachers, supervis- ing teachers, and administrators in the BEAM Program felt that supervising teachers made more visitations in other classrooms and schools because of having a student teacher than did the same three groups in the Impact Study. There were 79.6% of the people in the BEAM Study who reSponded that a great deal, or to some extent, student teachers had increased the visitations supervising teachers were able to make to other classrooms or schools. Thirty-eight and o.QOH em c.00H Hmmm c.00H m o.OOH HOQH c.00H mm o.ooH hmmv c.00H mm c.00H mmwv mHmuOB I I I I I I H.I I I I H.+ I I I I I momma I I «.H mmH I I m.H mH I I «.H Hm I I «.H mm mEOHmmHso m.H H m.m sea I I I I I I I I o.« H m.H~ and 30am u.coo I I I H I I H. H I I I I I I I I Hmamo some mama nosE I I H. e I I e. e I I I I I I I I Hash: cane mme m.mH oH o.om emm« I I a.mm emm e.HN m m.«m OH«N o.oN m «.«« ommH AHHo pm Home mmsmmo oz «.oe mm e.«m mm«m o.OOH o m.om mom m.me mH m.o« mmeH o.mm «H m.m~ meNH mammxa 080m 09 m.m m m.m mam I I N.e me I I N.m H«H o.oN m m.m meH Hmoo ummmo d m .02 a .02 a .02 a .02 a .02 a .02 m .02 w .02 mmoHoEo Edam modeH Edam momdsm Edam mommsm Edam pooasm manoamda madsoa macadasmHzHEod aamodas aamodas ozmmm>aaaom szaoosm .mHOOEOm mo meoommmMHo mwnuo EH mcoHHMUHmH> .mmmnommu mchH>mmmzm :0 mm: mwnommu usmcsum mommma .mm mHnma 106 six tenths percent of the student teachers, supervising teachers, and administrators in the Impact Study responded in the same way. Table 34 shows the comparisons on question 33 in the student teacher questionnaire, question 36 in the super- vising teacher questionnaire and question 52 in the admin- istrators questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent did the supervising teacher engage in research during the time the student teacher was teaching?" In studying Table 34 one finds that the student teachers, supervising teachers, and administrators in the Impact Study responded similarly to the student teachers, supervising teachers, and administrators in the BEAM Study when responding to the question: "To what extent did the supervising teacher engage in research during the time the student teacher was teaching?" If one combines the first two responses which were "much more than usual" or "a great deal," and "more than usual" or "to some extent," one finds that both the Impact group and the BEAM group had 53.7%. The Impact peOple had 29.7% who said there was no change and BEAM had 31.5% reSponding the same way. None of the BEAM people said that the supervising teacher had done less research, and only .1% of the Impact peOple said they had done less. Table 35 shows the comparison on question 34 in the student teacher questionnaire, question 39 in the teacher 107 o.OOH em 0.00H Hmmm 0.00H m o.OOH HOOH o.ooH mm 0.00H name o.ooH mm o.o0H made mHMUOB I- .l .l | H.I I I I I «.H o«H I m.H pH I I m.H pm I I H.H mm mdonmHeo m.«H m H.mH mm«H I I I I I o.NH m H.HH mm«H 30mm a.moo I I I Hmst Emma mama nosE I I H. m I I m. m I I Hanna cane mde thH o.NH m H.NN Ham HHHm um pose mmsmno oz mmmN o.«« HH «.mm bmmH AHMSms camp mmoev mcmuxa maom OB MNm o.NH m m.h «mm HHmsms saga mmoE nosey Hmmm m.Hm 5H h.mm mmmm b.0o v m.mm mam m.mv OH o.mN v.vv «N b.«v mva h.mH H a.mm mam N.Nm NH w.hm m.m m o.m Nam a.mH H m.H mH m.v H m.HH momma d w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 m .02 meHonu Edam mommsm Edam momasm Edam mommsm Edam mommsm mmdommmm madaoa amoedmsmHzHEad mamodas mamodas oszH>mamom szamosm .Eommmmmm mom mEHu a.mmnummu mchH>meSm so can monomwu uswmsum mam umnu mommma .«m mHnma 108 questionnaire and question 53 in the administrators question— naire, which asks, "To what extent did the supervising teacher engage in professional reading or writing during the time in which the student teacher was teaching?" In studying Table 35, again one finds that the stud- ent teachers, supervising teachers and administrators in the Impact Study reSponded very similarly to the student teachers, supervising teachers, and administrators in the BEAM Study when responding to the question, "To what extent did the supervising teacher engage in professional reading or writ- ing during the time that the student teacher was teaching?" If one combines the first two responses, which were "much more than usual" or "a great deal," and "more than usual" or "to some extent," one finds that the Impact Study had 56.2% who reSponded and the BEAM Study had 51.8% who res- ponded. The Impact group had 25% who said there was no change and the BEAM group had 25.9% who responded the same way. No one in BEAM said the supervising teacher had done less professional reading or writing as a result of having a student teacher and only .1% of the peOple in the Impact Study said they had done less. Table 36 shows the comparison on question 67 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 72 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, "What effect do you feel working with student teachers has had on supervising teachers' teaching performance?" 0.00H «m 0.00H HOmO 0.00H m 0.00H HOOH 0.00H mu 0.00H emm« 0.00H mm 0.00H mm«« H. I H.I I I I H.I I I I I I I I I I I I m.H m«H I I O.H ON I I m.H mo I I «.H mm N.NN NH m.eH OoeH I I I I I I I I O.m« NH H.mm OOeH I I H. OH I I O.H OH I I I I I I I I m.mN «H o.mN movN m.mm N m.mv mmv H.mm m H.NN mHOH o.NH m m.HN vmm H.mv 0N a.mv Hva n.0w v a.mv hmv m.om vH m.Nm Hth o.Nm m m.Hm movH h.m N v.m mNm I I m.N 0N I I o.NH vmm o.m N b.h mvm mHmuoe momma msonmHEo. 30am a.mom Hmst some mama nosE Hmst cane mama HHHm up Home wmsmnu oz HHmsms smnu mmOEv ucmuxm 080m 09 HHMSms camp mmoE sumac Hmma umomw d w .02 w .02 m .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 w .02 m .02 mmUHoso Edam mommsH Edam mommsm Edam mommsm Edam moodsm omdommmm deBOB mmosdemHzHEmd mamodaa maaodas wszH>mamDm azammam .Emmmomm mcmnommu usmmaum mo uHSmmm m an mcHuHmB mo mchmwm Hmconmmwomm mow mmmnommu OGHmH>mmm5m mmmmoamm mEHB .mm mHnma 110 0.00H mv c.00H omwm 0.00H MN o.OOH band I I I I H. I I I I I O.H N«H I I H.H em H.N H a.mH OmOH I I I I I I H. MH I I I I I I O. Om I I O.H «« m.NH m ¢.HN mmmH m.v H H.mH ovm m.Nw om m.mv ommv m.m> NH m.hm mmmN o.NN HH m.h mam h.HN m m.HH hmd c.00H mN o.OOH mmwv mHmuoe I I I I .HOHHW I I m.H mm moonmHso O.« H ~.em mmOH woman on mHnmcm mmnomme m>Hmommma mama EUDE monomma o>Huoomma mama mcwnomme so mommma oz o.ON m m.MN mmOH o.Nm mH e.Hm H~«H mmeomoa m>Hmoomma mmOE O.«~ O m.« NON mmnomma o>Hoommma mmoE EODE m .02 m .02 m .02 m .02 Edam uomaEH Edam mopdEH madeoe mamodae oszH>mamDm w .oz w .02 mmUHOEU Edam HUMQEH mmsommmm mmmudme BZmDDEm .mmnommu msHmH>mmm5m mnu mo mocmEmOMmmm may :0 mm: mmgommu ucmcdum m nuH3 mGmeoz momaaa .mm mHnme 111 Table 36 shows that the student teachers and super- vising teachers in the BEAM Program felt that student teach- ers had a more positive effect on the supervising teachers' teaching performance than did the peOple in the Impact Study. The BEAM supervising teachers and student teachers had 85.4% of their people who said the student teacher had made the supervising teacher much more effective or more effective, and the Impact student teachers and supervising teachers had 57.2% respond the same way to the same question There were no student teachers or supervising teachers in the BEAM Program who felt that having a student teacher had made the supervising teacher a less effective teacher; however, 1% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Program felt that the supervising teacher was a less effective teacher because of having a student teacher. Table 37 shows the comparison on question 75 in the administrators questionnaire which asks, "What effect do you feel working with student teachers has had on the teaching performance of your teachers?" When one studies Table 37 one finds that the admin- istrators in both the Impact Study and the BEAM Program feel that student teachers have had a positive effect on the teaching performance of their supervising teachers. All or 100% of the BEAM administrators felt that student teachers had made the supervising teachers in their building much more effective or more effective. There were 87.4% of the 112 Impact administrators who felt this way, 10% felt that the student teacher had no effect on the supervising teachers, and .7% felt student teachers had made the supervising teacher less effective. Table 37. Effect working with student teachers has had on the teaching performance of your supervis- ing teachers. ADMINISTRATORS ReSponse Impact BEAM Choices No. % No. % Made them much more effective 144 14.4 3 50.0 Made them more effective 731 73.0 3 50.0 Has had no effect 100 10.0 - - Made them less effective 7 .7 - - Made them much less effective - - - - Omissions 19 1.9 - - Error - - - - Totals 1001 100.0 6 100.0 Table 38 shows the results using the chi square of question 75 in the administrators questionnaire, which asks: What effect do you feel working with student teachers has had on teaching performance of your teachers? 113 Table 38. Effect student teachers have had on the teaching performance of your teachers. Has Made Them Has Had Has Made Them More Effective No Effect Less Effective Group 0 E X2 0 E X2 0 E X2 Impact 875 875.65 - 100 99.38 - 7 6.97 .01 BEAM 2 5.35 .08 - .61 .61 - .04 .04 Chi Square = .74 d.f. = 2 In studying Table 38 one finds X2 is not significant when comparing the administrators in the Impact Study to the administrators in the BEAM Program concerning the effect working with student teachers has had on teaching performance. One might note that both groups of administrators felt posi- tively; however, one group of administrators did not feel significantly more positively than the other. The writer would like to note that responses (a) "has made them much more effective," and (b) "has made them more effective" were combined for this table. Hypothesis IV states: The presence of student teachers is perceived to enhance the performance of regular staff (those teachers not having a student teacher assigned to them) in the BEAM Program.more than regular staff in the Impact Study. 114 To test this hypothesis, data were used from ques- tions in the questionnaires which dealt with: 1. Amount student teachers relieved regular staff by teaching, chaperoning, taking lunch duty, supervising study halls, supervising playgrounds for them. 2. Amount student teachers relieved regular staff so that they could make visitations in other classrooms or schools. 3. Amount student teacher relieved regular staff permitting them to participate in committee work in the school. 4. Amount student teacher relieved regular staff permitting them to do research, professional reading, or professional writing. Table 39 shows the comparison on question 39 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 44 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, ”To what extent did the student teacher relieve regular staff members from teaching?" Table 39 does not include administrators; however, in studying the responses from student teachers and super- vising teachers in both the BEAM Program and the Impact Study, one finds some interesting results. None of the BEAM supervising teachers or student teachers responded that they had relieved regular staff "many times" by teaching for them; however, 44% of the BEAM student teachers responded that they had relieved regular staff "once or a few times" by teaching for them. It is interesting to note that only 21.7% of the BEAM supervising teachers responded to this same question in the same way since the two groups would have been working together on a one-to-one basis. 115 0.00H we 0.00H ommm 0.00H MN 0.00H bmmv 0.00H mN c.00H mmvv mHmuoe I I n. ma I I I I I I I I momma I I a. mo I I m.H we I I «.H mm mconmHEO m.H vHH I I m.N «HH I I I I Bocx a.mom a.mo Nm H.mm mumm m.mh mH 0.5m ova o.mm «H m.mw thN HH.m um uoz m.mm mH N.hN mHvN n.HN m N.mN mOHH o.«« HH H.mN mOMH mmEHu 3mm a mo mono I I o.« Hmm I I >.m mmH I I N.« mmH mmEHe EGME w .oz w .oz w .02 m .02 w .oz w .02 mmUHono Edam uommEH Edam mommEH Edam mommEH manommmm deBOB aamodae maaodae wszH>mamDm azammam .Emnu mom manommu an madam mMHsmmm msH>mHHmm mmmnomwu uswmsum .mm anma 116 The Impact student teachers had 4.2% who said they had relieved regular staff by teaching for them many times and 29.1% who said they had relieved regular staff onece, or a few times. The supervising teachers in the Impact Study reponded similarly to their student teachers, 3.7% responded that student teachers had relieved regular staff many times and 25.2% responded once or a few times. Both groups of student teachers saw themselves as relieving regular staff more than their supervising teach- ers saw them relieving regular staff. Table 40 shows the comparison on question 40 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 45 in the teach- er questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent did student teachers relieve regular staff members by chaperoning for them?" In studying Table 40 one finds that the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program res- ponded very similarly to the student teachers and supervis- ing teachers in the Impact Study. If one combines the first two responses, which were: "many times," and "once or a few times,” one finds that the Impact Study had 22% respond and the BEAM Program had 23% respond. The Impact people had 74.5% who said student teachers did not chaperon at all for other staff members and BEAM had 70.8% who res- ponded the same way. It is evident from the above table that student teachers did not do a great deal of 117 o.o0H we o.QOH ommm o.OOH MN 0.00H name o.ooH mN c.00H mmvv mHmuoa H.I I H. I I I I I I I I I momma I I m.H N«H I I m.H on I I m.H Nb mEOHmmHEO m.m m m.H mmH o.MH m >.m moH I I I I zocx a.mom m.on «m m.«n mHmm a.mm mH a.mn m«Nm o.Nn mH H.mn nwmm HHm um moz a.mH m o.CN henH «.OH « a.mH NNm o.ON m N.HN 0mm mmEHm 3mm a mo mono N.« N o.N NmH I I o.N mm o.m N H.N «m mmEHB EcmE w .02 w .02 w .02 w .oz w .02 w .oz mmoHonu Edam uommEH Edam mommEH Edam momQEH masommma deBOB mamodae mamodae UZHmH>mamDm BzaQDBm .Emnm mew mcHsommmmno an madam mmHsmmm mcH>mHHmm mmmnommm usmcsum .ov mHnma 118 chaperoning for other staff members in either program. Table 41 shows the comparison on question 41 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 46 in the teach- er questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent did student teacher relieve regular staff members from supervision of lunch duty?" Table 41 shows that the supervising teachers and student teachers in the BEAM Program felt that student teachers in the BEAM Program relieved regular staff from supervision of lunch duty much more than did the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study. The BEAM peOple had 20.8% who responded "many times" and 31.3% who responded to "once or a few times," While the Impact group had 1% who responded to "many times" and 1.5% who responded to "once or a few times." The Impact peOple had 86.8% who said that student teachers did not take supervision of lunch duty for regular staff at all and the BEAM peOple had 45.8% who reSponded this way. Table 42 shows the comparison on question 42 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 47 in the teach- er questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent did student teacher relieve regular staff members from supervision of playgrounds?" In studying Table 42 one finds that a greater num- ber of BEAM student teachers and supervising teachers felt 119 c.00H m« c.00H ommm o.OOH MN c.00H hmm« c.00H mN o.o0H mmvv mHmuoa I I I I H. I I I I I I I momma I I h.H HmH I I o.N mm I I «.H mm mconmHEo H.N H O.H Nm m.« H H.N Nm I I I I 30cm “.:00 m.m« NN a.mm moan N.Nm NH N.mm omnm o.o« OH «.hm mHmm HHm um uoz m.Hm mH m.w Nmm >.HN m o.m «mN o.o« 0H H.h mHm mmEHu 3mm a mo mono m.0N 0H m.m O«m >.HN m n.m moH o.om m H.« «mH mmEHe mamE w .02 m .oz m .oz w .02 w .02 w .oz mwOHOEU Edam modeH Edam uomaEH Edam mommEH manommmm deBOB mamUdaB mamUdaB OZHmH>aamDm BzaaDBw .auSp nocsH mo conH>mmmsm 80mm manna mMHsmmm mcH>mHHmm mmwsommm usmnsum .H« mHnms 120 0.00H m« o.ooH ommm 0.00H mN c.00H hmm« o.ooH mN c.00H mm«« mHmuoe H.I I I I H.+ I I I I I I I momma I I m.H NNH I I m.N HQH I I m.H Hh mconmHEO H.N H H.H HOH m.« H m.N HOH I I I I 30cm a.mom m.Hm mH «.mh nmoo H.mm m m.«n thm o.«N m m.mh om«m HHm um #02 N.mN «H O.HH mmoH m.«m m m.HH mom o.«N m m.HH mNm mmEHm 3mm a mo mono m.hm mH m.m mam h.HN m m.m NN« o.Nm mH H.0H mm« meHB hsmE w .02 w .02 w .oz m .02 w .02 w .oz mmUHonv Edam uomaEH Edam uommEH Edam uommEH mmcommma deBOB mamUdaB mamodaa wszH>mamDm BzamDBm .mmcsommmmHm mo conH>m0msm 80mm madam mmHsmmm mcH>mHHmm mmmnomwu mammsmm .N« mHnme 121 that student teachers relieved regular staff from supervi- sion of playgrounds than did the same two groups in the Impact Study. There were 66.7% of the student teachers and supervising teachers who responded that student teachers relieved regular staff from supervision of playgrounds and only 3.2% of the same groups in the Impact Study responded the same way. There were 75.4% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study who responded that student teachers never relieved regular staff from super- vision of playgrounds, and 31.3% of the same two groups in the BEAM group reSponded the same way. Table 43 shows the comparison on question 44 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 49 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent did student teachers relieve regular staff members so that they could make visitations in other classroom or schools?" In studyingflkble 43, again one finds that a greater number of BEAM student teachers and supervising teachers felt that student teachers relieved regular staff so that the regular staff could make visitations in other class- rooms or schools than did the same two groups in the Impact Study. There were 62.6% of the student teachers and super- vising teachers in the BEAM Program who responded that student teachers relieved regular staff "many times" or "to some extent" so that the regular staff could make visi- tations in other classrooms or schools, and 19.4% of the 122 o.o0H mv c.00H ommm c.00H MN c.00H bmm« c.00H mN 0.00H mmvv mHmuoe H.I I I I I I I I I I I I momma I I m.H «mH I I m.H mm I I m.H Hm mconmHEo h.oH m a.mN omMN «.nH « «.HN H«m a.mH « H.Nm mm«H 3ocx a.mom m.ON 0H o.Nm «Ho« «.NH « m.Hm mmNN o.«N m o.Nm mmMN HHd um uoz m.mm 5N n.5H meH N.mm mH m.m~ mm0H o.m« NH o.NH mmm usomxa mEom OB m.m m h.H HmH I I m.H «m o.NH m m.H no magma msmE w .oz w .oz m .oz m .oz w .oz w .oz mmoHosu Edam uommEH Edam uommEH Edam uommEH mmcommma de808 m amUdaB mamodaa wzH mH>m ame BzaoDBm .mHoonom mo mEoommmMHo monuo :H mcoHumuHmH> mane Ema was» on madam mMHsmom mcH>oHHmm amonommm unmosum .m« mHnma 123 same two groups in the Impact Study responded the same way. There were only 20.8% of the student teachers and supervis- ing teachers in the BEAM Program who responded that student teachers never relieved regular staff so that the regular staff could make visitations in other classrooms or schools; however, 52% of the same two groups in the Impact Study responded this way. Table 44 shows the comparison on question 45 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 50 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent did student teachers relieve regular staff permitting them to partici- pate in committee work in the school?" Table 44 again shows that a greater number of BEAM student teachers and supervising teachers felt that student teachers relieved regular staff permitting them to partici- pate in committee work in the school than did the same two groups in the Impact Study. There were 37.5% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program who responded that student teachers relieved regular staff "many times" or "to some extent" permitting regular staff to par— ticipate in committee work in the school and 18% of the same two groups in the Impact Study who responded in the same way. There were 35.4% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program who responded that student teachers never relieved regular staff permitting the regular staff to participate in committee work in the school, 124 0.00H m« 0.00H ommm 0.00H MN 0.00H hMM« c.00H MN c.00H MM«« mHmuoe I I H. . I I I I I I I I I HOHHM I I b.H «mH I I o.N mm I I m.H mm msonmHEO H.NN MH M.mN oooN H.mN m o.HN MNm o.MN h «.bm hhmH 30cm m.com «.mm nH m.om mm«« H.mM m N.Nm mmNN o.NM m m.m« mmHN HHd um #02 H.NN MH o.nH «HmH m.«m m M.MN mNOH o.ON m m.OH mm« ucmuxa mEom 09 «.0H m «.H «NH I I m.H mm o.ON m M.H mm mmEHB mswE m .oz w .oz m .oz w .oz w .oz w .oz mmoHosu Edam uommEH Edam uommEH Edam uommEH mmsommma deBOB mamUdaB mamUdaB UZHmH>mamDm BZaDDBm .Hoonom on» EH Emoz mmuuHEEoo CH mummHoHummm 0» Emma mcHuuHEmwm madam mMHdmom mo>mHHmm mmmnomou unopsum ucouxa .«« spams 125 and 50.5% of the same two groups in the Impact Study res- ponded the same way. Table 45 shows the comparison on question 46 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 51 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent were regular staff members able to engage in research because of the presence of student teachers in the building?" In studying Table 45 one finds that the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program res- ponded more similarly to the student teachers and supervis- ing teachers in the Impact Study than they did in Tables 42 through 44. There were 23% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program who responded that student teachers relieved regular staff "many times" or "to some extent" permitting regular staff to engage in research, and 15.8% of the same two groups in the Impact Study res- ponded in the same way. There were 35.4% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program who responded that student teachers never relieved regular staff permitting regular staff to engage in research, and 48.9% of the same two groups in the Impact Study reSponded the same way. Table 46 shows the comparison on question 47 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 52 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent were regular staff able to engage in professional reading or writing 126 o.OOH m« o.ooH ommm o.o0H MN o.o0H hMM« c.00H MN c.00H MM«« mHnuos H.I I I I I I I I I I I I momma I I m.H «MH I I o.N mm I I O.H on meHmmHEO O.H« ON m.MM MOON m.M« OH m.mN mmHH 0.0« OH «.O« HHMH 3ocx a.mom «.MM OH m.m« MMM« H.OM m o.m« mmHN o.NM m h.m« MMHN HHd um #02 h.mH m M.«H MONH «.hH « m.ON Hom O.mH « N.m mam mammxa mEom 09 M.@ M m.H MMH I I o.N mm o.NH M O.H m« mmEHB EEME w .oz w .oz w .oz w .oz w .oz w .oz moUHono Edam uommEH Edam mommEH Edam mommEH meOQmma deBOB mamodae mamodae oszH>mamDm BZaQDBm .Eommmmmm EH mmmmsw on Spam ocHumHEmmm madam mmHsmmm mm>mHHmm monomou ucmmsum ucwuxa .m« oHnme 127 o.OOH av o.OOH ommm 0.00H MN o.o0H hMM« o.QOH MN c.00H mmwv m.M« NN M.MM «MHM m.b« HH M.MN MMNH o.«« HH M.N« MMMH mHmuos momma maonmHEo 3oca a.mom M.MM MH 0.0« M«H« M.M« OH M.M« MOON o.NM m m.h« M«HN HHd um #02 M.NH m «.«H NMNH O.m N o.HN OMM O.MH « «.n NMM mcmuxa oEom 09 N.« N M.H MMH I I N.N hm O.m N m. MM Hmmm umwmu d w .oz w .oz w .oz m .oz m .oz m .oz moomono Edam uomaEH Edam mommEH Edam uommEH wmcommmm MHdBOB maaudae UZHMH>mamDm mamudae BZNODBm .ochHm3 mo msHmmmm Hmsonmmaomm mow 08H» wwmum mmHsmmm msHmuHEmmm madam HMHsmmm cw>mHHmm mmmnommu ucmosum unmuxa .mv mHQMB 128 because of the presence of student teachers in the build- ing?" In studying Table 46 one finds that the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program res- ponded very similarly to the student teachers and supervis- ing teachers in the Impact Study. If one combines the first two responses, which were "a great deal" and "to some extent," one finds that the Impact Study had 15.9% respond and the BEAM Program had 16.7% respond. The Impact people had 46.7% who said student teachers did not relieve regular staff permitting them time for professional reading and writing and BEAM had 37.5% who responded in the same way. Hypothesis V states: BEAM supervising teachers are perceived to have made a greater investment in working with their student teachers and in attending functions related to student teaching than supervising teachers in the Impact Study. To test this hypothesis the writer used data col- lected from questions in the questionnaires which dealt with: 1. Participation in supervising teacher seminars or other in-service activities dealing with student teaching. 2. Time supervising teacher spent fulfilling social obligations resulting from student teacher's presence. 129 3. Time supervising teacher Spent preparing additional reports because of having a student teacher. 4. Effect student teacher had on the average number of hours per week supervising teacher spent at school compared to when they did not have a student teacher. 5. Time supervising teacher Spent holding tele- phone conversations or other conferences with their student teacher. 6. Time supervising teacher Spent evaluating student teacher's progress or activities. 7. Time supervising teacher spent planning with or for student teacher. 8. Time supervising teacher spent making additional preparations for teaching because of having a student teacher. Table 47 shows the comparisons on question 36 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 41 in the teachers questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent did supervising teachers participate in supervising teacher seminars or other in-service activities dealing with stud- ent teaching during the time student teacher was teaching?" In studying Table 47 one finds that a much greater number of BEAM student teachers and supervising teachers felt that supervising teachers participated in supervising teacher seminars or other in-service activities dealing with student teaching while their student teacher was teach— ing than did student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study. There were 95.9% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program who reSponded 130 0.00H m« 0.00H ommm 0.00H MN 0.00H OOM« o.OOH MN 0.00H mm«« mHmuoe H.I I H. I I I I I I I I I momma I I M.H M«H I I O.H MO I I M.H HO mconmHEO I I o.NH MOOH I I I I I I O.MN MOOH 30cm a.mom N.« N O.«« HHOM O.m N O.MM MH«N I I M.MM MO«H HHd mm 902 M.HM MH M.MM MOHM H.mN O M.MM MOOH O.MM O M.NM OM«H ucwmxa meow 09 m.«m HM O.m OOM N.MM MH M.« OOH o.«m OH O.m OOM Hmmm umwmw d w .oz w .oz w .oz w .oz m .oz w .oz ImmoHoau Edam uommEH Edam uommEH Edam mommEH mmcommoa deBOB a amudaa maEUdaB wzHMH>aamDm azamaem .OGHnommu mas monomom usmcsum mHHE3 OCHmomom unmoomm EHHB msHHmom moHuH>Huom mOH>m0mIcH mmmuo mo mmmcHEom monommm OEHmH>mmmsm cH :onmmHoHummm .O« mHmme 131 that supervising teachers participated "a great deal" or "to some extent" in seminars or other in-service activities dealing with student teaching while their student teacher was teaching. When one looks at student teachers and super- vising teachers in the Impact Study, one finds that 4.6% responded to the same question in the same way. There were 44% of the student teachers and super- vising teachers in the Impact Study who said supervising teachers did not participate at all in seminars or other in-service activities dealing with student teaching while their student teacher taught, and only 4.2% of the BEAM student teachers-and supervising teachers reSponded to this same question in the same way. The writer expected that a great number of people in the BEAM Program would respond to the fact that super- vising teachers do attend seminars or other in-service activities dealing with student teaching, as most Fridays are set aside, after student teachers are able to take over the classroom, for this purpose. Table 48 shows the comparison on question 58 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 63 in the teach- er questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent did supervis- ing teachers engage in fulfilling social obligations result- ing from student teacher's presence?” In studying Table 48, again one finds that a greater number of BEAM student teachers and supervising 132 0.00H O« 0.00H OMMM o.OOH NN o.OOH OOm« 0.00H MN 0.00H Mm«« mHmuoa H. I I I I I I I I I I I momma I I o.N OOH I I «.N MOH I I M.H HO mEOHmmHEO M.OH M «.OH O«MH I I I I 0.0N M M.«M O«MH 30cm a.mom O.«H O O.M« M«M« N.OH « 0.0M MOMN o.NH M N.OM MMMH mmsom mmuxa oz M.NO «M M.OM «OON O.HM MH O.MM OOMH O.«M MH H.MN MNHH mmsoa mmuxa oEom H.N H N.H OOH I I M. MM O.« H M.H NO mmsoa mmuxa OEmE w .oz w .oz m .oz w .oz m .oz w .oz mmoHono Edam HOMQEH Edam uommEH Edam uommEH mmsommma deBOB mamUdaB mamudae UszH>mamDm BZaDDBm .mocwmomm a.mmnomwu mcmpsum Eomm mcHuHsmmm msonmmHHno HMHoom msHHHHaHSM madam masomou msHmH>momdm mEHB .O« mHnma 133 teachers felt that supervising teachers spent "many extra hours" or "some extra hours" fulfilling social obligations resulting from student teacher's presence than did student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study. There were 74.4% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program who reSponded that supervis- ing teachers spent "many extra hours" or "some extra hours" fulfilling social obligations resulting from student teacher's presence and 3.5% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study responded the same way to the same question. There were 48.9% of the student teachers and super- vising teachers in the Impact Study who reSponded that supervising teachers spent no extra time fulfilling social obligations resulting from student teacher's presence, and only 14.9% of the BEAM student teachers and supervising teachers responded to the same question in the same way. Table 49 shows the comparison on question 60 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 65 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent did the supervis— ing teacher spend extra hours preparing additional reports because of the presence of the student teacher? In studying Table 49 one finds that the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program res- ponded more similarly to the student teachers and supervis- ing teachers in the Impact Study than they did in the two 134 0.00H m« 0.00H OMMM 0.00H MN 0.00H OOM« 0.00H MN 0.00H MM«« mHmmoa I I H.I I I I I I I I I I momma I I «.H «NH I I M.H MM I I M.H MM mEOHmmHEO «.OH M O.HH OOO I I I I 0.0N M M.HN OOO zoca u.:om M.MH O M.«N «OHN «.OH « H.HN ONO 0.0N M M.ON M«NH mmsoa amuxa oz M.NM OM M.HM OM«M M.MO OH O.MO ONMM O.M« NH M.O« ONHN ammom amuxa mEom M.M « O.H O«H M.« H O.H «M o.NH M «.H MM mmooa mmuxa OEME w .oz m .oz w .oz m .oz w .oz w .oz mmOHOEU Edam mommEH Edam uommEH Edam mommEH omcommmm deBOE mamudaa mamudae GZHMH>mamDm BzaQDBm .mmsommu usocsum m OGH>ME mo mmsmomn mumommm HmcoHuHOOm OEHmmmmmm ucmmm monommu OGHmH>momsm mama .O« mHnme 135 previous tables. If one combines the first two responses, which were ”many extra hours" and "some extra hours," one finds that 70.8% of the BEAM student teachers and supervis- ing teachers reSponded and 63.2% of the same two groups in the Impact Study responded. The Impact student teachers and supervising teachers had 24.5% who said that supervis- ing teachers Spent no extra time preparing additional reports because of having a student teacher, and 18.8% of the same two groups in the BEAM Program responded the same way. Table 50 shows the comparison on question 49 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 54 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, "How did the presence of a stud- ent teacher affect the average number of hours per week supervising teachers Spent at school compared to when they did not have a student teacher?" Table 50 shows that 56.2% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program felt that supervising teachers spent extra time at school each week that they had a student teacher as compared to when they did not have one and 17.5% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study felt the same way. There were 62% of the student teachers and super- vising teachers in the Impact Study who responded that student teachers had no effect on the time they spent at schOOI as compared to when they did not have a student 136 0.00H M« 0.00H ommm 0.00H MN 0.00H OOM« 0.00H MN 0.00H MM«« nHmuoe I I I I H.+ I I I I I I I momma I I M.H «MH I I M.H HO I I H.N MO anonmHao H.M H «.O «HO I I I I O.HH m M.OH «mm OOOOH on mHnmcm Em H H.N H m. OM I I H. « O.« H «.H MM .mmn M can» omoE vmosoma «.OH M M.H ONH I I m. MM 0.0N M H.N «O .mmn MIM omoammm H.N H O.M ONM I I N.M H«H O.« H N.« MMH .mmn M om as Umosmmm I I M.M MON I I H.M MMH I I M.M OMH .mn H on as moosmma O.NN HH O.NM OOMM O.HN M M.MM NOON O.«N M M.OM OHON mommam on cam I I O.« MH« I I M.M OON I I H.M OMH .mn H on no mmmmd O.NN HH N.M MNO «.OM O O.MH NOM O.MH « M.N MNH .mm: MIH mode O.NN HH M.M OOM M.«M M O.M «MN O.NH M O.H M« .mmm MIM nomad «.OH M H.H NOH O.MH M O.H MO O.M N M. ON .mm: M can» mmoe mompd w .oz w .oz w .oz w .oz w .oz m .oz moomonu Edam mommEH Edam modeH Edam uommEH oncommmm deBOB maEUdaB ozHMH>aamOm aaaUdaB azaomam .mwnomou ucomsum n m>mn mos map has» cans om mmmmmeoo Hoonom um madam monomou mchH> Imomsm £003 mom mmson mo momEsc mmmmo>m on» so on: amonommu ucomsum uoomwa .OM oHnme 137 teacher and 22.9% of the same two groups in the BEAM Program felt the same way. There were 14.6% of the student teachers and super- vising teachers in the BEAM Program who responded that they had spent less time at school per week when they had a stud; ent teacher as compared to when they did not have a student teacher, and 9.3% of the same two groups in the Impact Study responded the same way to the same question. It is interesting to note that the BEAM student teachers and supervising teachers had a greater percentage (56.2% as compared to 17.5%) who felt that supervising teachers spent more time at school per week when they had a student teacher as compared to when they did not have one, and the BEAM student teachers and supervising teachers also had the largest percentage (14.6% compared to 9.3%) who felt that supervising teachers' time was reduced at school because of having a student teacher. Table 51 shows the comparison on question 62 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 67 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent did supervising teachers hold telephone conversations or other conferences with their student teacher?" Table 51 shows that the student teachers and super- vising teachers in the BEAM Program felt that supervising teachers spent more time holding telephone conversations or other conferences with their student teachers than did the 138 0.00H M« 0.00H OOMM 0.00H MN 0.00H OOm« 0.00H MN 0.00H MM«« mHmuoa I I I I H. I I I I I I I momma I I M.H OMH I I M.H OO I I M.H OM mconmHEo I I «.H HNH I I I I I I O.N HNH 3osa a.mom O.MN NH O.M« NMH« O.HN M M.M« NOOH O.MN O «.O« OOHN mmsom mmuxa oz «.OM ON M.O« MHN« M.MM MH H.OM MONN O.«M MH O.«« MHON mmsom mmuxa meow M.«H O O.N ««N O.HN M O.M NMH O.M N M.N NHH mmnoa amuxa EsmE m .oz m .oz w .oz w .oz m .oz m .oz moomoso Edam mommEH Edam uommEH Edam mommEH oncommoa deBOB maEUdaB mamodaa UszH>aamDm BzaoDBm .modomou usomsmm mHoEu numz mmocmmmacoo monuo mo mcomummmm>coo mconmmHmu OEHOHOE madam manommm OEHmH>mwmsm mama .HM mHnma 139 same two groups in the Impact Study. There were 75% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program who responded that supervising teachers spent "many extra hours" or "some extra hours" holding telephone conversations or other conferences with their student teachers and 50.2% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study who responded the same way to the same ques- tion. There were 46.9% of the student teachers and super- vising teachers in the Impact Study who said that supervis- ing teachers Spent no extra time holding telephone conversa- tions or other conferences with their student teachers and 25% of the same two groups in the BEAM Program responded the same way. Table 52 shows the comparison on question 56 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 61 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent did supervising teachers spend time evaluating student teachers' progress or activities?" In studying Table 52 one finds that the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study res- ponded somewhat similarly to the student teachers and super- vising teachers in the BEAM Program. There were 85% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study who responded that supervising teachers spent "many extra hours" or ”some extra hours" evaluating student 140 o.ooH mc OIOOH omam o.OOH MN ooocd OmM« OIOOH MN ooooH MOV¢ .HIDOH I I I I I I I I I I I I «momma I I M.H ««H I I M.H OO I I M.H NO enema-Hue N.« N «.OH OOHH O.« H H.m Man O.« H M.«H «no muses «mama oz m.oe «m a.me MOOO M.OM OH O.«m Ooem O.NO OH M.HO Oman nude: nmuxa atom O.m~ NH H.m ~«m H.MN m O.M «MN O.«N m ~.m OON undo: umuxa man: .oz a .oz u .oz a .oz a .oz n .oz nouHozu Edam auto-H Edam museum Edam mono-m uncommon unmodam maEummm=m mzaossm .mmHuH>Huom mo mmommomm a.mwnommu mcmcsmm msmumsHm>m madam monommu OchH>mmmsm mama .NM oHnma 141 teachers' progress or activities and 95.8% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program res- ponded the same way to the same question. There were 13.4% of the student teachers and super- vising teachers in the Impact Study who responded that supervising teachers spent no extra hours evaluating the student teacher's progress or activities and 4.2% of the same groups in the BEAM Program responded in the same way. Table 53 shows the comparison on question 55 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 60 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent did supervising teachers engage in planning with or for student teachers?" In studying Table 53 one finds that all or 100% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program felt that supervising teachers Spent "many extra hours” or "some extra hours" planning with or for student teachers, while 81.2% of the same two groups felt the same way in the Impact Study. There were 17.5% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study who felt supervising teachers Spent no extra hours planning with or for student teachers. Table 54 shows the comparison on question 61 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 66 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, ”To what extent did the supervis- ing teacher spend time in making additional preparation for teaching because of the presence of a student teacher?" 142 0.00H arc-OOH ommm ooooH MN 0.2: Oan 0.00H MN OIOOH Mm: anuou. I I O.H OHH I I H.H an I I «.H mm aconuHao I I m.OH OmmH m.O mH« I I «.m~ OHHH nuoom ouuxa oz m.OO VM NoMO mmvm M.OM MH a.mO MMVM O.NO mH woOm HMOM nmflom mmuxa 060m N.ON «H O.M moO «.OM O «.oH Om« O.MN O M.M HMN mmnom amuxa and: fl .oz a .02 a .0: fl .0: A! .0: fl .oz Edam muudlm Edam mumdlm Edam acacia nmuHonu omcoauom masocaa maEUm0m5m mama .MM mHnms 143 .HOOH Ow 0.00H comm OIOOH NN OoooH OMMV ooOOH MN ooooH Mavv deuoa I I H o I H o I I I I I I I ““0““ I I O.H H«H I I O.H HO I I O.H me odoHuuHuo O.« N 0.0 O«O I I I I 0.0 O «.OH O«m zoom «.:oo a.ma OH «.HO OOO« M.OH O O.«« O«OH O.MO O «.mm OHON muse: ouuxa om O.HM OH 0.00 OOHO O.HO OH O.Om OONN 0.0« NH «.OH OOO «use: cmuma clam «.O O «.N OHO O.« H ~.O _O«H O.O ~ O.H me «upon cmmxa and: u .oz a .oz m .oz u .oz a .oz a .oz noumogu Edam uu~o5m Edam uuuonm Edam moan-m anaconda «anodmm maxedam 3492. on... mmiamsm azagmm .monomom ucmcsum m OGH>mn mo mammomn mcmnomou mom mconmmmmwmm HmconHOOm OGHEME madam monommm mammm>momsm mama .«M mHame 144 Table 54 reveals the fact that student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program felt that supervis- ing teachers spend more time making additional preparations for teaching because of having a student teacher than did the same groups in the Impact Study. There were 70.2% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program who responded that supervising teachers spent "many extra hours" or "some extra hours" making additional prepar- ations for teaching because of having a student teacher and 37.4% of the same two groups in the Impact Study responded the same way to the same question. There were 51.4% of the student teachers and super- vising teachers in the Impact Study and 25.5% of the same two groups in the BEAM Program who responded that supervis- ing teachers Spent "no extra hours" making additional preparations for teaching because of having a student teacher. Hypothesis VI states: BEAM supervising teachers are perceived to have used instructional materials, aids, or ideas provided by their student teachers more than super- vising teachers in the Impact Study. To test this hypothesis the writer used data collected from questions in the questionnaires which dealt with: 145 1. Amount of new or different instructional material student teacher introduced. 2. Aids and ideas student teachers provided or suggested other than instructional materials. 3. Use supervising teachers made of instructional materials, aids, or ideas student teachers develOped, provided or suggested. Table 55 shows the comparisons of question 26 on the student teacher questionnaire, question 31 on the teach- er questionnaire and question 21 on the administrators questionnaire, which asks, "Did the student teacher bring, develOp, provide, or suggest any new or different instruc- tional materials?" Table 55 shows that BEAM student teachers, super- vising teachers, and administrators felt that student teachers introduced more new or different instructional materials than did the me three groups in the Impact Study. There were 98.2% of the student teachers, super- vising teachers, and administrators in the BEAM Program and 77.1% of the same three groups in the Impact Study who responded that "a great many," "quite a few" or "some" new or different instructional materials had been introduced by student teachers. There were 14.7% of the student teachers, supervis- ing teachers and administrators in the Impact Study and only 1.9% of the peOple in the same three groups in the BEAM.Program who felt that student teachers introduced no new or different instructional materials. 146 0.00H «M 0.00H HOMO 0.00H M 0.00H HOOH 0.00H MN O.MOH OOM« 0.00H MN 0.00H MM«« mHmuoe H.I I H. I I I I I I I I I I I I I momma I I «.H O«H I I O.N ON I I M.H OM I I «.H MM mconmHEo I I O.« MM« I I I I I I I I I I «.OH MM« mmsm #02 Ed H O.H H O.«H «M«H I I O.M OM I I O.NN OOOH O.« H M.O OH« mcoz I I O.N MOH I I M.OH MOH I I I I I I I I 3ma >mo> d O.MM «M H.«M «MMM M.MM N O.MM OMM M.OM MH «.MM MOON O.«M MH H.OM MOOM mama «.O « M.H HOH O.MM « H.MH HOH I I I I I I I I 3mm d ouHoo M.ON MH N.HH HHHH I I O.M OM «.OM O «.NH M«M O.NM M O.HH ONM OcmE ummmw d M .02 M .02 M .oz M .02 M .02 M .oz M .02 M .oz mmOHOEU Edam uommEH Edam uommEH Edam uommEH Edam mommEH omcommma deBOB mmOBdEBMHZHEQd mamUdaB mamodaa ozHMH>aamDm azamzam . .mwosmomucm mmmnommu msmcsum mHmHmmumE HmcoHuosmumcH ucmmmMMHc mo 3m: mo HESOEd .MM mHnt 147 Table 56 shows the comparison of question 27 on the student teacher questionnaire, question 32 on the teacher questionnaire, and question 22 on the administrators question- naire, which asks, "Did student teachers provide or suggest any aids and ideas other than instructional materials?" Table 56 shows that BEAM student teachers, super- vising teachers, and administrators felt that student teachers provided or suggested more aids and ideas other than instructional materials than did the same three groups in the Impact Study. There were 96.7% of the student teachers, supervising teachers, and administrators in the BEAM Program and 78.9% of the same three groups in the Impact Study who reSponded that "a great many or often," ”some or sometimes," student teachers provided or suggested aids and ideas other than instructional materials. There were 13.2% of the student teachers, super- vising teachers and administrators in the Impact Study and 3.7% of the student teachers, supervising teachers, and administrators in the BEAM Program who felt that student teachers provided or suggested no aids or ideas other than instructional materials. Table 57 shows the comparison of question 28 in the student teacher questionnaire, question 33 in the teacher questionnaire, and question 23 in the administrators ques- tionnaire, which asks, "What use were supervising teachers able to make of instructional materials, aids or ideas student teachers develOped, provided or suggested?" 148 0.00H «M 0.00H HOMO 0.00H M 0.00H HOOH 0.00H MN M.OOH OOM« 0.00H MN 0.00H MM«« mHmmoa I I H.I I I I I I I I I I I I I I momma I I «.H OMH I I M.H OH I I «.H HM I I M.H MM msonmHEO I I N.« NH« I I I I I I I I I I N.O NH« mmsm uoz Ed H O.M N N.MH OOMH I I M.N MN M.« H O.HN MMO O.« H 0.0 «HM oz mo mm>wz I I «.N MMN I I M.MN MMN I I I I I I I I Eoonm M.OM OM N.OM O«OM O.MM « N.«M M«M M.OM MH O.MM N«ON O.MM OH M.NO MMNM meHu Imeom mo meow M.ON MH 0.0 OMO M.MM N N.O NO H.MN M M.O HM« O.MN O 0.0 ««« Hammaov OcmE mammw d M .oz M .oz M .oz M .oz M .oz M .oz M .oz M .oz mmomoao Edam mommEH Edam unadEH Edam uomaEH Edam uommEH omsommmm deBOB mmOBdeszHEQd maaodaa maEUdaB UZHMH>mamDm azaamam .mHmmmmumE HmcoHuosmmmsH can» moauo OwummOOsm mo OmOH>omm mmmmommu mammsmm madam can mOHd 149 0.00H «M 0.00H HMMO O.M OOM M.HH NMHH OMN O.H H MM« «.O « OOO 0.00 O« O.MM OOMM o. O. mHmuoe momma OOH M 0.00H HOOH 0.00H MN 0.00H OOMv 0.00H MN 0.00H MM«« MM I I M.M OMH I I M.N OHH I I I I M.OH OMO H.M MMM msommmmso mommo on EOOE m>mm “OZ pHm some mcon Isnmmmcoo doom mam IMME Eomm mmmmmsoo ImHm 0mm: MHN moms moz mmmz Owns MH M.« H 0.0 MOM I I OMH Ammoummm ImHEHEUdV ammo mmEHumEom ommz Owns comm mmoz Emma OO « OOO I I I I I I I I MO O.MO NN N.HO HMHM 0.00H MN M.HM MMMM .oz uommEH de909 M .02 M Edam M moomonu wmsommmm .oz O .oz Edam mommsm mamodaa azamasm .oz O .oz M Edam mopmsm mamodae oszH>mamom .oz O .oz M Edam moomsm mmoadmsmHzHEmd madam mo .mon .mHmHmmums HmcoHuosmmmcH «0 come mmmnommm OchH>momsm mm: 1 I] .ommmommsm mo omOH>omm .Ommon>mm mmmsomou mcwosum .OO anOe 150 Table 57 Shows that a greater number of BEAM stud- ent teachers, supervising teachers, and administrators felt that supervising teachers used instructional materials, aids, or ideas which student teachers had develOped, pro- vided, or suggested than did student teachers, supervising teachers and administrators in the Impact Study. Ninety and seven tenths percent of the student teachers, super- vising teachers and administrators in the BEAM Program res- ponded that instructional materials, aids, or ideas student teachers develOped, provided, or suggested were used and 69.7% of the same three groups in the Impact Study responded in the same way. Seven and four tenths percent of the three groups in the BEAM Program said "they were sometimes used," and 1.9% reSponded that "they were not used." The Impact Study had 8.1% of their three groups who reSponded that instructional materials, aids, or ideas student teachers develOped, produced, or suggested were ”sometimes used" and 4.6% of the three groups in the Impact Study responded that "they were not used." Hypothesis VII states: BEAM supervising teachers are perceived to have taken less time from their students because of having a student teacher than supervising teach- ers in the Impact Study. 151 To test this hypothesis the writer used data collected from questions in the questionnaires which dealt with: 1. Time supervising teacher Spent conferring or planning with student teacher so that the supervising teacher had less time for indivi- dual work with pupils. 2. To what extent did the supervising teacher find it necessary to re-teach after student teacher taught. 3. Amount of material covered. Table 58 shows the comparison on question 11 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 16 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent did conferring with the student teacher take the supervising teacher's time so they had less time for individual work with pupils?" Table 58 shows that 87.5% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program and 80.1% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study responded "seldom" or "never" when asked the question, "To what extent did conferring with student teacher take supervising teachers' time so they had less time for indivi- dual work with pupils?" Table 58 also shows that 10.5% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program.and 16.4% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study responded "frequently" or "sometimes" when asked the same question. 152 o.ooH mv 0.00H ommm 0.00H ON o.OOH OOOv o.OOH ON a.moH Oovv .Huuoa I I O.H OOH I I O.H Om I O.H MO acoHaano O.N H O.N OOH I I I I O.« H O.« OOH roam u.com N.«O ON 0.00 OO«O O.MO OH 0.0N OONH O.Nm OH «.O« OHNN mops: 0.00 mH 0.0« ONOO «.OO O 0.0« OOOH O.MO O 0.00 OOMH nooHom O.M O 0.0H OONH 0.0H O O.HN OOO I «.M OON molHuonom N.« N O.N HNN I I N.« OOH O.M N O. MO OHmaoavomm I o 08 fl . 02 % o 0! fl o 08 fl o 02 I o O! a 004.05 Edam mundam Edam moan-m Edam mono-m oucoouom mamEUdaa mammodaa madman uzmmm>mumsm seamssm .mHHmsm saws xmoz HmscH>HOcH mow mama mmmH on: can om manomou ucwmsum EuH3 Ochmwmcoo madam manommm OEHmH>m0msm mama .MM oHnme 153 One might assume from the above reSponses that much of the conferring that supervising teachers did with stud- ent teachers was done during the time that students were not in class. Table 59 shows the comparison on question 12 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 17 in the teacher questionnaire,which asks, "To what extent did planning with student teachers take the supervising teach- er's time so that the supervising teacher had less time for individual work with pupils?" In studying Table 59 one finds the results are very similar to Table 58. It shows that 91.6% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program and 82.3% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study responded "seldom" or "never” to the ques- tion. Table 60 shows the comparison on question 13 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 18 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent was re-teaching necessary after the student teacher taught?" In studying Table 60 one finds that the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program and the Impact Study gave very similar reSponses to the ques- tion. The Impact Study had 19.5% of the student teachers and supervising teachers who responded that re-teaching was "frequently" or "sometimes" necessary after the student 154 0.00H mv o.OOH cmmm c.0OH MN OIOOH OOMv 0.00H MN 0.00H Mace mHUMOB I I M.H OMH I O.H MO I I O.H MO unamuuulo H.N H O.H NMH I I I OI¢ H M.M NMH 3O:a.u.con M.mM MN O.Mv VOov M.OM «H O.NM O«VH O.MM vH M.OM ONMN md>oz M.MM MH «.MM MMNM m.vM m O.Hv vaH O.NM m N.HM OOMH IovHom N.¢ N H.NH MOoH M.v H M.OH NMM O.M H O.v HHN noeHuviom H.N H H.N OOH I I 0.0 HOH O.« H O. OH OHuoooaoma fl .oz fl .oz fl .oz fl .02 I .oz fl .oz OUHOEU Edam mucosa Edam quOnm Edam museum «econ-om maEUdaa aaEUdaB madkoa UZHMH>aamDm azaaaam .mHHmsm EuH3 Emo3 HOEOH>HOEH mom maHm mmoH can mam om monomwu mamasum EuH3 mcmcsmHm madam manomom mammm>mom9m OEHB .OM OHQOB 155 0.00H M« 0.00H OMMM 0.00H MN 0.00H OOM« 0.00H MN 0.00H MM«« mHmmoa I I I I I I I I I I I I momma I I O.N NMH I I N.N OO I I O.H MM msonmHEO N.« N H.M OHO I I I I O.M N O.MH OHO 3oaa a.mom M.MH M M.MM MMHM M.« H N.ON MOHH O.MN O O.M« OMOH mm>mz M.MM ON O.«M OOOM 0.0M «H M.N« MOMH O.NM MH M.ON «NNH EOOHOM M.ON OH M.OH NMMH O.«M M N.MN MOHH O.M N 0.0 ««« mmEHumEom H.N H O.N OOH I I M.N MNH O.« H N.H «M OHmcmsdmma M .oz M .oz M .oz M .oz M .02 M .oz mooHonU Edam uommEH Edam uommEH Edam mommEH mmcommmm M.HdBOB mamUdaB mamodma UZHMH>~H ame Bzmn—Dfim .msmsmu mosomwm ucmmsum momma Ommmmmooc mcHEOOOUIom mm3 ucmmxm ums3 OB .OM OHQMB 156 teacher taught, while 22.9% of the BEAM student teachers and supervising teachers reSponded the same way to the same question. Table 60 also shows that 70.4% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study and 72.9% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program reSponded "seldom" or "never" when asked the question, "To what extent was re-teaching necessary after the student teacher taught?" Table 61 shows the comparison on question 20 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 25 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent was the amount of material covered changed because of the student teacher's presence? Table 61 shows that 62.6% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program felt that "much more" or "somewhat more" material was covered because of the student teacher's presence and 29% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study felt the same way. One finds that 29.2% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program and 47% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study responded that there was "no change" in the amount of material covered because of the student teacher's pre- sence . 157 0.00H OO 0.00H OOOO 0.00H ON 0.00H OOO« 0.00H ON 0.00H Omvv «Homes NII. H. I I I I I I I I I mmomma I I O.H O«H I I O.H OO I I O.H OO OconmHao N.« N 0.0 OHO I I I I 0.0 N O.HH OHO song “OGOO I I O. «O I I O.H OM I I O. OH maoH mus: N.« N M.OH OOOH O.« H H.NN NOO O.« H 0.0 OH« doom unnzoeom N.ON «H O.O« «OH« O.«O O O.O« OOON o.«N O N.OO OHHN coconu oz 0.0« HN O.HN OHHN O.O« OH O.NN OOO O.«« HH 0.0N HNHH «mo: amazosom 0.0H O H.O OO« «.OH « 0.0 OON O.ON O O.« ONN duo: gun: a .oz a .oz a .oz O .oz a .oz a .oz OOUHoEu Edam uuuoam Edam mucosa Edam uuooam anaconda OOEUdms Oaaudaa OHdsoa ozmmm>mamam mauommm .mosmmmmm a.mmnommu mamasmm mo mmsmomn Ommcmno mmmm>oo HOHmmmmE mo uEDOEd .HM mHnt 158 Four and two-tenths percent of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program responded that they covered "somewhat less" material because of the stud- ent teacher's presence and 15.6% of the same two groups in the Impact Study reSponded the same way. Hypothesis VIII states: BEAM student teachers are perceived to have taken on a greater role in the Operation of the classroom than student teachers in the Impact Study. To test this hypothesis, the writer used data collected from questions in the questionnaires which dealt with: 1. Average hours per week that the student teachers taught assigned classes. 2. Average hours per week that the supervising teacher was able to be away from the class- room while student teacher taught assigned classes. 3. Change in the time the supervising teacher spent teaching because of student teacher's presence. 4. Change in the time the supervising teacher spent lesson planning because of student teacher's presence. 5. Change in the time supervising teacher spent paper grading changed because of student teacher's presence. Table 62 shows the comparison on question 29 in the student teacher questionnaire, question 34 in the teacher questionnaire and question 24 in the administrators ques- tlonnaire, which asks, "How many hours per week, on the 159 average, did student teacher teach supervising teacher's assigned classes?" In studying Table 62 one finds that the student teachers, supervising teachers, and administrators in the BEAM Program reSponded somewhat similarly to the same three groups in the Impact Study. One finds that 29.5% of the student teachers, super- vising teachers, and administrators in the Impact Study and 29.6% of the same three groups in the BEAM Program res- ponded that student teachers taught the supervising teach- ers' assigned classes on an average of 11 to 15 hours per week. Table 62 also shows that 41.3% of the administra- tors, supervising teachers, and student teachers in the Impact Study and 26% of the same three groups in the BEAM Program responded that student teachers taught supervising teachers' assigned classes on an average of less than ten hours per week. The same three groups in the Impact Study had 27% and BEAM had 44.4% who responded that student teachers taught the supervising teacher's assigned class Sixteen or more hours per week on an average. One might conclude from the above data that student teachers in the BEAM Program taught supervising teacher's assigned classes more than did student teachers in the Impact Study. 160 0.00H «M 0.00H HMMO 0.00H M 0.00H HOOH 0.00H MN 0.00H OOM« 0.00H MN 0.00H MM«« MHMHOB I I I I I I H.I I I I I I I I I I momma I I M.H OOH I I M.N MN I I M.H MO I I O.H OO mcoHMMHEO O.MN «H M.OH N«OH I I «.M «M M.« H M.M MMN O.NM MH H.MH NNO .x3 mmm .mmn ON swam mmOE M.MH OH M.MH MNMH 0.0M M «.NH «NH O.M N O.«H MMM 0.0N M O.MH O«M .x3 mam .mmn ONIMH M.ON MH 0.0N MMON 0.0M M M.MN MMN M.M« OH M.OM H«MH O.NH M H.OM O«MH .x3 mam .mmE MHIHH «.ON HH M.MN O«MN I I O.MM OMM M.«M M O.HM MO«H O.NH M M.«N OMOH .xz mmm .mmn OHIM M.O O O.HH ««HH I I O.OH OOH O.O N O.OH NOO O.« H O.O «OO .Hz mom .OHE OIH I I O. OO I I O. O I I O. HO I I O.H O«O adds mom moon mso swam mama M .oz M .oz M .oz M .oz M .oz M .oz M .02 M .oz OOOHOEU Edam mommsH Edam uoOmSH Edam HOOOEH Edam uommSH omdommmm desos macadmsOHzHEad mamodas mamodae oszH>mamOm Ozaoosm .mmmmmHo Omsmmmmm ucvsmu mmmnommu ucmcsum mmmmw>m map so Emmz mom mmson mo monssz .NM mHnme 161 Table 63 shows the comparison on question 30 in the student teacher questionnaire, question 35 in the teacher questionnaire, and question 25 in the administrators ques- tionnaire, which asks, "How many hours per week on the average was the supervising teacher able to be away from the classroom while student teacher was teaching supervis- ing teacher's assigned classes?" In studying Table 63 one finds that 14.1% of the student teachers, supervising teachers, and administrators in the Impact Study and 7.5% of the same three groups in the BEAM Program reSponded that supervising teachers were able to be away from the classroom on an average of eleven to fifteen hours per week while student teacher taught assigned classes. Table 63 also shows that 72.6% of the ers, supervising teachers, and administrators Study and 76% of the same three groups in the reSponded that supervising teachers were able from the classroom on an average of less than student teach- in the Impact BEAM Program to be away ten hours per week. The same three groups in the Impact Study had 11.3% and the BEAM Program had 16.7% who responded that the super- vising teachers were able to be away from the classroom on an average of sixteen or more hours per week while the student teacher taught the supervising teacher's assigned classes. 162 HMMO 0.00H «M 0.00H 0.00H M 0.00H HOOH 0.00H MN 0.00H OOM« 0.00H MN 0.00H MM«« mHmmos H.I I H.I I I I I I H. I I I I I I I momma I I H.N HHN I I M.N MN I I O.H MO I I M.N MOH mconmHEO M.O M M.« NN« I I O.H OH I I N.H MM 0.0N M O.M OMM ON can» omoE «.O « 0.0 OOM I I O.M OM M.« H O.N OHH O.NH M O.NH MMM ONIMH «.O « H.«H MOMH I I N.O NO I I M.O OO« O.MH « 0.0H NOM MHIHH M.«« «N H.ON MOMN O.MM « M.MN MMN O.«M M M.MN MMHH O.M« NH «.MN MONH OHIM M.ON MH M.MM OHMM M.MM N 0.0M HOM M.MM MH M.M« MOON O.« H M.NN MHOH MIH O.H H 0.0 MOO I I 0.0H MOH M.« H M.NH MMM I I O.M MOM wco can» mama M .oz M .oz M .oz M .oz M .oz M .oz M .oz M .oz mwomomu Edam mommEH Edam mommEH Edam uomaEH Edam uommEH omsommmm MHdBOB meBdMBMHZHEQd maEUdaB mamUdaB wzHMH>aamDM azamsam Eoma OOEO an on .mmmmmHo OchHmmm mnmsmu mmnommu ucwmsum OHHE3 EoommmmHo mHQm was manommm mchH>mmmsm wmmmo>m may no xwm3 mwm mmdom .MM OHQOE 163 Table 64 shows the comparison on question 51 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 56 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent was the time supervising teachers spent teaching changed because of student teacher's presence?" In studying Table 64 one finds that the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program res- ponded similarly to the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study. One finds that 8.4% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Pro- gram responded that the time supervising teachers Spent teaching "increased a great deal" or "increased to some extent" because of student teacher presence, and 6% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study responded the same way to the same question. Ten and four-tenths percent of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program and 11.1% of the same two groups in the Impact Study reSponded that the supervising teachers' time teaching "remained about the same" during the time their student teacher was present. There were 79.8% of the student teachers and super- vising teachers in the Impact Study and 81.3% of the stud- ent teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program who responded that the time the supervising teachers Spent teaching was "reduced to some extent" or "reduced a great deal" because of the student teacher's presence. 164 0.00H mv 0.00H OMMM 0.00H MN 0.00H OOMV 0.00H MN 0.00H MM«« «Haven. H.I I I I H. I I I I I I I «momma I I «.H «NH I I M.H OM I I M.H OM OSOHOOHIO I I O.H M«H I I I I I I M.M M«H cool u.soa H.ON OH «.OO ONOO O.« H N.ON ONOH 0.0« NH O.HO OOON Hoop uncuO c ouusoom N.«M MN «.N« HMOM O.MO OH «.OM MHNN O.MM O M.«M HOOH acouxo aloe on nousoom «.OH M H.HH NMO O.M N M.MH MMM o.NH M M.M MON also 0:» Macao oochiom M.M M O.M M«« O.MH M O.M NMM I I H.N «O ucouxo oeou on cammomunm H.N H O.H mO I I M.H MM O.« H M. ON Home umomm o omuoomucm fl .oz x .oz fl .0: fl .02 a .oz fl .oz OGUHOEU Edam uuocEH Edam uoucEH Edam museum Uncommon MHdHOH aaEUaamDm aaEUdaH azambam .mocmmmmm a.mmaommu ucocsum Mo mmsmomn cmmcmno Ocmnommm madam manommm mchH>mmmsm msHu ms» was ucmuxm umg3 09 .«M anmB 165 Table 65 shows the comparison on question 52 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 57 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent was the time the supervising teacher spent lesson planning changed because of the student teacher's presence?" Table 65 shows that 77.1% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program felt that the supervising teachers' time spent lesson planning was re- duced because of the presence of a student teacher and 51.4% of the same two groups in the Impact Study responded the same way. Table 65 also shows that 17.2% of the student teach- ers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study and 12.5% of the same two groups in the BEAM Program felt that the time supervising teachers spent lesson planning was in- creased because of the presence of a student teacher. Table 66 shows the comparison on question 53 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 58 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent was the time that the supervising teacher Spent paper grading changed because of the student teacher's presence?" Table 66 shows that 70.2% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program felt that the supervising teachers' time Spent paper grading was reduced because of the presence of a student teacher and 58.8% of the same two groups in the Impact Study responded the same way. 166 0.00H M« 0.00H OOOM 0.00H MN 0.00H OOM« 0.00H MN 0.00H MM«« mHmuoB I I H.I I I I I I I I I I momma I I O.H MMH I I M.H MM I I O.N OO mconmHEo I I H.M MON I I I I I I H.M MON 30cm u.com O.NN HH 0.0H «MOH O.M N H.M MMM O.MM O «.HM OO«H Hump umwmm m twosmoa N.«M MN M.HM OOON M.MM MH M.ON MONH O.NM MH O.MM HHMH msmuxw maom om twosoma «.OH M M.MN HMMN O.M N O.NM OM«H O.NH M M.ON MNO mama mnu usonm Omchamm N.« N O.MH HMNH O.M N N.MN ONOH I I O.« HHN ucomxm maom ou Mmmmmmosm M.O « M.M MON «.OH « N.M ONN I I M.H OM Hump umwmm m Ommmmmocm M .oz M .oz M .oz M .oz M .oz M .oz moomono Edam uomaEH Edam uommEH Edam uommEH mmcoammm OHdBOB mamOdaB UzHMH>mamDm aaaodae azammam .mocmmmmm a.mmaommm unmasum mam Mo mmsmomn oomsmno mamccmHm sommmH usmmm mmmomwu mchH>momsm OEHU m2» wm3 usmuxm mm33 09 .MM OHQMB 167 OHOOH O« 0.00H OOOO 0.00H NN 0.00H OOO« 0.00H ON 0.00H OO«« «Human I I H. I I I I I I I I I umomma I I «.N NHN I I 0.0 NOH I I O.H OO unoHuano I I O.N OON I I I I I I 0.0 OON 30cm u.coo O.ON «H O.OO OOON O.OH O 0.0H OOO O.«« HH O.HO «OOH Hoot uaomO a oouaooz «.O« OH O.OO N«OO O.OO HH O.M« OOON O.NO O H.OO «O«H acouxo one» on monsoon O.ON «H O.OH OOOH «.OO O H.«N OOOH O.«N O 0.0H OHO as.» on» pecan Oflcfidlflz I I M.O ONO I I O.« HHN I I O.N NHH acouxo neon ou commomucm I I O.H OOH I I O.N HOH I I N.H «O Hump unouO m commomocm n .oz a .oz a .oz a .oz u .oz a .oz mooHoEu Edam muoosm Edam mucosa Edam muooam oncoduom madeos OOOEUdas Ozmmm>ammsm OOOEUdmO azaoasm .mocmmmmm .mmonommu ucmmsum Mo Omsmomn mmmsmno mammmmm mammm madam mmmsowmm Osmmm>m0m5m OEHu may mmz Hammad umz3 09 .MM OHQMB 168 Table 66 also shows that 5.3% of the student teach- ers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study felt that the time the supervising teachers spent grading papers was increased because of the presence of a student teacher and no one in the BEAM Program felt the same way. Hypothesis IX states: The university coordinator is perceived as being more helpful in the BEAM Program than in the Impact Study. To test this hypothesis the writer used data col- lected from questions in the questionnaires which dealt with: 1. Amount of help which the university coordinator provided. 2. Number of times the university coordinator of student teachers was in the school during the student teacher contact. 3. Amount of help which the university coordinator provided in any matters not directly concerned with student teaching. 4. The extent the university coordinator was avail- able to administration and staff during the student teaching contact. Table 67 shows the comparison on question 71 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 76 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, "How much help did the university coordinator provide student teachers and supervising teachers?" Table 67 shows that the student teachers and super- vising teachers in the BEAM Program felt that the university 169 0.00H OO 0.00H OOOO 0.00H ON 0.00H OOO« 0.00H ON 0.00H OO«« Hauos I I M.H HMH I I O.H Mm I I O.H MO acommnHao I I 0.0H OOO I I O.HH ONO I I 0.0 ««« HHo an OHO; oz I I O.O OOO I I O.« OON I I 0.0 OON cacao: aHon mo oHuuHH «.OH O 0.0H OO«H O.OH O O.NH H«O 0.0 N 0.0H OOO oooooc OHO; on» mo 010m 0.00 OH H.OH ON«H O.«O O H.OH OOO O.NO O H.OH NNO common Ho: on» Ono: O.OO ON O.O« OH«« N.NO NH H.OO OOON 0.00 OH «.O« OOON Oman-o Iuoc oHon on» HHd a .02 fl .0: fl .02 fl .0: fl .02 fl .oz moUHonu Edam uuaoem Edam muse-H Edam uumogm uncommon mmdsos ma=umamsm unmodam azansam .OOOH>omm moumcmcmooo Oummmm>Hss mHmm .OM OHAMB 170 coordinator was more helpful than did the same two groups in the Impact Study. There were 89.6% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program who responded that the university coordinator provided "all the help necessary" or "most of the help necessary," and 65.8% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study who responded the same way. Ten and four-tenths percent of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program and 15.8% of the same two groups in the Impact Study responded that the university coordinator provided "some of the help needed." Table 67 also shows that 16.6% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study felt that the university coordinator provided "little help needed" or "no help needed." None of the student teachers or supervising teachers in the BEAM Program felt this way. Table 68 shows the comparison on question 70 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 75 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, "How many times has the univer- sity coordinator or supervisor of student teaching been in your school during this student teaching contact?" In studying Table 68 it appears that on an average, the university coordinator of student teachers visited the schools where student teachers were placed more times in the Impact Study than in the BEAM Program. However, 1.8% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the 171 0.00H M« 0.00H OOMM 0.00H MN 0.00H OOM« 0.00H MN 0.00H OM«« mHouoe H.I I N. I H. I I I I I I I mmomma I I O.N NMH I I N.N MO I I O.H MM OCOHmnHeo I I N.M «NO I I O.M NMM I I M.M NOM moaHm omoa mo cuomme I I M.N MMN I I O.M NMH I I M.N OOH_mlHu EOOHMHM om sooumHga N.« N vom MHN I I O.N mHH O.@ N H.N «m nvfiflu O>H03u o» soboHa I I M.« «O« I I O.« OON I I «.« OOH moaHu In.» on ocHz H.N H H.O O«O O.« H 0.0 OOO I I «.O N«N OOSHH HEOHu om co>om «.OH M M.MH ONNH «.OH « M.MH MOM O.« H «.NH MMM mvfimu me 0» o>Ha M.M« HN 0.0M MMNM H.OM O 0.0M ONMH O.M« NH 0.0M OMMH moeHu moon om momma M.OM OH «.HN NOOH H.OM O O.MH HMM 0.0« OH O.MN HOOH magma 03H 0» doc I I M.H OMH M.H OM M.N MOH HHm mo me: O .oz fl .0: i .02 fl .oz u .oz % .oz OOUHOEU Edam muoalH Edam MUMQEH Edam MUMQEH omsommma deaoa «mandaa MZHMH>mamDm mamu mmmcomom usmmsum Mo moumsmomooo OmHmmm>Hss mam onHu Mo mmnEsz .OM mHnt 172 Impact Study reported that the coordinator had never vis- ited their school during the student teacher contact, and no one in the BEAM Program responded in this way. There were 39.6% of the student teachers and super- vising teachers in the BEAM Program and 21.4% of the same two groups in the Impact Study who reported that the uni- versity coordinator had visited "one or two times." Table 68 also shows that 56.9% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study and 56.3% of the same two groups in the BEAM Program reSponded that the university coordinator had visited their building between three and eight times during the student teacher contact. One finds that 17.7% of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study responded that the university coordinator had visited their building nine or more times during the student teacher contact and 4.2% of the same two groups in the BEAM Program reported the same way. Table 69 shows the comparison on question 77 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, "Has the university co- ordinator been helpful to you with any matters not directly concerned with student teaching?" Table 69 reveals the fact that the supervising teachers in the BEAM Program felt that the university coordinator was more helpful with matters not directly 173 concerned with student teaching than did the supervising teachers in the Impact Study. Table 69. Has the university coordinator been helpful to you with any matters not directly concerned with student teaching? Supervising Teacher Response Choices Impact BEAM No. x No. x Gone out of the way to be helpful 682 15.5 9 39.1 Has helped when asked 1068 24.3 11 47.8 Has not helped 198 4.5 - - No such help was needed 2361 53.7 3 13.0 Omissions 88 2.0 - - Errors - - - .1 Totals 4397 100.0 23 100.0 When asked the question, "Has the university co- ordinator been helpful to you with any matters not directly concerned with student teaching?" 39.1% of the supervising teachers in the BEAM Program reSponded, "gone out of his way to be helpful," 47.8% reSponded with "has helped when asked," and no one responded that he "has not helped." The Impact Study showed that 15.5% of the supervising 174 teachers reSponded "gone out of his way to be helpful," 24.3% "has helped when asked," and 4.5% "has not helped." It is interesting to note that 53.7% of the super- vising teachers in the Impact Study and only 13% of the supervising teachers in the BEAM Program responded that "no such help was needed." Table 70 shows the comparison on question 73 in the administrators questionnaire which asks, "To what extent has the university coordinator or supervisor of student teaching been available to you and your staff during the student teaching contact?" Table 70 reveals the fact that the administrators in the BEAM Program felt that the university coordinator was more available to the administrators and staff during the student teacher contact than did the administrators in the Impact Study. Eighty-three and three-tenths percent of the administrators in the BEAM Program reSponded, "has always been available" or "has usually been available," and 16.7% responded "has been available when needed," while the administrators in the Impact Study had 58.1% respond, "has always been available" or "has usually been available," and 32.2% responded "has been available when needed." There were no administrators in the BEAM Program who responded with "has been generally unavailable" or "has never been available;" however, 7.9% of the administrators in tflua Impact Study did respond to the university coordinator 175 Table 70. To what extent has the university coordinator of student teachers been available to adminis- trator and staff during the student teacher contact. ADMINISTRATORS Impact BEAM Response Choices No. % No. % Has always been available 269 26.9 3 50.0 Has usually been available 312 31.2 2 33.3 Has been available on call when needed 322 32.2 1 16.7 Has been generally unavailable 69 6.9 - - Has never been available 10 1.0 - - Omissions 19 1.9 - - Error - -.l - - Totals 1001 100.0 6 100.0 176 "has been generally unavailable" or "has never been avail- able." Table 71 shows the results using the chi square of question 71 in the student teacher questionnaire, which asks, "How much help has the university coordinator (super- visor) provided you?" In studying Table 71 one finds X2 significant when comparing the student teachers in the Impact Study to the student teachers in the BEAM Program in relation to the help they felt the university coordinator provided them. The student teachers in the BEAM Program felt they had been provided more help from the university coordinator than did the student teachers in the Impact Study. Hypothesis X states: The presence of student teachers is perceived to be more positive in schools which had the BEAM Program than in schools which had the Impact Study. To test this hypothesis, the writer used data col- lected from questions in the questionnaire which dealt with: l. The extent to which supervising teachers and/or other school personnel were helpful to student teachers on matters not directly concerned with student teaching. 2. The acceptance of a teaching position if offered in the building or system in which the student teacher did student teaching. 177 N n .H.o O0.0 u OHOOOO Hap MN OH.« OH.« O HO.H OM.« N MH.M «O.MH MN Edam OO«« NO. OO.MMO O«O HO. HO.NMM MMM NO. N0.000N NOON uomaEH Nx a 0 NE a 0 NE a O Ommmmmomc omeooo H HHOH H ooomwe H uHom H mp3 uHom H mHon Hmuoe OHO: on mo mHumHH OHO: mam Mo meow mam Mo umoE mo HHd .mmomommu mcopsum On ©03OH> mm OmoH>omm moumcHomooo OHHmmm>Hss mHmm .HO OHndB 178 3. The attitude Of the administrators and super- vising teachers on acceptance and working with student teachers. 4. The extent to which supervising teachers encouraged student teachers to have a variety Of experiences outside Of the assigned class- room. 5. The effect that the student teacher had on the overall quality Of instruction. 6. The Optimum number Of student teachers that can be accommodated in the building. 7. The Optimum number Of student teachers a supervising teacher should have in one year. Table 72 shows the comparison on question 72 in the student teacher questionnaire, which asks, "TO what extent have your supervising teachers and/or other school person- nel been helpful to you on matters not directly concerned with student teaching?" Table 72 shows that the BEAM student teachers felt more positively about the help they received from the super- vising teachers and other school personnel on matters not directly concerned with student teaching than did student teachers in the Impact Study. In studying Table 72 one finds that 92.0% of the student teachers in the BEAM Program and 73.8% Of the stud- ent teachers in the Impact Study responded that supervising teachers and other school personnel had "gone out of their way tO be helpful" or "they helped when asked" on matters not directly concerned with student teaching. 179 Table 72. Extent to which supervising teacher and/or Other school personnel were helpful to student teachers on matters not directly concerned with student teaching. STUDENT TEACHERS Impact BEAM Response Choices NO. % NO. % Gone out of their way to be helpful 1811 40.4 17 68.0 They helped when asked 1497 33.4 6 24.0 They have not helped 170 3.8 - - NO such help was needed 915 20.4 2 8.0 Omissions 90 2.0 - - Error - - - - Totals 4483 100.0 25 100.0 Three and eight-tenths percent Of the student teach- ers in the Impact Study reSponded that supervising teachers and other personnel "did not help" on matters not directly concerned with student teaching; none Of the student teach- ers in the BEAM Program felt this way. Table 73 shows the comparison on question 73 in the student teacher questionnaire, which asks, "Would you accept a teaching position if Offered for next year in the building or system in which you did your student teaching?" Table 73. Would you accept a teaching position if Offered 180 for next year in the building or system in which you did your student teaching? STUDENT TEACHERS Impact BEAM Response Choices NO. % NO. % Yes 2681 59.8 19 79.2 NO, I intend to go to graduate school 242 5.4 - - NO, I plan to live in another area 955 21.3 3 12.5 NO, for personal reasons 224 5.0 l 4.2 NO, for professional reasons 238 5.3 l 4.2 NO, I have decided not to teach 49 1.1 - - Omissions 94 2.1 - - Error - - - -.1 Totals 4483 100.0 24 100.0 181 Table 73 shows that 79.2% of the student teachers in the BEAM Program and 59.8% Of the student teachers in the Impact Study responded that they would accept a teach- ing position if Offered for the next year in the building or system in which they did their student teaching. This left about two-fifths Of the student teachers in the Impact Study and about one-fifth in the BEAM Program who preferred not to teach in the system they had done their student teaching in for a number Of reasons. Table 74 shows the results using the chi square Of question 68 in the student teacher questionnaire, which asks, "What do you think should be the attitude Of the administrators and teachers in the school to which you were assigned about working with student teachers?" In studying Table 74 one finds X2 is significant when comparing the student teachers in the Impact Study to the student teachers in the BEAM Program in relation to the above question. The BEAM student teachers felt that more effort should be given to seeking student teachers than did the student teachers in the Impact Study. Table 75 shows a comparison on question 68 in the student teacher questionnaire and question 73 in the teacher questionnaire, which asks, "What do you think should be the attitude Of the administrators and teachers in your school about working with student teachers?" 182 N u .H.o «O.O n OHOOOO HEO MM.N MM.N O M«. M«. O HO.M MM.M N MM.M «M.MH MN Edam NO. MN.MM« MM« I «0.0M HM NO. OM.MNHH OMHH NO. OM.N«ON MMON uommEH NE a 0 NE a O NE a O NE a o OOOEO Om mmmnomoe msmosmm mmmnomwe unmosmm mmwnomma Osmosmm mHnch 5d H oOonm mo umwood OHOOEO atom OHOOEO mmHmmm OHDOEM .mmmnommu mcmosmm On OmsmH> mm .mmmcommu ucmosmm Mo mammu EH omcmmmmm wmms OOO EOHES Om Hoonom on» CH mmmnommm one mmommmumHsHEom mam Mo mosuHumd .«O mHnde 183 OdoH M«.QdoH OMMM 0.00H MN 0.00H OMM? 0.00H MN 0.00H MM«« anuoa I I o" O . I .H O I ' I I 0 H 0 I “noun” I I O.H M«H I I M.H OO I I M.H OM OGOHnuHIo I I N.O OO« I I I I I I «.OH OO« «Open on cHnars I I M . O N I I I I I I M . O N nmozueou ucoo Isms mcm>mn omsmom I I M. NO I I «. OH I I N.H «M nmomueou aces Isum OdH>en umHmoa M.«H O M.MM ONNM O.HN M 0.0« OOON O.M N N.MN OMHH umozueou ucoosun uaouu< M.MM MH M.O« MOMM M.O« HH O.MM OMMH 0.0N M H.Mv NNON mmosuoou unoosun meow H.NM MN O.MH MMMH «.OM O H.«H ONM O.NO MH O.MH MHO umonuuom acetone noun OHo>HnnomOOd fl .oz fl .02 fl .02 fl .oz 8 .oz fl .oz OOUHOEU oncoanom Edam pondsH Edam uuaeam Edam Huooam Omdsos mammudas uzmmm>maasm mammomaOHDm BzaQDBw .moocmmmasommo Hmmocom dawn on» moons coHumsuHm Oanommm ucoosum m ocmeeooom mo mmwoom monomwm OchH>m0msm can monomom ucoosmm OHOOS .MO OHQOB 186 teacher with similar credentials from the same institution under the same general circumstances?" Table 76 shows that 95.9% Of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program and 84% Of the same two groups in the Impact Study reSponded that they would "accept with enthusiasm" or "would accept" a student teaching situation under the same general circumstances. Two and one-tenth percent Of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program and 6.9% of the same two groups in the Impact Study responded that they would "be neutral" on accepting or recommending a student teaching situation under the same general circumstances. NO one in the BEAM Program said that they would reject or refuse; however, 2.2% Of the student teachers and supervis— ing teachers in the Impact Study reSponded that they would "reject or refuse" a student teaching situation under the same general circumstances. Table 77 shows the comparison on question 74 in the administrators questionnaire, which asks, "TO what extent do your supervising teachers encourage student teachers to have a variety Of experiences outside the assigned class- room?" Table 77 shows that all Of the administrators in the BEAM Program responded that supervising teachers en- couraged student teachers "a great deal" to have a variety Of experiences outside the assigned classrooms. 187 Table 77. Extent supervising teachers encouraged student teachers to have a variety Of experiences out- side the assigned classroom. ADMINISTRATORS Impact BEAM Response Choices NO. % NO. % A great deal 383 38.3 6 100.0 TO some extent 490 49.0 — - To a limited degree 93 9.3 - - Not at all 9 .9 - - Omissions 26 2.6 - - Error - -.l - - Totals 1001 100.0 6 100.0 The administrators in the Impact Study had 38.3% who res- ponded in the same way and 49% who responded that supervis- ing teachers encouraged student teachers "to some extent" tO have a variety Of experiences outside the assigned class- room. Nine and three-tenths percent Of the Impact adminis- trators responded "to a limited degree." Table 78 shows the comparison on question 38 in the administrators questionnaire, which asks, "TO what extent was the overall quality Of instruction changed because of the presence Of student teachers in your building?" In studying Table 78 one finds that the BEAM admin- istrators felt more positively about the effect the student 188 teachers had on the Overall quality Of instruction than did the administrators in the Impact Study. Table 78. Effect student teachers had on overall quality Of instruction. ADMINISTRATORS Impact BEAM Response Choices NO. % No. % Much better 57 5.7 2 33.3 Somewhat better 527 52.6 4 66.7 NO change 321 32.1 - - Somewhat poorer 79 7.9 - - Much poorer 1 .1 - - Omissions 16 1.6 - - Error - - - - Totals 1001 100.0 6 100.0 One finds that 100% Of the administrators in the BEAM Program and 58.3% Of the administrators in the Impact study responded that the overall quality Of instruction was "much better" or "somewhat better" because of the presence Of student teachers. Thirty-two and one-tenth percent Of the administrators in the Impact Study said there was "no change” in the overall quality of instruction because Of the presence Of student teachers and 7.9% said it was "some- What poorer . " 189 Table 79 shows a comparison on question 10 in the administrators questionnaire, which asks, "What is the Optimum number Of student teachers you can accommodate in your building each year?" Table 79. What is the optimum number Of student teachers you can accommodate in your building each year? ADMINISTRATORS Impact BEAM Response Choices NO. % NO. % None 1 .1 - - One to Three 174 17.4 - - Four to Six 370 37.0 - - Seven to Nine 158 15.8 1 16.7 Ten tO Twelve 139 13.9 3 50.0 Thirteen to Fifteen 47 4.7 - - Sixteen to Eighteen 29 2.9 - - Nineteen to Twenty—one 18 1.8 1 16.7 Twenty-two tO Twenty-five 17 1.7 - - More than Twenty-five 34 3.4 1 16.7 Omissions 14 1.4 - - Error - -01 - -01 Totals 1001 100.0 6 100.0 ‘ 190 In studying Table 79 one finds that the administra- tors in the BEAM Program felt that they could accommodate a larger number Of student teachers in their buildings each year than did the administrators in the Impact Study. There were 70.3% Of the administrators in the Im- pact Study and 16.7% Of the administrators in the BEAM Pro- gram who responded that the Optimum number Of student teachers they could accommodate in their building each year was nine or less. Table 79 also shows that 50% Of the administrators in BEAM and 21.5% Of the administrators in the Impact Study responded that they could accommodate from 10 to 18 student teachers in their buildings each year. Thirty-three and four-tenths percent Of the administrators in BEAM and 6.9% Of the administrators in the Impact Study said they could accommodate more than 19 student teachers each year. Table 80 shows the results using the chi square Of question 76 in the administrators questionnaire, which asks: What is the maximum number Of student teachers a supervis- ing teacher should have in one year? In studying Table 80 one finds X2 is significant when comparing the administrators in the Impact Study to administrators in the BEAM Program in regard tO the maximum number Of student teachers a supervising teacher should have in one year. 191 OO.NO I OHOOOO HEO M MM.MO HH. M MM.H MM. H MO.H MM.N H HO.H HO.H I Edam MOO OM. HO.HN OH HO. MM.«M «M HO. MM.OHM OHM HO. OO.«OM MOM mommEH Nx a O NE a O NE a O NE a O Hmuoe mmoE mo msoa momma 039 who .mmoummmchHEOo On om3OH> mm .mmm» moo CH m>ma OHsonm monommm OEHOH>mOmsm m mmwsommm msmcsmm mo mOnEsc EsEmeE .OM OHQOB 192 Summary This chapter gives the results Of the ten hypotheses which dealt with the effect the presence of student teachers had upon certain activities for pupils in the BEAM Program, upon activities in addition to classroom instruction, and upon the performance Of the supervising teacher and the regular staff members as compared to the Impact Study. The hypotheses dealt with the effect Of the amount Of work done and time spent by the supervising teachers in working with the student teachers and using materials, aids, and ideas provided by the student teachers as compared with the Impact Study. From these hypotheses, then, the writer concludes that the presence Of student teachers enhances the perfor- mance Of the Bangor Township Schools in a more positive way because the BEAM Program is an integral part of the total school philOSOphy. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The broad purpose of this study was to determine the impact of the BEAM Student Teaching Program upon the total Bangor Township School System when the philosophy of the program is a part of the total school philosophy. The Opinions of supervising teachers, student teach- ers, and administrators in the BEAM Program were compared with the Opinions recorded by the supervising teachers, student teachers, and school administrators in The Student Teaching Impact Study. Since the philOSOphy of the BEAM Program is designed for greater involvement of public school teachers, student teachers, and administrators in cooperation with teacher education instituions for the purpose of developing better teachers, it was felt that the results of this study might suggest changes in teacher education. The complexity of today's world necessitates the education of highly qualified teachers. The BEAM Program is an integral part of the philoso- phy of the Bangor Township Schools. This philosophy is 193 m 1:. .-..--.—. a — ....._-._ in _... n. 194 based upon the idea that all human beings are unique and important. Each of these human beings has a responsibility to the other in terms of developing and respecting this uniqueness. The writer believes that this philosophy is a major factor in accounting for the fact that the respondents in- volved in the BEAM Program were more positive than the respondents in the Impact Study. The writer would hOpe that in reading this study other people involved in education might want to examine their philOSOphy in terms of the phil- osophy of the Bangor Township Schools and see a need for making change. Chief reliance for this study was placed upon the responses of the questionnaire used in the Impact Study. This questionnaire was also given to a group of BEAM student teachers, supervising teachers, and administrators. The subjects of the BEAM Program consisted of 25 student teachers, 23 supervising teachers, and six admin- istrators. The 25 student teachers were assigned to the Bangor Township Schools by Central Michigan University dur- ing the fall semester of 1972. These groups were compared with the same three groups in the Impact Study which con- sisted of 4,397 supervising teachers, 4,483 student teachers and 1,001 principals surveyed in the Student Teacher Impact Study during the fall semester of 1969. PI .‘ *1: H 195 The original questionnaire was develOped by the authors of the Impact Study. The same instrument was used in the BEAM survey with a few minor changes.1 Frequency counts and percentages were displayed in tables for each reSponse which is related to a particular hypothesis. In some cases chi squares were run to show a significant differences. Conclusions wmyv A student teaching philOSOphy which is a part of a total school philOSOphy, one which advocates the develop- ment of all human beings to their fullest potential and calls for greater involvement of supervising teachers, student teachers, and school administrators with teacher education institutions in teacher preparation, is related to a more positive teaching situation. Ten hypotheses were formulated and analysis of the data suggests the following conclusions: Hypothesis I: "The presence of student teachers is perceived to have a more positive effect upon certain in- structional activities in the BEAM Program than it had in the Impact Study.” The first hypothesis appeared to be true when the data relative to this hypothesis was analyzed. Tables which dealt with the individual instruction of 1For changes see The Questionnaire in Chapter III. 196 students were particularly high in the BEAM survey as viewed by student teachers, supervising teachers, and admin- istrators. The writer believes that the main reason for this is the fact that part of the philOSOphy of the BEAM Program was to help develop each individual pupil and adult to his own fullest unique potential. This philosOphy is I not only a part of the BEAM Program, but has Spread to most of the staff members. Such a philOSOphy is reflected in the attitude the total staff has towards the students. W7 "J 171—5’1- — Hypothesis II: "The presence of student teachers is perceived to have a positive effect on school activities in addition to classroom instruction for pupils in the BEAM Program than it had for pupils in the Impact Study." The second hypothesis appeared to be true when the data relative to this hypothesis was analyzed. However, the BEAM student teachers, supervising teachers, and administrators responded more similarly to the student teachers, supervising teachers, and administrators in the Impact Study on the tables in Hypothesis II than they did on the tables in Hypothesis I. It is interesting to note that Table 29 in Hypo- thesis II, which showed the greatest difference, was deal- ing with the extent to which student teachers were involved in the supervision of playgrounds, hallways, etc. The writer felt that one reason why the BEAM groups responded with, "showing more participation" of BEAM student teachers, supervising activities other than classroom instruction was 197 because a greater percentage of the BEAM students were in elementary education than were the Impact students and elementary education tends to lend itself more readily to this type of supervision. A second reason would be to remind the reader again of the BEAM philosophy referred to previously. If this philOSOphy is truly practiced, the writer believes that individual needs in all school activ- ities will be better served. Hypothesis III: "The presence of student teachers is perceived to enhance the performance of supervising teachers more in the BEAM Program than supervising teachers in the Impact Study." The third hypothesis appeared to be true when the data relative to this hypothesis was analyzed. It is interesting to note, however, that Table 34, "Effect that the student teacher had on supervising teach- er's time for research" and Table 35, "Time afforded super- vising teachers for professional reading or writing as a result of student teaching program,” had a greater percen- tage of supervising teachers in the Impact Study who res- ponded "A great deal more" or "To some extent" on these tables than did the supervising teachers in the BEAM Pro- gram. Hypothesis IV: "The presence of student teachers is perceived to enhance the performance of regular staff (those teachers not having a student teacher assigned to them) in the BEAM Program more than regular staff in the 198 Impact Study. The third hypothesis appeared to be true when the data relative to this hypothesis was analyzed. One finds, however, that in studying the tables in Hypo- thesis IV, the student teachers in the BEAM Program tend to show that they gave more service to the regular staff in the building they were assigned to than did the res- ponses from the supervising teachers in the BEAM Program. Hypothesis V: "BEAM supervising teachers are per- ceived to have made a greater investment in working with their student teachers and in attending functions related to student teaching than supervising teachers in the Im- pact Study." The fifth hypothesis appeared to be true when the data relative to this hypothesis was analyzed. Table 47, one of the tables in Hypothesis V, titled "Participation in supervising teacher seminars or other in-service activities dealing with student teaching while student teacher was teaching," had a much greater percentage of student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program respond "a great deal" or "to some extent" than did the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study. The writer believes that this reSponse was influenced by the fact that one of the goals of the BEAM Program is to have a continuous training plan to help the supervising teachers refine their teaching skills in order to become better supervising teachers. Weekly sem- inars are held and resource peOple are brought in to 199 discuss new trends, new techniques, and new materials. Hypothesis VI: "BEAM supervising teachers are per- ceived to have used instructional materials, aids, or ideas provided by their student teachers more than supervising teachers in the Impact Study." When the data was analyzed it appeared that the sixth hypothesis was true. The writer learned that 100 percent of the student teachers in Table 57 responded that the instructional materials, aids, or ideas which they had develOped, provided, or suggested were used. Hypothesis VII: "BEAM supervising teachers are per- ceived to have taken less time from their students because of having a student teacher than supervising teachers in the Impact Study." The seventh hypothesis appeared to be true when the data relative to this hypothesis was analyzed. It is interesting to note that 62.6 percent of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program and only 29 percent of the student teachers and supervising teachers in the Impact Study felt they had covered more material because of the student teachers' presence. The writer believes that the main reason for the larger percen- tage of student teachers and supervising teachers in the BEAM Program feeling that more material was covered is because of the philOSOphy of BEAM. BEAM teachers work on the philosophy that this is our room and our group of students so how can we best work together to serve their mm: ‘.‘-W m. (“viii—5mm 200 needs. Since all people are unique and have something special to offer, how do we form the best team to offer these Special talents to students as well as develOping them in students? The BEAM philOSOphy tries to avoid the idea that "this is my room so you watch me and then I will turn the room over to you and I will observe you." BEAM philosophy is one of a team approach. Hypothesis VIII: "BEAM student teachers are per- ceived to have taken on a greater role in the operation of the classroom than student teachers in the Impact Study." Hypothesis eight appeared to be true when the data relative to this hypothesis was analyzed. Tables 62 and 63, which deal with the number of hours student teachers taught supervising teachers' assigned classes, show a noticeable difference in the way BEAM supervising teachers reSponded in comparison to the way BEAM student teachers reSponded. The BEAM student teachers viewed themselves as teaching their supervising teacher's class a greater number of hours per week than did the supervising teachers. The writer feels that one reason for this might be the fact that in the BEAM Program supervising teachers are encouraged to develOp great amounts of teaching materials, and the super- vising teachers may not consider themselves away from the room while they are developing materials for the class. However, on the other hand, the student teachers are direct- ly in the class working with the students. " "3' To! 9‘ 452" n. man I‘- 201 Hypothesis IX: "The university coordinator is per- ceived as being more helpful in the BEAM Program than in the Impact Study." The ninth hypothesis appeared to be true when the data relative to this hypothesis was analyzed. The writer believes that it appears that this hypo- thesis is true because the university coordinator is the superintendent of schools and is an important factor in developing the Bangor Township School philosophy of which the BEAM Program is a part. Hypothesis X: "The presence of student teachers is perceived to be more positive in schools which had the BEAM Program than in schools which had the Impact Study." Tables 73 through 79 were used to test Hypothesis X. All of these tables indicated a more positive response from the members in the BEAM Program as compared with the members in the Impact Study. Table 72 shows the comparison on question 72 in the student teacher questionnaire, which asks, "To what extent have your supervising teachers and/or other school person- nel been helpful to you on matters not directly concerned with student teaching?" This table shows that the BEAM student teachers felt considerably more positively about the help they received from the supervising teachers and other school personnel on matters not directly concerned with student teaching than did student teachers in the Impact Study. 202 In studying Table 72 one finds that 92 percent of the students in the BEAM Program, as compared with 73.8 percent of the students in the Impact Study, responded that the supervising teacher had "gone out of their way to be helpful," or "helped when asked" on matters not directly concerned with student teaching. Three and eight-tenths percent of the students in the Impact Study as compared to none in the BEAM Program responded with "did not help" on matters not directly con- cerned with student teaching. H Another very interesting factor was noted in Table 77, which reads, "Extent supervising teacher encouraged student teachers to have a variety of experiences outside of the assigned classroom." One hundred percent of the BEAM student teachers reSponded positively to the above statement with "a great deal," as compared with the student teachers in the Impact Study who responded with 38.3 percent to "a great deal." Summary of the Hypotheses The first and most important concern of any teacher education program should be "what is the program doing for the children in the schools?" The writer has found that the ten hypotheses which were tested in this study have all resulted in positive reactions to varying degrees. The positive results may be 203 attributed to several factors. The first factor is the philOSOphy of the BEAM Program in which members of the Program believe that each child is a unique special being who will develOp to his own potential at his own develOp— mental rate if given a prOper environmental climate. Of course, this philOSOphy is also an integral part of the philSOphy of the school district. The program is based on the fact that personal suc- cess is dependent upon people caring for people. The success of a student teacher program is based upon total involvement. Each person in the program has Special talents and each one must be given an opportunity to develOp these Special talents in a team Situation which will help to build an atmOSphere where each child can develOp in his own way in his own time. Supervising teachers participate in an on-going in- service training so that they may be able to reinforce the training concepts which are develOped in the seminars in which the student teachers must participate. BEAM supervising teachers consider it an honor to be a member of the BEAM training team. A comprehensive selection process has been develOped to screen BEAM super- vising teachers who wish to become a part of this team. A sampling of the questions will indicate how comprehensive the screening has become. What is your philosophy of education? Has it 204 changed during the past two years? Do you have a professional responsibility to teacher training? Please explain. What change do you feel there would be in your pro— fessional role should you become a COOperating teacher in the BEAM Program? The complete application may be found in the appen- dix of this study. . 4- Recommendations V Teacher education should become an area of impor- tant study in our teacher education institutions. It should be emphasized again that the complexity of today's world necessitates the develOpment of highly qualified teachers. The student teacher should be given the opportun- ity to become involved in all kinds of settings. 1. Teacher education needs to be more concerned about the study and practice of human behavior and develOpment at all age levels (youth through adult). 2. The prOSpective teacher must be helped to see his role as one of a learning enabler, facili- tator, or encourager, not one of making, forc- ing, coercing or molding. This can be accom- plished by all who are involved being concerned about the student teacher's self concept, 205 nurturing his creativity, and all peOple being sensitive to each other. Teacher education must be a process of helping peOple to become truly involved and to learn how to create and maintain a human environment in our schools. Supervising teachers and prospective teachers must be willing to give such a strong commit- ment to the love and value of human beings that commitment is transferred to their students. All peOple involved in teacher education directly, or indirectly, must practice the idea that success breeds success. All segments of the teaching profession (es- pecially teachers) must be involved in the teacher education process. Implications for Further Research Research is needed to determine the effect the supervising teacher's attitude has on the stud- ent teacher and insure the effect this has on the pupils. Research is needed to determine the role stud- ent teachers serve as change agents. Research is needed to determine the differences in elementary and secondary student teaching 206 programs. This raises the question, "Was the BEAM Program more positive because a greater percentage of the student teachers were elemen- tary?" Research is needed to study the impact that the affective domain has upon student teaching. More research is needed to determine the effect that public school involvement at the decision level with teacher education institutions had on teachers' education. APPENDICES ‘1!“ APPENDIX A Application for COOperating in Bangor Education Affiliation Model, Bangor Township Schools 207 BEAM Application for COOperating Teacher in BANGOR EDUCATION AFFILIATION MODEL BANGOR TOWNSHIP SCHOOLS NAME ”I“ ...-O- u A‘ ‘.‘-u“ o“-.-.u. .. . “- -.cu . v-.-. o O .. .O. a..- O o ‘0. - a SCHOOLW GRADE LEVEL p The completion of this application form indicates my inter- est and professional readiness to become a cooperating teacher with BEAM. According to the contract it is neces- sary to have tenure to be eligible for cooperating teacher status. Please return the completed form to Kenneth Wahl, Coordinator of BEAM. You will be contacted by the Advisory Committee at a later date. I. What is your philosophy of education? II. Has this philosophy been changing during the past two years? Yes_ No~__ If so, how?‘ IIi. What is the current structure of your classroom?’ IV. How do you see the role of Special Services within the school system? 208 Application for Cooperating Teacher BEAM page 2 IV.- continued - VI. VII. VIII. How have you utilized these resources during this school year? How have the following effected your classroom, your role as an educator? Behavioral objectives: Unit Methods: Do you feel you have a professional responsibility to teacher training? Yes No Please explain: In your opinion, what has been the effect of BEAM within our school system? In your opinion, what has been the effect of BEAM as a teacher training program? 209 Application for Cooperating Teacher BEAM page 3 IX. What do you feel needs to be changed in teacher training? X. What change do you feel there would be in your professional role should you become a cooperating teacher in the BEAM Program? XI. How would you use a student teacher? XII. How do you feel - having a student teacher - would effect your classroom? Signature{"__ Date Completed: APPENDIX B Student Teacher Questionnaire 2]!) STUDENT TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE Which of the following are you now? (a) A single student teacher (b) A married student teacher What is your sex? (a) Male (b) Female What was your status as a student in your college or university when you began this student teaching assign- ment (contact)? (a) Had junior standing (b) Had senior standing (c) Had the BA or BS degree What is your all-college grade point average? (Scale; A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, F=0) (a) Below 2.0 '__(6) c.0 - 3.5 (b) 2.0 - 2.5 __(c) Above 3.5 (c) 2.5 - 3.0 How old were you at the beginning of this student teaching assignment (contact)? (a) 21 years or under __(d) 22 to 23 years (b) 21 to 218 years __(e) Over 23 years (c) 213 to 22 years How many times have you student taught including the current assignment (contact)? (a) One (b) Two (c) Three In this assignment (contact, how were you placed? (a) With a single supervising teacher (b) In a team-teaching situation (two or more team members) (c) With two or three different teachers ((but not team-teaching) (d) In a flexible cluster arrangement (e) In a campus laboratory school (f) In a Special program or project different from any of the above QUESTIONS 8 THROUGH 13 deal with any changes in individual instruction provided for the pupils which may have resulted from 8. your presence. To what extent did you work with (e.g., instruct, counsel, tutor) individual pupils? (a) A great deal ‘__(c) A little bit (b) To some extent .__(d) Not at all To what extent did your supervising teacher work with individual pupils as compared to when he does not have a student teacher? (a) MUch more than usual __(d) Somewhat less than usual (b) Somewhat more than usual__je) Much less than usual (c) About the same as usual __(f) Don't know I , . Yam 211 10. To what extent was individual help or counseling pro— vided the pupils during non-class hours as compared to what would have been possible if you had not been present? ‘__ (a) Much more than usual __fd) Somewhat less than usual ___ (b) Somewhat more than usual __(e) MUCh less than usual __ (c) About the same as usual “__(f) Don't know '11. To what extent did conferring with you take time of the teacher so he had less time for individual work with pupils? __' (a) Frequently __(d) Never __ (b) Sometimes ___(e) Don't know (c) Seldom 12. To what extent did planning with you take the time of the teacher so he had less time for individual work with pUpils? __ (a) Frequently _~(d) Never __ (b) Sometimes __(e) Don't know (c) Seldom 13. To what extent was re-teaching necessary after you taught? __ (a) Frequently .__(d) Never __ (b) Sometimes __(e) Don't know (c) Seldom QUESTIONS 14 THROUGH 22 To what extent were any of the following instructional activ- ities for the pupils in your supervising teachers assigned classes changed because of your presence? 14. Amount of small grOUp instruction. __ (a) Much more ‘__(d) Somewhat less __ (b) Somewhat more __(e) Much less (c) No change -__(f) Don't know 15. Provision for make—up work. ‘__ (a) Much greater '__(d) Somewhat less __ (b) Somewhat greater ___(e) Much less -_ (c) No change ~_(f) Don't know 16. Follow-up of exams. __ (a) MuCh better __(d) Somewhat poorer __ (b) Somewhat better __(e) Much poorer ‘__ (c) No change ‘__(f) Don't know 17. Individual attention to, or tutoring of, pupils. __ (a) Much more .__(d) Somewhat less __ (b) Somewhat more __(e) Much less __ (c) No change __ff) Don't know 18. Supervision of study periods. ‘__ (a) Much better __(e) Much poorer ___ (b) Somewhat better .__(f) Does not apply ___ (c) No change __(g) Don't know (d) Somewhat poorer -2... i v 212 19. Supervision of playgrounds, hallways, etc. ___ (a) MUch better __(e) Much poorer __. (b) Somewhat better ___(f) Does not apply ___ (c) No change ___(g) Don't know (d) Somewhat poorer 20. Amount of material covered. .4- (a) Much more .__(d) Somewhat less _‘. (b) Somewhat more __‘(e) Much less (c) No change ___(f) Don't know 21. Discipline. ___ (a) Much better _m(d) Somewhat poorer _p. (b) Somewhat better __(e) Much poorer _‘_ (c) No change ‘4 (f) Don't know 22. Motivation of pUpils -__ (a) Much better .-”(d) Somewhat poorer ___ (b) Somewhat better _‘-(e) Much poorer _w (c) No change __(f) Don't know QUESTIONS 23 THROUGH 30 deal with the contributions you may have made to the school program. Did you make any specific contributions to the school, pupils, or teachers, such as: 23. Supervise youth groups in meetings, programs, trips, tours, etc.? (a) Cften (b) Sometimes (C) No 24. Give talks to parent's group‘> (a) Often (b) Sometimes (c) No 25. Perform recess, lunch, gymnasium, playground, or hall duty? (a) Often (b) Sometimes (c) No 26. Did you bring, develop, provide, or suggest any new or different instructional materials? (a) A great many __(c) No (b) Some __(d) I am not sure 27. Did you suggest or provide any other kinds of aid or ideas? _~‘ (a) A great many .__(c) No (b) Some .__(d) I am not sure 28. How do you feel your contributions 26 and 27 were received? . (a) They were used ___(c) I was discouraged from I" (b) Th t d making such contributions u- ey were no use __(d) I really did not have much to offer 29. ‘.‘—o I‘— 21L3 How many hours per week on the average did you teach your supervising teacher's assigned classes? (a) Less than an hour a week __fd) Eleven to fifteen hours per week (b) One to five hours per week .__(e) Sixteen to twenty hours per week (c) Six to ten hours per week ___(f) More than twenty hours per week How many hours per week on the average was your super— vising teacher able to be away from the classroom while you were teaching his assigned classes? (a) Less than 1 __(d) 11 - 15 (b) 1 - s __(e) 16 - 20 (c) 6 - 10 __ff) More than 20 QUESTIONS 31 THROUGH 38 To what extent did your SUpervising teacher engage in any of the following additional activities during the time you were teaching his assigned classes? 31. Visitation in other classrooms or schools. (a) A great deal __(c) Not at all (b) To some extent _*(d) Don't know Committee work in the school with pupils and/or staff. (a) A great deal '__(c) Not at all (b) To some extent ___(d) Don't know Research. (a) A great deal ___(c) Not at all (b) To some extent __fd) Don't know Professional reading or writing. (a) A great deal _~(c) Not at all (b) To some extent ___(d) Don't know Work with staff or school or department. (a) A great deal .__(c) Not at all (b) To some extent .__(d) Don't know Participating in supervising teacher seminars or other in-service activities dealing with student teaching. (a) A great deal ‘_fc) Not at all (b) To some extent ___(d) Don't know Assisting the principal or other teachers. (a) A great deal .___(c) Not at all (b) To some extent _Mfd) Don't know Social or recreational activities. (a) A great deal ._*(c) Not at all (b) To some extent __(d) Don't know QUESTION 39 THROUGH 43 To what extent did you relieve other regular staff members who did not have student teachers of the following activities? 39. . *— .7..— “- Teaching. (a) Many times (b) Once or a few times (c) Not at all -4- 214 Chaperoning. (a) Many times (b) Once or a few times (c) Not at all Supervision of lunch duty. (a) Many times (b) Once or a few times (c) Not at all Supervision of study hall. (a) Many times (b) Once or a few times (c) Not at all Supervision of playground. (a) Many times (b) Once or a few times (c) Not at all QUESTIONS 44 THROUGH 47 To what extent were other staff members able to engage in any of the following activities because of your presence in the building? 44. Visitation in other classrooms or schools. (a) Many times (b) To some extent Committee work in the school. (a) A great deal (b) To some extent Research. (a) A great deal (b) To some extent __fc) Not at all __(d) Don't know _‘_(c) Not at all _M_(d) Don't know __(c) Not at all ___(d) Don't know Professional reading or writing. (a) A great deal (b) To some extent How many hours per week on the average do you estimate you Spent in the physical presence (close enough to see __fc) Not at all ___(d) Don't know or talk with) of your supervising teacher? (a) Less than 10 (b) 10 to 15 (c) 16 to 20 (d) 21 to 25 -5- __fe) 26 to 30 ,_.(f) 31 to 35 __fg) 36 to 40 _mfh) More than 40 ~ is C“: _—r--flh‘{mfh* - 49. 215 How did your presence as a student teacher affect the average number of hours per week your supervising teacher Spent at school as compared to when he does not (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) How have a student teacher? Added more than six hours per week. Added three to six hours per week. Added one to three hours per week. Added up to one hour per week. Had no effect. Reduced by up to one hour per week. Reduced by one to three hours per week. Reduced by three to six hours per week. Reduced by more than six hours per week. I am unable to judge. did your presence affect the average number of 5 hours per week your SUpervising teacher worked on job f related activities away from school? (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) QUESTION Added more than six hours per week. Added three to six hours per week. Added one to three hours per week. Added up to one hour per week. Had no effect. Reduced by up to one hour per week. f7 Reduced by one to three hours per week. Reduced by three to six hours per week. Reduvod by more than six hours per week. I am unable to judge. 51 THROUGH 54 To what extent was the time your supervising teacher Spent on the following activities changed because of your presence? 51. Teaching (a) (b) (C) Increased a great deal Increased to some extent Remained about the same Lesson Planning (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Increased a great deal Increased to some extent Remained about the same Reduced to some extent Reduced a great deal Don't know Paper grading (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Increased a great deal Increased to some extent Remained about the same Reduced to some extent Reduced a great deal Don't know ___(d) Reduced to some extent Reduced a great deal Don't know 216 54. Help to individual students (a) Increased a great deal _de) Reduced to some extent (b) Increased to some extent __(e) Reduced a great deal (c) Remained about the same __(f) Don't know QUESTION 55 THROUGH 62 To what extent did your supervising teacher engage in the follow- ing activities because of your presence° 55. Planning with you (a) A great many extra hours -- (b) Some extra hours F ‘~‘ (c) No extra hours " 56. Evaluating your progress and activities E ‘__ (a) A great many extra hours 5 __ (b) Some extra hours i .‘_ (c) No extra hours a 57. Holding casual and/or personal conversations not really 1 a part of student teaching. ' .(a) A great many extra hours (b) Some extra hours (c) No extra hours 58. Fulfilling social obligations resulting from your presence (a) A great many extra hours __(c) No extra hours (b) Some extra hours __fd) Don't know 59. Finding housing for you (a) A great many extra hours __(c) No extra hours (b) Some extra hours .__(d) Don't know 60. Preparing additional reports (a) A great many extra hours -“_(c) No extra hours (b) Some extra hours _“(d) Don't know 61. Making additional preparations for teaching (a) A great many extra hours _._(c) No extra hours (b) Some extra hours __(d) Don't know 62. Holding telephone conversations or other conferences with you (a) A great many extra hours _~_(c) No extra hours (b) Some extra hours ___(d) Don't know 63. How many times per week on the average did you have con- tact with your supervising teacher outside of regular working hours at school3 (Telephone, conferences, social engagements, etc.) (a) Less than one ___(d) Seven to nine (b) One to three __(e) Ten or more (c) Four to six -7- 64. 217 How many days during student teaching did you handle classes for your supervising teacher while he was away for reasons other than student teaching business (pro- fessional work, request of principal or other people, personal or private affairs outside of school) in which a substitute teacher would have had to be hired if you had not been there? (a) None .__(d) Four to seven (b) Less than one ._“(e) Eight to ten (c) One to three ‘._(f) More than ten During student teaching how many days did you handle classes for any teacher(s) other than your supervising teacher, while that teacher was away from class? (a) None _ (d) Five to seven (b) One or less _W_(e) Eight to ten (c) Two to four .*-(f) More than ten How many hours do you estimate you spent doing volunteer work in the community where you were assigned for student teaching(youth groups, home servicr, church work and the likc)during your student teaching period” (a) None at all __(d) Sixteen to thirty hours (b) One to five hours “.(e) More than thirty hours (0) Six to fifteen hours What effect dc you feel working with student teachers has had on the performance of your supervising teacher“ (a) Has made him a much more effective teacher (t) His made him a more effective teacher (c) Has had no effect on his teaching (d) Has made him a loss effective teacher (0) Has made him a much less effective teacher (f) I am unable to judge What do you think should be the attitude of the administra- tion and teachers in the school to which you were assigned about working with student teachers7 (a) Should aggressively seek student teachers (b) Should seek student teachers (c) Should accept student teachers if asked (d) Should resist having student teachers in the school (e) Should refuse to have studert teachers in the school (f) I am unable to judge What recommendation would you give your friends about accepting a student teaching assignment in the same school with the same supervising teacher(or in the same project)? (a) Accept with enthusiasm “_(d) Try for a different assignment (b) Accept __(e) Reject the assignment (c) Be neutral 218 70.. How many times has the university coordinator or SUper- visor of student teaching been in your school during your student teaching contact? (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 71. How Not 1 to 3 to 5 to 7 to much provided (a) (b) (c) (d) (a) All Most Some Litt No h at all ___(f) 9 to 10 times 2 times _‘(g) 11 to 12 times 4 times .__(h) 13 to 15 times 6 times _*(i) 16 times or more 8 times help has the university coordinator (SUpervisor) you? the help I felt was necessary of the help I felt was needed of the help I felt I needed 1e of the help I felt was needed olp at all 72. To what extent have your supervising teacher and/or other school personnel been helpful to you on matters not (a) (b) (c) (d) dire No s ctly concerned with student teaching? They have gone out of their way to be helpful They have helped when asked They have not helped uch help was needed 73. Would you accept a teaching position if offered for next year in the building or system in which you did your student teaching? (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Ye s No, No, No, No, No, because I intend to go to graduate school because I plan to live in another geographic area for personal reasons for professional reasons because I have decided not to teach 74. Why were you assigned to this particular student teaching station? (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) I re I re quested this school or area. quested this kind of program or project. I had no particular preference and was placed in this assignment by my college or university. I really preferred a different assignment but was plac ed in this one by my college or university. I was reouired to accept this assignment even though I expressed a strong preference for a different one. -9- APPENDIX C Teacher Questionnaire 219 TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Which of the following are you now? ___(a) A supervising (cooperating, Sponsoring) teacher “M(b) A supervising teacher but with a part—time adminis- trative assignment in addition to teaching 2. What is your sex? __fa) Male __(b) Female 3. How many years of teaching have you completed including this year? _kfa) Three or less years .__ (c) Bight to twelve years _~(b) Four to seven years __ (d) Mere than twelve years 4. How many different colleges or universities have been represented by the student teachers with whom you have worked? ___(a) Only one ___ (d) Four to six __(b) Two (e) More than six __ (c) Three E1 5. With how many student teachers have you worked in the last 5 years? (Include your current student teacher) --