LIBRARY 9 LMidfiganStatg Sums]? .7)»inc This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EARLY FIELD EXPERIENCE AND STUDENT TEACHING PERFORMANCE AT THE SECONDARY LEVEL presented by Lynn A. Folkert has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph .D . degree in Education 4% if ”77”“le Major professor Date November 17, 1977 0-7639 SE31) 29 7132?. QME Plugs: 25¢ per day per item RETUMUG LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book return to remove charge from circulation record: A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EARLY FIELD EXPERIENCE AND STUDENT TEACHING PERFORMANCE AT THE SECONDARY LEVEL BY LYNN A. FOLKERT A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Division of Student Teaching and Professional Development 1977 between e the Sewn with Youn Semant’ r fessional field exp Thirdly’ ‘ lationshiI A r: manCE' fit Mew. One teaching E 6/1"“) V) ); ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN .EARLY FIELD EXPERIENCE AND STUDENT TEACHING PERFORMANCE AT THE SECONDARY LEVEL BY LYNN A. FOLKERT The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between early field experience and student teaching performance at the secondary level. First, did the amount of early field experiences ‘with young people affect student teacher performance in classroom mana- gement, rapport with students and staff, preparedness to teach, and pro- fessional and personal characteristics? Secondly, did the tng_of early field experience make a difference in student teacher performance? Thirdly, did the results of a personality needs assessment show any re- lationship with the early field experiences students might have had? A review of the literature examined the areas of teaching perfor- mance, field experience, and research on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. . One hundred twenty-seven students enrolled in secondary student teaching at Michigan State University during Winter term, 1977, participated in the s §§3g£g§_ on perce setting dent had Ea young pe family e room obs used to (Type I) "hiCh ex Second c hours in III) inc setting teaching students exPerien early f1 Th Gaming 30 USEd in fOUr are; Lynn A. Folkert in the study. Each student was asked to complete two forms, one the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, and the other a self-rating form on perceived effectiveness and information about the student teaching setting as well as the amounts and types of field experiences the stu- dent had prior to his education classes. Early Field Experience is any experience which students have with young people in a structured or semi-structured situation (i.e., non- family experience such as youth groups, Sunday school teaching, class- room observations, or teacher aide work). Early field experiences were used to divide the students into three categories. The first category (Type I) includes all students with in—school early field experiences which exceed fifty (50) hours of student contact or observation. The second category (Type II) includes students with less than fifty (50) hours in-school early field experience only. The third category (Type 111) includes students with early field experience outside of a school setting and includes camp counseling, youth group work, Sunday school teaching, and similar experiences with no time limitations as well as students with both non-school and less than fifty (50) hours in-school experience. A fourth category (Type IV) refers to students who had no early field experience. The supervising teacher of each student was also asked to fill out a rating form similar to that completed by the student teacher, con- cerning the student teacher's effectiveness. Both the student teachers and supervising teachers' instruments used in the study were designed to examine the student's performance in four areas: Rapport with Students and Staff, Classroom Management, Subjet Persor the st Prefer crease field . teachei were :5 teacher ables 0 teacher Persona T] in‘Schm those vi not Sign the Stud were not Ce ralation: A n school Ex teaching Lynn A. Folkert Subject Knowledge and Preparedness for Teaching Techniques, and Personal and Professional Characteristics. The study also examined the student's responses to 15 manifest needs on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. The in-school early field experiences produce a significant in- crease in effectiveness in student teaching performance but any early field experience produces a difference in the performance of the student teacher. Student teachers who had an in-school early field experience were rated significantly higher at the p A .15 level than student teachers with non-school early field experience. The particular vari-. ables of the rating which showed significance were the supervising teachers ratings in (l) Rapport with Students and Staff, and (2) Personal and Professional Characteristics. There were differences in ratings between student teachers with in-school, non-school, or both types of early field experience, and those without early field experience. However, the differences were not significant at the p < .15 level. Also, the differences between the students with different amounts of in—school early field experience were not significant at the p < .15 level. Certain scales of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule showed relationships with the various early field experience types. A major recommendation included in the study is that an early in- school experience be developed for all persons entering the secondary teaching certification program. and Dedicated to my wife Charlotte and children Darrell Scott and Melanie Sue. I HEAR AND I FORGET, I SEE AND I REMEMBER, I DO AND I UNDERSTAND ii Chinese Proverb of (:0 tin: Comm and prog Pieo h81p allow ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The successful completion of this dissertation is the result of much work and assistance of many people. A special thanks is due to the following people: Dr. George Myers, Committee Chairman and friend, for all the time and help in completing this project. Dr. John Cragun, Dr. Richard Featherstone, Dr. Julian Brandon, Committee Members and friends, for all the special help, encouragement, and Dr. David Schulert for the guidance he gave throughout the entire program. The ORC staff for assistance in statistical analysis. The Test Scoring Office in helping with scoring the various pieces of information. The Counseling offices at MSU and Lansing Community College for help with the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. Ms. Helen Benedict, the typist, for helping meet the deadlines. My wife, Charlotte, and children, Darrell Scott and Melanie Sue for allowing me to work and encouraging me to finish this project. iii IE; 41 Li LI Chaptel I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O 0 Chapter I. II. III. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions of Important Terms . . . . . . . . . . . Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review of Literature Related to Teaching . . . . . . Review of Literature Related to Field Experience . . Review of Literature Related to the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sumary C O O O C O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O DES IGN OF THE STIJDY O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page viii 12 12 12 18 27 34 38 36 36 46 47 52 53 57 Chapt Chapter Page IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . 59 Composition of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Statistical Procedure Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61- Presentation of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Presentation and Testing of Hypotheses . . . . . . . 69 Summary and Discussion . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 81 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Major Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Implications of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . . . . 98 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 BIBLIOGRMHY O O O O C O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O 118 Table LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4.1 Number of Student Teacher Participants by Experience Type O O C O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 6 1 4.2 Publisher Norms' Means and Standard Deviation of Type I (< 750 hours in—school) and Type II (< 50 hours in—school) Experience Group for Each Variable and Totals from the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 4.3 Means and Standard Deviations for Types III (non- school) and Type IV (non-experience) Experience Groups for each Variable and Totals from the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . 64 4.4 Means and Standard Deviations for Each Experience Type on Each Variable from the Student Self-Rating Fom (SRF) O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6 5 4.5 Means and Standard Deviations for Each Experience Type on Each Variable from the Teacher Rating Form (TM) 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 6 5 4.6 Multivariate F-Test of Equality of the Means of the Groups in the Three Hypotheses . . . . . . . . 70 4.7 Univariate F-Test Score for the Dependent Variable EPPS. C O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 71- 4.8 Univariate F-Test Score for the Dependent Variable Teacher Rating Classroom Techniques . . . . . . . . 72 4.9 Univariate F-Test for the Dependent Variable TeaCher Rating C I I O O O O O O O .- O O O O O O I 72 4.10 Univariate F-Test Score for the Dependent Variable Teacher Rating Knowledge and Preparedness . . . . . 73 4.11 Univariate F-Test Scores for the Dependent Variable Teacher Rating Personal and Professional Char- acteristics O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 4 vi Table Table 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 Univariate F-Test for the Dependent Variable, Self-Rating Classroom Management . . . . . . . . . Univariate F-Test for the Dependent Variable Self-Rating Rapport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Univariate F-Test for the Dependent Variable Self-Rating Knowledge and Preparedness . . . . . Univariate F-Test for the Dependent Variable Self-Rating Personal and Professional Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of Testing the Dependent Variables for each of the Minor Hypotheses at the .15 Level Of Significance O O I O O O C I O O O O O I O O O O Errington's Student Teacher High and Low Evaluation of Students Means on the EPPS, This Study's Types I and IV Experience Student Teacher's Means, and the Publishers Sample Means . . . . . . . . . . . . Coefficients of Internal Consistency and Stability for the EPPS Variables . . . . . . . . . Number and Percent of Males and Females in Each Experience Type and Total . . . . . . . . . . . . Number and Percent of Students Teaching Some Combination of Grades 9 to 12, 7 to 9, and 7 to 12 in Each Experience Type and Total . . . . . . . Number and Percent of Students in Each Experience ‘ Type and Totals Who Responded NO to any or ALL of the Questions Regarding Grade or Subject Placement Number and Percent of Students Who Responded NO to Either or Both of the Questions about Educational Theories by Experience Type and Totals . . . . . . Results of Contrast for Selected Combinations of Two, Three, and Four Experience Types Not Done as Part of the Hypotheses Testing, dfl, = 8, dfz - 116 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 vii Page 75 76 76 77 80 99 100 102 103 104 105 106 Table A910 A911 A912 A913 A914 EPPS Scales which showed Significance in Contrast of Means for Selected Combinations of Two, Three, and Four Experience Types Not Done as Part of the Hypotheses Testing . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . Results of Contrast of Means for Each Combination of Two Experience Types Not Done as Part of the Hypotheses Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . ._. . . Results of Contrast for Selected Combinations of Three or Four Experience Types Not Done as Part of the Hypotheses Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of the Scales of the EPPS for the Three Combinations used in the Hypotheses Testing with Significance at the .15 Level . . . . . . . . . . Results of the Univariate F-Test for the Nine Dependent Variables of Major Hypothesis One. . . . Results of the Univariate F-Test for the Nine Dependent Variables of Major Hypothesis Two . . . . Results of the Univariate F-Test for the Nine Dependent Variables of Major Hypothesis Three . . . viii Page 107 108 108 109 110 111 112 Figure. LIST OF FIGURES Figdres Page 3.1 Designed Matrix Showing the Independent Variables and Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 ix be th vi Sh! ha‘ 8. In far and ha DES the CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between early field experience and student teaching performance at the secondary level. First, did the amount of early field experience with young people affect student teacher performance in classroom management, rapport with students and staff, preparedness to teach, and professional and personal characteristics? Secondly, did the typg_of early field experience make a difference in student teacher per- formance? Thirdly, did the results of a personality needs assessment show any relationship with the early field experiences students might have had? Need The term accountability is used in many segments of our society. In education, perhaps more than any other area, accountability has had far reaching effects. With the results of Statedwide testing programs and evident voter dissatisfaction as major measures, education officials have been clearly under fire to improve student outcomes. The effective- ness of teachers in producing the desired outcomes may be influenced by the amount and type of training they enjoyed as pre-service teachers. Educational authorities such as Lieberman,1 Silberman,2 and Dewey,3 have indicated that practice in teaching should be an in- tegral part of pre-service teacher education. This study is intended to examine one aspect of "practice teaching," namely: early field experience. This study was needed for several reasons. First, much time, money, and effort are spent on educational change, frequently with- out analyzing whether the innovation is beneficial. More research on the value of various program elements in teacher preparation as well as other areas of education is essential. Second with school dis; tricts seeking the most qualified and effective student teachers available, it is essential that teacher preparation institutions provide the type of preparation most helpful to the pre-service teacher. Third, if as Shaplin4 claims, practice provides the experience which gives meaning to many aspects of instruction in student teacher preparation as well as more meaning to educational theory, this idea needs to be examined statistically. The task, then, is to examine early field ex- perience as one element of teacher preparation in an attempt to provide some answers regarding the elements of field experience which will most benefit the pre-service teacher. l Lieberman, Myron, The Future of Public Education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960. 2 Silberman, Charles E., Crisis in the Classroom. New York: Random House, 1970. 3 Dewey, John, "The Relation of Theory to Practice in Education." The Third Yearbook of the National Society for the Scientific Study of Education, Part I. Bloomington, 111.: Public School Publishing Company, 1904. ' ' t. Shaplin, Jason T. "Practice in Teaching: 'Breakthrough to Better Teaching."' Harvard_§ducational Review, Special Issue, 1965. gngtiy; Si and stu posed. into th 1. Hypotheses Since this study is proposed to examine early field experiences and student teacher performance, the following hypotheses were pro- posed. The testing of these hypotheses will help to provide insight into the performance of student teachers. 1. The student teacher with early field experience will rate higher on a number of measures than the student teacher without early field experience. a. The early field experience student teacher will score differently on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule than the student teacher without early field experience. The early field experience student teacher will be rated higher by his supervising teacher in class- room management techniques than the non-early field experience student teacher. The early field experience student teacher will be rated higher by his supervising teacher in rapport with students and staff than the non-early field experience student teacher. The early field experience student teacher will be rated higher by his supervising teacher in prepared- ness for teaching techniques and subject knowledge than the non-early field experience student teacher. The early field experience student teacher will be rated higher by his supervising teacher in personal and professional characteristics than the non-early field experience student teacher. The early field experience student teacher will rate himself higher in classroom management techniques than the non-early field experience student teacher. The early field experience student teacher will rate himself higher in rapport with students and staff than the non-early field experience student teacher. The early field experience student teacher will rate himself higher in preparedness for teaching techniques and subject knowledge than the non- early field experience student teacher. The early field experience student teacher will rate himself higher in personal and professional characteristics than the non-early field exper- ience student teacher. The student teacher who has had school setting early field exper- ience will rate higher on a number of measures than the student teacher with non—school setting early field experience. a. The student teacher with school setting early field experience will score differently on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule than the student teacher with non- school setting early field experience. The student teacher with school setting early field experience will be rated higher by his supervising teacher in classroom management techniques than the student teacher with non-school setting early field experience. The student teacher with school setting early field experience will be rated higher by his supervising teacher in rapport techniques than the student teacher with non-school setting early field experience. The student teacher with school setting early field experience will be rated higher by his su- pervising teacher in preparedness techniques than the student teacher with non-school setting early field experience. The student teacher with school setting early field experience will be rated higher by his supervi— sing teacher in professional and personal char- acteristics than the student teacher with non-school setting early field experience. The student teacher with school setting early field experience will rate himself higher in classroom management techniques than the student teacher with non-school setting early field experience. The student teacher with school setting early field experience will rate himself higher in rapport than the student teacher with non—school setting early field experience. The student teacher with school setting early field experience will rate himself higher in preparedness for teaching techniques and subject know- ledge than the student teacher with non-school setting early field experience. The student teacher with school setting early field experience will rate himself higher in professional and personal characteristics than the student teacher with non-school setting early field experience. The student teacher with more than fifty (50) hours in-school early field experience will rate higher on a number of measures than the student teacher with less than fifty (50) hours in- school early field experience. a. The student teacher with more than fifty hours in-school early field experience will score (iifferently on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule than the student teacher with less than fifty hours in-school early field experience. The student teacher with more than fifty hours in- school early field experience will be rated higher by his supervising teacher in classroom management techniques than the student teacher with less than fifty hours in-school early field experience. The student teacher with more than fifty hours in- school early field experience will be rated higher by his supervising teacher in rapport techniques than the student teacher with less than fifty hours in-school early field experience. The student teacher with more than fifty hours in-school early field experience will be rated higher by his supervising teacher in preparedness for teaching techniques and subject knowledge than the student teacher with less than fifty hours in—school early field experience. The student teacher with more than fifty hours in-school early field experience will be rated higher by his supervising teacher in professional and personal characteristics than the student teacher with less than fifty hours in-school early field experience. The student teacher with more than fifty hours in-school early field experience will rate him- self higher in classroom management than the student teacher with less than fifty hours in— school early field experience. The student teacher with more than fifty hours in-school early field experience will rate him— self higher in rapport than the student teacher with less than fifty hours in-school early field experience. The student teacher with more than fifty hours in-school early field experience will rate himself higher in preparedness for teaching and subject knowledge than the student teacher with less than Defini' ‘1 a com fifty hours in-school early field experience. The student teacher with more than fifty hours in-school early field experience will rate him- self higher in professional and personal char- acteristics than the student teacher with less than fifty hours in-school early field experience. Definitions of Important Terms Definitions for key terms used in the study will follow to provide a common basis for understanding. 1. Student Teacher - Student who is engaged in the practicum phase, Student Teaching - Education 436 at Michigan State University, of his secondary certification program. Early Field Experience - Any experiences which students have with young people in a structured or semi-structured situation (i.e., non-family experience such as youth groups, Sunday school teaching, classroom observations, or teacher aide work). Early field experiences were used to divide the students into three categories. The first category (Type I) includes all students with in-school early field experiences which exceed fifty (50) hours of student contact or observation. The second category (Type II) includes Stu- dents with less than fifty (50) hours in-school early field experience only. The third category (Type III) includes students with early field experience outside of a school setting and includes camp counseling, youth group work, Sunday school teaching, and similar experiences with no time limitations as well as students with both non-school and less than fifty (50) hours in—school experience. A fourth category (Type IV) refers to students who had no early field experiences. Classroom Management - The organization of the classroom (i.e., physical set-up) which is conducive to learning, the handling of discipline problems, and the ability to use management systems and objectives. Rapport - The ability to get along with other people to maintain a professional relationship, yet be a helping person when handling problems, and to motivate others to do what is requested and to help them learn. Preparedness - Possessing a wide variety of teaching techniques for a variety of learning situations, having a good command of subject matter, and knowing where and how to get more materials or assistance. Professional and Personal Characteristics - Such qualities as g-od health, clean and neat clothes, good grooming, attitudes about self and life, as well as the desire to teach interest in self-improvement, and industriousness. Supervisor - The teacher with whom the student is working in the classroom. Ea« 1977, i certifi by Mich also as page wa while t teachir amount class 1 anothEl identi Perfor 10 Design of the Study Each of the students enrolled in Student Teaching, Winter term, 1977, in Michigan State University's traditional secondary teaching certification program, was asked to fill out the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, either in a seminar or individually, administered by Michigan State University personne1.* Each student teacher was also asked to fill out a two page questionnaire-checklist. The first page was a self-rating of perceived effectiveness in student teaching while the second page asked for specific information about the student's teaching assignment. A request for information about the type and amount of early field experience before the student's first education class (MSU ED.200, Psychological Foundations, or similar classes at another institution), was also included on the second page. This ex- perience information was used to identify the four groups. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule was administered during the last two weeks of the term. In addition, during the last two weeks of the term each super- vising teacher was asked to fill out a one page rating of the student teacher assigned to him. This rating form was essentially the same form as the first page of the student teacher's form. The scores of each of the four experience groups were compared to identify any relationships between experiences and student teaching performance. * To accomplish the task of administering the test and distributing the rating forms, the Center Directors from the Division of Student Teaching and Professional Development were asked to assist. Limi stu< of; Stu. it 11 Limitations of the Studyf l. The study was limited to measures by pencil and paper. 2. The study was limited by the cooperation of the student teachers and supervising teachers in completing and returning the materials. 3. The study was limited by the the accuracy of self-rating reports. Overview Chapter One presents the problem of the study. The rest of the study is divided into four chapters. Chapter Two contains a review of a representative sample of the literature related to field ex- perience, teaching_and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. Chapter Three describes the procedures and methodology used in the study, specifically how the data is collected and the manner in which it is analyzed. In Chapter Four the data is examined and analyzed. The summary, conclusions, and recommendations for further research are contained in Chapter Five. lntrod to the sectic of lil [Elate of me QXtEn locki outco Porta is f0 and I there CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction It is the purpose of Chapter Two to examine literature relating to the present study. To do this, Chapter Two is divided into four sections: (1) review of literature related to teaching, (2) review of literature related to field experience, (3) review of literature related to the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, and (4) a summary. Review of Literature Related to Teaching Teaching may be viewed as helping others learn through a variety of methods. The outcomes of these efforts determine to a certain extent how effective a teacher is. What kinds of outcomes are we looking for? The cognitive and psychomotor skills are generally the outcomes which the public desires. These outcdmes are certainly im— portant and much of the training which pre—service teachers receive is focused on developing skills to teach for them. As educators, we profess that there are individual differences and that we must become skillful in working with them. Halik indicates there is a need to expand the concept of outcomes in education to th to he in re' EV; 13 include the affective dimensions.l Can we include the things that keep individuals as individuals, such as the appreciation of music or art, the ability to love something or someone? Certainly the teaching of these require some additional skills on the part of the teacher. Can and should such skills he taught as part of pre-service training or can they only be developed as a teacher practices teaching in the class- room? Perhaps exposure to these concepts and skills through both class- room studies and practical experience is the most effective way of mak- ing the pre-service teacher aware of them, just as in-service education might be one possible way’of making practicing teachers aware, as Halik found in his study. Throughout the program of development of the pre-service teacher, evaluations are necessary to provide reference points for checking progress in development. Exactly which procedures are best for evalua- tion of the pre-service teacher is often debated. Medley and Krathwohl2 suggest that educators must consider all three areas of knowledge. Indeed in todayeseducational system the need to prepare teachers in all three areas is great. Education is not the mechanical production of a product, but the assistance in development of individuals able to function in today's world. Donald M. Medley in his review of research in 1971 indicates there are two prevalent methods to evaluate teachers - product and process. With each of these methods some problems occur. With process, teachers rated high by supervisors and well 1 Halik, Richard J., "Teacher In-Service Education in the Affective Domain: Outcomes for Teachers and Students," unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. Medley, Donald M., and Krathwohl, David, "Task Force on Relating Teacher Competencies to Pupil Outcomes," Competency Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. A report of a National Conference, University of Houston, March 12-15, 1975, pp.82-87. see for asl in ti! 3C1 l"h: _‘_- l4 liked by students were not the teachers with the greatest student gains or who judged themselves the most effective. Evaluation by product caused problems with reliability and validity of the test. Medley advocates giving up the idea of measuring effectiveness of teachers by student gains on test. He continues, "Educational re- search does not support Dewey's 'we learn by doing' or Skinner's rein- forcement theories. Instead things such as cognitive level of questions asked, probing questions, clarity and structure should be looked for in measuring teacher effectiveness."3 J. Dale Burnett in 1975 examined teacher evaluation and deter- mined the following to be the major approaches to evaluation: 1. Examination of student gain scores on standardized test. 2. Analysis of typical student improvements. 3. Teaching performance testing. 4. Teacher skill testing. 5. Administrators or peer group observations and ratings. 6. Student observations and ratings. The first three approaches tend to evaluate products of teacher effec- tiveness while the last three examine process. Further, most research activities on evaluation tend to be oriented toward classroom activities while administrators tend to look at attendance and overall work load. Burnett suggests teacher evaluation might be helped by the current push toward the "Management by Objectives" concept.‘ Medley, Donald M., "Indications and Measures of Teacher Effectiveness: A Review of the Research," ERIC, Ed#088844, 1971. Burnett, J.Da1e, "Evaluating Teachers," Research and Information Reports, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, 1975, p.35. CG CI ar th ”'/ 15 With any system of evaluation, certain standards are set and certain criteria are expected to be included. A number of such criteria list were examined. Many educators and some non-educators have listed what they feel are skills a teacher should have. Combs' extensive list indicates that the teacher should: Know much about related subjects Be adaptable to new knowledge Understand the process of becoming Recognize individual differences Be a good communicator Develop an inquiring mind Be available Be committed Be enthusiastic Have a sense of humor Have humility Cherish his own individuality Have convictions Be sincere and honest Act with integrity Show tolerance and understanding Be caring Have compassion Have courage ' Have personal security Be creative Be versatile Be willing to try Be adaptable 5 Believe in God Combs defines the effective teacher as "a unique human being who has learned to use himself effectively and efficiently to carry out his own and society's purposes in the education of others."6 Charles Jackson lists his essential competencies for teaching as: 1. Scholarly control of knowledge 5 Combs, Arthur C., The Professional Education of Teachers, Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965, p.2-3. 6 Ibid. p.9. .531 m area "/ 16 Expertness in the teaching-learning process Skills in decision making Insight into one's self as a professional Henry and Beasley in their book, Sppervising_Student Teachers: The Professional Wgy, list three major areas with specifics under each area. The three areas are; personal qualities, professional qualities, 8 and teacher skills. Crow and Crow suggest that the effective teacher: 1. 2. 9. Guides his students in the mastery of subject matter Helps his students improve needed skills Assists young people in the solution of their personal problems Organizes and conducts efficiently all of the many activities that constitute classroom management Developes satisfactory relationships with administrators, supervisors, fellow teachers, and parents Participates in out-of-class experiences Cooperates with the administration in all matters of school management Becomes acquainted with and cooperates with the community in which the school is located Learns to meet and work with parents 7 Jackson, Charles, "Purposes and Objectives in Student Teaching," in Toward Excellence in Student Teaching, Edited by Hugo David, Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1973, p.8. Henry, Marvin A., and Beasley, W;Wayne, Supervising Student Teachers: The Professional Way, Terre Haute, Indiana: Sycamore Press, 1972, p.160. their what 1 teachc thougl teriS' basic In th: examil 17 10. Gives evidence of a love of teaching and a professional attitude toward teaching9 In addition to the preceding list, Crow and Crow include in their writing lists detailing what an administrator10 would want, what characteristics students11 feel teachers should possess and what teachers1 would want other teachers to possess and achieve. Al— though the list differ slightly in emphasis, the same basic charac- teristics and areas of proficiency are desired. Based on the literature throughout all the lists a number of basic themes which seem to be repeated. They include: 1. Classroom management skills 2. Rapport with students and staff 3. Knowledge of subject matter, methods of teaching. (Preparedness to teach.) 4. Personal and professional characteristics In this study these four basic themes will be used as the basis for examination. Crow, Lester and Crow, Alice, The Student Teacher in Secondary School, New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1964, p.3. 10 Ibid. p 0 25-6. 11 Ibid. p.28. 12 Ibid. p.33. become teachi subjec now b Recen educat experi nary i havio: attiti teach: State job 0 l3 14 15 l6 l7 l£> 18 Review of Literature Related to Field Experience What type of training must the pre-service teacher receive to become proficient in each of these areas? Until the recent past, a person was presumed to be fitted for teaching in the secondary school if he had "mastered successfully the subject matter in his teaching."13 Practice teaching, however, is now believed to also be an essential part of pre-service training. Recent descriptions of the most innovative trends in teacher education include field-centered instruction, early and varied field experience, and clinical or practical experience.14’15 Melograno, in his article states, "It is apparent that the pri- mary goal of experimental education is to change the trainee's be- havior; that is, changes in pre-service teacher knowledge, skills, attitudes and values which have been determined essential for effective teaching."16 A Michigan State University College of Education Bulletin states, "He finds out, by living the life of a teacher, just what the job of a teacher is."17 13 Crow, pp_cit p.l. l4 Barnett, Robert, "Teaching Experience - Early, Often and Varied," Journal of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, Vol.43:70, May, 1972. ‘ I 15 Cooper, James M., and Sadler, David, "Current Trends in Teacher Education Curriculums," Journal of Teacher Education, Fall, 1972, p 0 312-17 0 Melograno, Vincent J., "Changes in Selected Characteristics of Pre- Service Teachers following Variable, Semi-Variable, and Non- Variable Field Experiences," Cleveland State University, 1976, p.1. 16 17 A Description of Michigan State's Full-Time Student Teaching Prggram, Michigan State University, College of Education, Sept., 1963, p.4. Jol to be re to {€130 ing whic‘ the stud A. this way "71 at de re be he a] p: a f s c p g P d b H thIOug}. E laDOI-at 18\ D 19 e‘ * C011 U 20 n‘ Hui 19 John Dewey, in 1904, indicated the need for practice and theory to be related. Only if the pre-service teacher has practical experience to relate his theory to instruction will the student receive "the train- ing which affords psychological insight"18 necessary to properly assist the student in meeting his needs. A.W. Combs has defined the need for relating theory and practice this way: "Teachers need a clear and consistent frame of reference about people and their behavior to serve as a guide to dealing with them. This need not be a formal psychology represented by a particular school of thought, but it must be as accurate and true to life. False beliefs about the nature of people can only results in the selection of in- appropriate ways of dealing with them. The good teacher's psychology must be more than accurate, however. It must be a point of view to which the teacher is deeply committed, for without personal involvement no point of view has any significant effect upon behavior. It is a personal psy- chology which the good teacher needs, derived from accurate observations and given consistency and meanipg by personal exploration and discovery.* A prime function of the teacher preparation program must be to assist its students in the development of such a frame of reference for theif future behavior."1 Hunter and Amidon recommended, "expansion of direct experience through all parts of the professional sequence."20 Bennie recommends among other things, "pre-service professional laboratory experiences," and "increased acceptance of the internship 18 Dewey, pp_cit, p.14-15. 19 Combs, pp_cit, p.21. * Underline emphasis this author. 20 ' Hunter, Elizabeth and Amidon, Edmund, "Direct Experiences in Teacher Education: Innovations and Experimentation," The Journal of Teacher Education, XVII, Fall, 1966, p.282-89. program, Tl dicates instruC' am, at I (65) or three 1 The Si and 81 Creas Vatia Semi- MEIOE had r amenE Pre~5 exDEI 1 22 23 20 ' and "an integrated experience program."21 program,‘ The Council of Social WOrk Education in New York, New York, in- dicates both students and faculty in social work education find field instruction rewarding and puzzling. It is, at worst, a waste of time and, at best, a growth experience for both student and supervisor.22 In Melograno's study at Cleveland State University, sixty-five (65) pre-service physical education teachers were randomly assigned to three groups; 1. Variable - experiences in urban and suburban school at different educational levels. 2. Semi—Variable - in one setting at different levels or at one level in different settings. 3. Non-Variable — at one level in one setting. The students were pre-tested and post-tested on selected personality and attitudinal factors. The study showed a significant (p (.05) in- crease in (1) degree of authoritarianism in the semi-variable and non- variable groups and (2) preference for psychomotor objectives in the semi-variable group. No change was revealed in teaching style preference. Melograno's conclusions were: (1) degree of field experience variability had no effect on changes in selected personality and attitudinal factors among pre-service physical education teachers, and (2) some changes in pre-service teachers' characteristics can be expected as a result of field experiences, regardless of degree of field experience variability.23 21 Bennie, William.A., Cppperation for Better Student Teachipg, Minn- eapolis: Burgess Publishing Company, 1966, p.122-27. 22 "The Dynamics of Field Instruction: Learning Through Doing." Council of Social Werk Education, New York, New York, 1975, p.106. 23 Melograno, Vincent J. pp_cit p.3-ll. a stron perienc readine such a as well such a who we demons exoeri in ove sarilg more ( LIOI i to, 't °T ch. lecti 4 25 26 21 Gantt and Daney in their study write, "the conclusions indicate a strong mandate in support of (early) pre-service teaching field ex- perience, and the students show an increased confidence about their readiness for student teaching." They include in the advantages of such a program the increased student self-learning and self-evaluation as well as creative curriculum planning. They recommend incorporating such a program into all methods courses. Currie, in his study of thirty-eight (38) pre-service students who were randomly assigned to two groups (1) instruction and live demonstrations, and (2) instruction, live demonstrations, and aide experience, concludes, "Students in the experience group were superior in overall performance of selected teaching procedures but not neces- sarily in any specific teaching procedure. The experience group used more of the selected teaching procedures than did students in the con- trol group."25 William Sinclair, indicates in his study that attention be given to, "the relation of early knowledge to more time to make improvements or changes in the style and methods of presenting the material."26 In a paper prepared at the University of Wisconsin, several ob- jectives for a pre-student teaching center are listed. They are divided 24 Gantt, Walter N., and Daney, Beth, "Pre-Service Teachers React to Field Supplemented Methods Courses," University of Maryland, 1972. 25 Currie, James Francis, "A Study of the Effects of a Teacher Aide Experience on the Preparation of Secondary School Student Teachers." Ed.D. Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1970. 26 Sinclair, William W., "An Analysis of Three-Pre—Student Teaching Experiences in the Preparation of Elementary School Teachers," Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961, pp. 77-8. into dents grain to th by ha withi from uatio [m 22 into two categories. The first objective for teacher practicum stu- dents enrolled in the center include: 1. To integrate theory with the act of teaching. 2. To develop skills and educational concepts through an experience based program. 3. To gain a working knowledge of and become involved in various phases of public school experiences. The second set of objectives in terms of the teacher preparation pro- gram include: 1. To improve cooperation among students, teachers and the university. 2. To provide more meaningful evidence of professional growth and performance of education students. 3 3. To provide a model for a performance-based teacher education program, involving performing in a real classroomsetting.27 To accomplish this, thirty (30) students per semester are assigned to the center. They begin with a three week orientation, then continue by having some of their classes within the public school. The program within the schools includes the students, the principals and the staffs from.three elementary buildings, and five university professors. Eval- uations of the students are done in a variety of ways including direct observation and video taping of the students.28 Lieberman wrote, "Teacher education should be changed to make it accord with sound principles of professional training. This will require 27 Elementary PreéStudent Teaching Center: A Case Study, University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point, Wisc., School of Education, December, 1975, p.2. \ 28 ' Ibid p. 3-50 an en perio ing m cede Assoc of SO‘ progre this ( K-lZ : on wh; West \ based six We queStj CiPals the p, pletir Screen teaChe Li 0t 30 31 3w 23 an end to the practice of deferring practical training until the period of student teaching. A much larger measure of practical train- ing must be included in some (but not all) of the courses which pre- cede student teaching or teacher internship."29 Paul Otto in a paper presented at the Annual Conference of The Association of Teacher Educators, 1976, indicated that the University of South Dakota in 1973 instituted a Competency Based Teacher Education program in.which the first course was called American Education. In this course students must make 16 observations during the year to K912 schools in the local area. They must also write a position paper on why or why not to continue with a teacher career.30 In a program developed at Shepherd College,31 Shepherdstown, West Virginia, elementary pre—service students are involved in a field based program from the second semester of their sophomore year to their six weeks student teaching term. Evaluation of the program through questionnaires administered to students, cooperating teachers and prin- cipals associated with the program indicated the students completing the program were more confidence and better prepared than students com9 pleting a traditional program. The program also provided a realistic screening process and encouraged communication between public school teachers and college methods instructors. 29 Lieberman, pp_cit, p.115. 30. Otto, Paul B., "A First Course in a Competency Based/Field Based Teacher Preparation Progarm." Paper presented at the Annual Conference of ATE, (Headquarters of ATE, Washington, D.C.), 1976. 31 Swann, Margaret E., "An Experiment in Field Based Elementary Teacher Education," Shepherd College, Shepherdville, West Virginia, ERIC ED124497, 1975. sugges mum] tutori listed Educat promot the st 24 Thompson32 (1971) states, "All groups made similar choices when suggesting improvement for pre-service urban teacher programs. For example, provisions for earlier contact with inner-city children in tutorial or community agency work." Gallen and Toney in their work at Illinois State University listed six goals for pre-service field experience through a Teacher Education Center aimed at providing a wide array of experiences to promote the academic, professional and community awareness growth of the student. They include: 1. An exposure to the community and total school district operation. 2. Observation, participation, and mini-teaching at all elementary grade levels. 3. Completion of an eleven (11) week period of student teaching. 4. The integration of academic work with actual daily in- volvement with schools. 5. An extensive exploration of what constitutes teaching. 6. The development of a broad repertory of teaching skills. Gallen and Toney report the success fo the program is apparent from results showing a higher percentage of graduates of regular teacher preparation programs offered at Illinois State University.33 32 Thompson, Valerie, "Teachers Evaluation of Their Preparation to Teach: A Survey of Selected New York City Public Schools," Dissertation Abstracts International, 33: 1066A, 1972. 33 Gallen, Wayne H., and Toney, Myrna M., "Benefits Accuring for the Teaching Profession Via University - Public School Partnerships.' Illinois State University, 1974. being 25 Steenbergen lists six reasons for early field experience through being a teacher aide: 1. The future teachers would obtain invaluable experience in the schools while assisting teachers. The future teacher would acquire insight into the role of the teacher aide and would be in a better position to use an aide himself, having had the actual experience. Children and teachers in local schools would benefit by having the student trainee assisting them in the classroom. The future leader would move from "non-concern" to greater concern with teacher related problems and would assign in- creased meaning to his courses in education. Screening committees in colleges of education that are concerned with admitting candidates to upper division study would have more reliable evidence upon which to base their decisions. Some students would select themselves out of preparing to teach, while others would increase commitment to teaching if afforded early extended contacts with the realities of .the school classroom."34 At Edgecliff College, Cincinnati, Ohio, a five-phase program has been instituted. It involves: Phase 1 - Two semester - combining study of education with direct observation in schools. 34 Steenbergen, Aaron L., "A Developmental Paraprofessional Program for the Education of Future Teachers in the Two-Year Community Junior College," Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. cisions help ti in a cg fiEld e SYnnott 26 Phase 2 - Tutoring school students on a one-to-one basis for one semester. Phase 3 - Serving as an aide in an elementary school class- room for one semester. Phase 4 — One semester - combining professional methods courses with practice of specific skills in an elementary school classroom. Phase 5 - One semester - full time student teaching, working with a cooperating teacher and a university supervisor. The goals of the program are to help the student with career de- cisions, to help the college in selection of teacher prospects, and to help the student acquire knowledge, skills, techniques and experiences in a carefully guided, sequential manner.35 Other authors have indicated no significant change (due to early field experience) in certain aspects of student teaching effectiveness. Synnott suggests prior experience in working with young pe0ple did not have any significant effect upon student teacher perceptions of their student teaching experience.36 In a study with experienced teachers, Clark indicated experienced teachers showed teaching process did not vary significantly with prac- tice and few teachers showed an increase in student learning with practice.37 35 Finley, John R., "Progressive Field Experience Program at Edgecliff College, Cincinnati, Ohio." Edgecliff College, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975, p.10. ‘ ' Synnott, Thomas J., "Student Teachers' Perception of Their Student Teaching Experiences Through the University of Northern Colorado," Dissertation Abstracts International, 33:5020A, 1972. 37 Clark, Christopher Michel, "The Effects of Teacher Practice on Stu- dent Learning and Attitude in Small Group Instruction." Technical Report No. 47, Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching, Stanford University, Ca., Feb, 1976, p.117. 36 of any value t dent sl early 5 opporti long o< factor his ch teract accept dEVEIO reSult Positi acteri differ Na 39 Ba 27 The literature indicates practice needs to be an essential part of any pre-service training, and the earlier the practice, the more value the students will receive from it. The benefits which the stu- dent should receive include a more realistic view of education at an early stage, practical experience to relate classroom learning, and an opportunity to see if education is what the student wants as a life- long occupation. Review of Literature Related to the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule For a number of years it has been recognized that personality factors may have some affect on the success or failure of anyone in his chosen vocation. This appears particularly true in the human in- teraction vocations such as teaching. Watson in 1942, suggested that acceptance and application of some of the principals relating to the development of good interpersonal relations (personality factors) would result in marked improvement in the teacher-learner situation.38 In 1948 A.S. Barr reported on a large number of references to positive relationships between teaching success and personality char- acteristics. Over 80 percent of the correlations were significantly different from zero although some of the differences were small.39 38 Watson, G., "The Surprising Discovery of Morale," Progressive Education, 1942, XIX, p.39. 39 Barr, A.S., "The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching Efficiency:, A Summary of Investigation." Journal of Experimental Education, 1948, XVI, pp.203-283. (15) 9 follow H l—lL—AL—J H l—J test 1 made 1 in the HA. 1 fESt I of in- \ 40 EC 28 One measure of personality traits is the Edwards Personality Preference Schedule (EPPS) developed by Allen L. Edwards, University of washington. Developed in 1954 the EPPS is a measure of fifteen (15) personality variables. The fifteen variables are listed as follows: Achievement (ach) Deference (def) Order (ord) Exhibition (exh) Autonomy (aut) Affiliation (aff) Intraception (int) Succorance (suc) Dominance (dom) 10. Abasement (aba) ll. Nurturance (nur) 12. Change (chg) 13. Endurance (end) 14. Heterosexuality (het) 15. Aggression (agg)"O \DQNGUIJ-‘WNH 0 Definitions of each scale are included in Chapter Three. The test is a 225 item, forced answer test in which an attempt has been made to minimize the influence of social desirability. The statements in the EPPS and the variables were believed developed from work by H.A. MMrray, known as "Murray's Need System," which is a list of mani- fest needs. In 1958, Jackson and Cuba in their work with the needs structure of in—service teachers selected the EPPS. They conclude, ". . . a high score on any of the fifteen needs measured by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, indicates that the subject tended to choose activities associated with that need in preference to activities designed to 40 Edwards, Allen L., Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, University of Washington, (New York: The Psychological Corporation), Revised Manual, 1959, p.1. tn rr 3 v1 possess facets high it (1) not Author: for Af: l "The E3 tar? SI their I and at for De with 1 intera ClaSSe CaUSe Ja 42 ‘ Sh 43 - Me '29 reflect other needs. . . Thus, from the standpoint of need structure, the quality which seems to characterize teachers as a group is their high Deference, Orderliness, Endurance, and their low Exhibition and Heterosexuality."4 Sheldon, Cole and Copple in their study assumed "good teachers possess a particular personality structure and that many of these facets can be measured." Their findings include: "Those who were high in warmth and friendliness, as compared to those who were low, (1) not only were significantly higher in intelligence and lower in Authoritarianism but (2) also expressed a significantly higher need for Affiliation and a lower need for Succorance."42 Metzner in his study dealing with elementary teachers noted, "The EPPS and the study of values form a theoretical picture of elemen- tary school teachers which, with a few exceptions, is consistent with their operational attitudes and behavior patterns.43 The personality characteristics of the teacher, his needs, values, and attitudes predict the climate of his classes. Teachers with needs for Dependence and Power, Order and Change had formal, subservient classes with little animosity between class members. Teachers with needs for interaction (Aggression and Affiliation) had controlled, well directed classes where the pupils mdght feel less intimacy with each other be- cause the teacher might monopolize affective group interactions. The 41 Jackson, Philip W., and Guba, Egon G., "The Need Structure of In- Service Teachers, An Occupational Analysis." The School Review, "2 Sheldon, Stephen M., Cole, Jack M., and Copple, Rochue, "Concurrent Validity of the Warm Teacher Scales." Journal of Educational Psy- chology, L. No.1., 1959, pp.37-40. 43 Metzner, Seymore, "An Empirical Criterion Validation Study on Some Psychological Inventory Findings Related to Elementary School Teachers," Feb., 1967, p.8. self-e loose fourtl a has: also : may be ested at th was s Parin Schoo gener. ateas Secon. Meat . 30 self-centered teacher had a class that was disorganized, constrained, loose in student supervision, and lower in group satisfaction.44 Cooper and Bemis, in their study with sixty (60) middle-class fourth grade teachers, reported that EPPS scores of teachers established a basis for predicting teachers' observable classroom behavior. They also reported the more effective teachers (in terms of pupil gains) may be described as critical, willing to accept leadership, and inter- ested in persuading and influencing others.45 Lang, in his study concerning why students decided upon teaching at the secondary level, noted for secondary students that Achievement was significant while Nurturance was less important.46 Garrison and Scott analyzed the needs of students who were pre- paring to teach at one or more levels from kindergarten through high school. Students planning to teach at the general secondary or non- general secondary level were further divided according to the subject areas they planned to teach. The findings included: (1) general secondary women did exhibit a significantly greater need for Achieve- ment than did women in either the elementary or non-general secondary group, and (2) elementary teachers in general exhibited a significantly greater need for Nurturance, Succorance, Affiliation, Change, and 44 walberg, Herbert J., "Teacher Personality and Classroom Climate," Harvard University, 1967, p.18. 45 Cooper, James C., and Bemis, Katherine A., "Teacher Personality, Teacher Behavior, and Their Effect Upon Pupil Achievement, Final Report." New Mexico University, Albuquerque, College of Education, April, 1967, p.156. 46 Lang, Gerhard, "Motives in Selecting Elementary and Secondary School Teachers," Journal of Experimental Education, XXIX, Sept., 1960, p.101-104. Abasenent Br: using EP were sig level or Ii educati rated h The ele than se 49 R. 31 Abasement than did secondary school teachers."7 Brandou, in 1963, studied sixteen (16) secondary science teachers using EPPS as one of the measures. His results indicated the teachers were significantly different from the publisher's norms at the pet0.025 level on Affiliation; at the p4.0.l level in Exhibition and Aggression.48 In a study which examined the personal characteristics of teacher education students, Robbins found secondary education students were rated higher in Achievement than those in elementary education majors. The elementary education students were more inclined to be Dominant than secondary education majors.49 In his study with Michigan State University elementary student teachers, Errington hypothesized there would be a significant relation- ship between success or failure in student teaching and certain per- sonality factors on the EPPS. The results of his study indicate eleven (11) of the fifteen (15) need items showed significance. Three nkhievement,0rder, and Heterosexuality - were significant at the .05 level while eight - Deference, Exhibition, Affiliation, Intraception, Succorance, Abasement, Nurturance, and Change were significant at the 47 Garrison, Karl C., and Scott, Mary H., "The Relationship of Selected Personal Characteristics to the Needs of College Students Prepar- ing to Teach." Educational and Psychological Measurement, XXII, Winter, 1962, p.753-58. Brandou, Julian Robert, "A Study of an Experimental Program for the In-Service Science Education of Elementary School Teachers," Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963, p.60. 48 49 Robbins, Jerry H., "Personality Characteristics of Teacher Education Students," University of Mississippi, School of Education, 1972, p.16. .01 l« elemei a con] publie A-lo catior They w Latin workin and lo‘ and 101 32 .01 level of significance.50 Since the Errington study was with elementary student teachers and this study was with secondary teachers a comparison of the two was planned as well as a comparison to the publishers norms. The results of the comparison are shown in Table A-1. Brooks indicated in her study that students in counselor edu- cation were similar in all but two scales - Dominance and Nurturance. They were significantly higher in Nurturance and lower in Dominance.51 Wakefield and Crawl reported in the Journal of Experimental Edu- cation, special education personnel who were the most successful in working with mentally retarded persons were highest in Intraception and lowest in Aggression. These teachers were also high in Achievement and low in Succorance.52 Watson, in his 1974 study, indicated counselor trainees who were chosen most often and received the highest peer rankings demonstrated manifest needs for Dominance, Change, Succorance, Order, Nurturance, and Achievement.53 50 Errington, Garth Edward, "An Analysis of Certain Factors Leading to the Predictability of Success and Failure in Elementary Student Teachers," Ed.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. p a 49-50 0 Brooks, Bonnie S., "A Comparative Study of Selected Characteristics of Counselor-Education and Non-Counselor-Education Students." Texas Personnel and Guidance Association Journal, V2N2, Sept.,l973, p.107-l7. Wakefield, William.M., and Crawl, Thomas, "Personality Character- istics of Special Education," Journal of Experimental Education, 43:2, Winter, 1974, p.86-89. Watson, Joseph M., "Peer Perception of Counselor Effectiveness: A Multiple Regression Approach." Counselor Education and Super- vision, V13N4, 1974, p.250-55. 51 52 53 Ti and 1959 Deniny a desirabi groups. the indi personal using ne definit: persona: in your: and (2) desirab; Socially Ii larger ‘ 33 The EPPS was developed in 1954, with the manual revised in 1957 and 1959. How valid is the EPPS today? In a study in April, 1974, Deminy and Mulgrave 54 examined the EPPS for sex differences and social desirability. In their study the subjects were divided into three groups. One group completed the entire EPPS, while the second rated the individual items using the original definitions of social and personal desirability. The third group rated the individual items using new definitions for social and personal desirability. The new definitions differed from the original ones in the following ways: (1) personal desirability was redefined from what you would find desirable in yourself to what you would judge desirable or undesirable in others; and (2) social desirability was redefined from what you would find desirable in others to what society-at-large would believe to be socially desirable. In the original norm group males means showed a significantly larger difference at the 1 percent level than the mean for the females in Achievement, Automony, Dominance, Heterosexuality, and Aggression. Females show significantly larger differences in means in Deference, Affiliation, Intraception, Succorance, Abasement, Nurturance, and Change. Females showed reversals in 1972 to mean results similar to the means of both groups of males in Deference, Autonomy, Affiliation, Abasement, Heterosexuality, and Aggression. On four scales, Intraception, Succorance, Dominance, and Change, there were significance at the 1 percent level as in the original sample. 54 Demiany, Frances E., and Mulgrave, Norman W., "An Investigation of Sex Differences and Social Desirability in the EPPS," Paper pre- sented at the Annual Meeting of the A.E.R.A.,59th. Chicago,Ill.: 1974. However The lit examine to the ; using t? ference: subscalc signed. the usag Th Written indicate Providin devElOpm' To TheSe are istics fa l. iVeueSS 34 However, the means were not so different in 1972 as in the 1950's. The literature indicates the EPPS has been used as an instrument to examine the characteristics of teachers and relate these characteristics to the performance of these teachers. This is also the purpose of using the EPPS in this study. The literature also indicates the dif- ferences between males and females on the results of the various subscales in less today than when the instrument was originally de- signed. Since this study combines the results of both males and females, the usage of the test should be even more valuable than in other studies. Summary This review of the literature has summarized some of the aricles written in the fields of teaching and field experience. The literature indicates teaching is generally accepted as helping others learn by providing information and opportunities to apply the information in the development of ones conceptual framework. To do this the teacher must possess certain qualities and abilities. These are listed in a number of ways but generally all the character- istics fall into four major areas. These areas are: 1. Classroom Management 2. Rapport with students and staff 3. Knowledge of subject matter, methods of teaching 4. Personal and professional characteristics This study uses these areas in its examination of teaching effect- iveness. in th erall liter perie the e: chara< charae hibit 0f the 35 The literature also indicates practice for teaching is important in the training of teachers. Some type of early experience is gen- erally agreed as being beneficial for the pre-service teacher. The literature also indicated the earlier the experiences, the more ex- periences and the wider the variety of experiences, the more helpful the experiences were in the development of the pre-service teacher. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule has been used to examine characteristics of various groups of people. On most research these characteristics are related to the success the persons or groups ex- hibit in performing their work assignments. Information presented in Chapter Three will outline the design of the study. a des of tl the I Mic] dur tEa rec tic ea< di 81 Dr /H CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Chapter III includes: (1) a description of the population, (2) a description of the instruments used in the study, (3) the hypothesis of the study, (4) the procedures involved in collecting and analyzing the data, and (5) a summary. Population The population of the study consisted of the student teachers at Michigan State University who taught in a secondary school (grades 7-12) during winter term, 1977, exclusive of any competency based student teacher (CBTE) or special education student teacher except speech cor- rection. N a 265 for the population. The supervising teacher popula- tion included the supervising teachers with whom the student teachers each spent the most time. ’The sample of the study consisted of the student teachers in the different geographical centers who chose to participate. Also, the re- sults did not include the results of one entire center due to delivery problems. Therefore, N - 198 for the sample. Instrumentation Two types of instruments were used in the study. The first con— 36 sisted 0 other to supervis list wit The rat areas: Paredne to be: 37 sisted of two rating forms, one for the supervising teacher and the other for the student teacher. The rating form completed by each of the supervising teachers consisted of a five-choice machine-scored check- list with the choices: 1. Very Effective - (V) 2. Effective - (E) 3. Adequate - (A) 4. Not Effective - (N) 5. Unsatisfactory - (U) The rating forms evaluated the effectiveness of the student in four areas: (1) rapport; (2) classroom management; (3) knowledge and pre- paredness; (4) professional and personal characteristics. The comments to be rated were worded in the form, "Your student teacher . . ." The student teachers completed a similar form. The first part of the rating form examined the same areas as the supervising teacher's form. The wording of the comments was in the form, "I . . ." The student teacher's teaching assignment and theory knowledge application, as well as information about the student teacher's early field experi- ence. A place was provided for the student to comment about his/her student teaching experience and also a place for any comments made to the student teacher by his/her students. The four components of the rating form were developed to include the following ideas: Rapport - This section on an evaluation form, such as the Michigan State Student Teaching Evaluation Form, is often labeled "Working With People." On the Michigan State University form a number of categories are listed. They include: All that With becomes g CI'Oi. Scale f0] Vere take 8. 9. 38 Maintains reasonable level of expectations from pupils. Retains adult status while working at pupil's level. Gains confidence and respect of pupils. Works successfully with pupils of various backgrounds. Relates well with staff members in a comfortable manner. Seeks and uses suggestions from staff and administration. Seeks opportunities to meet and talk with parents at PTA, etc. Meets parents at a mature and professional level. Communicates effectively with parents.1 All of these categories are part of rapport. It seems, however, that with personal interaction and influence, the human relations aspect becomes more inclusive than just working with people. Crow and Crow list a number of factors used in the Weighted Rating Scale for Teachers which deals with the area of rapport. The following were taken from that list: Personal influence Ability to motivate students Attention to response of pupils Interest in pupils Ability to be tactful Ability to be sympathetic Sincerity Sense of justice 1 "Student Teaching Evaluation Form," Mid-term Evaluation, Michigan State University, Division of Student Teaching and Professional Development, publication, 1975. 10. 11. Run the a more < being w: the abi‘ El with tw Th for ex tests, iIlStI'uc tiOnal aims 01 and ace 39 9. Attention to health of pupils 10. Ability to cooperate 11. Interest in community2 When the two lists are combined and integrated, the area of rapport has a more definite shape, that shape being the interaction of one human being with another, the ability to understand and help solve problems, and the ability to listen. Classroom Management - Classroom Management is basically concerned with two major areas, implementation of instruction and the classroom environment. The "implementation of instruction" area includes a number of facets for example: The administration and evaluation of pre-tests and post- tests, the diagnosis of student needs and the prescription of appropriate instructional methods to meet those needs. Once the appropriate instruc- tional method has been prescribed to meet the needs of the students and aims of the class, the student must implement the instructional process and accurately and quickly record the progress of the students toward the selected goal. The classroom environment area is subdivided into three interlock- ing categories; discipline, climate and leadership. Upon examination, discipline can be defined negatively in some cases as coercive acts, or doing things to pupils, designed to repress pupil behavior. On the positive side, discipline may be defined as techniques used to control student behavior by developing the ability of the student to exercise self—control and develop good habits. We will 2 Crow, pp_cit. p. 42-3. use the room en definit C1 the cla tunitie be crea teacher eluding designe 40 use the second definition since it is positive, which is what the class- room environment should be, and also is more inclusive than the first definition. Climate includes the teacher's beliefs and attitudes in and toward the class and the students. Is the class an exciting place where oppor- tunities to learn are provided? Are the students being stimulated to be creative, individual thinkers? Is attention given to student and teacher punctuality, the care of routine, and neatness of the room, in- cluding lighting, heating and ventilation? Each of these questions is designed to examine part of the climate in the classroom. The leadership provided by the teacher is another important aspect of classroom environment. The teacher must be a leader to be effective in developing change in students. This leadership is the "process of helping, suggesting, diagnosing, evaluating, questioning, pushing and pulling in an attempt to move students from where they are toward a desired goal."3 Leadership then is the ability to effect the desired changes in the student. When these three are combined with the implementation of instruc- tion we have a cohesive unit called Classroom Management. Knowledge and Preparedness - When examining the area of knowledge, the overall definition of knowledge would be defined as command of sub- ject matter as well as methodology in teaching. Also included would be a firm foundation in educational psychology and philosophy. Force, William, "The Classroom Environment; Discipline, Climate and Leadership," Toward Excellence in Student Teaching, Edited by Hugo David, Dubuque, Iowa, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1973, p.29-36. T: making leamin of theo work on C a rich, matter able p: bahave standi routes ledge and 0: usage IEarn by it to t} V111 infl. 41 The understanding of theory gives a broader base for decision making in the areas of classroom management and rapport than simply learning about teaching techniques and subject matter. The knowledge of theory helps give an understanding of why one technique does not work one time and works another time. Combs, et al, state, "The good teacher is not ignorant. He has a rich, extensive, and available field of perceptions about the subject matter for which he is responsible . . . Teachers should be knowledge- able people." They continue, "Teaching is a human relationship. To behave effectively good teachers must possess the most accurate under- standing about peopple and their behavior available in our time."4 The knowledge of the material and methods as well as alternate routes for presenting the materials are important here, as is a knowb ledge of the skills necessary for teaching, such as questioning skills and other communication techniques, the economy of time and material usage, and the ability to organize the subject matter. This knowledge, even when combined with the knowledge of psychology, learning theory, history of education and philosophy, can do very little by itself. The effective teacher must be able to apply this knowledge to the learning situation. Only when coupled with classroom.management will knowledge be valuable. Professional and Personal Characteristics - The fourth area which influences effectiveness of the student teacher is professional and per- 4 Combs, A.W., Blume, R.A., Newman, A.J., and wass, H.L., The Professional Education of Teachers, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1974, p.22-23. sonal qr and art: Th or late others $313 3 MB 3 g Distric profess PhySic quiren thoSe Combit deTSt sen oer theg E A. / 42 sonal qualities. This category is the physical person and his interest and attitude toward teaching. The effective teacher is physically able and strong, seldom absent or late, and uses language correctly. His attitude towards himself and others is positive and he participates willingly in school activities. He is sincere, persistent, efficient, trustworthy, emotionally stable, has a good sense of humor, and dresses appropriately. Lansing School District in Appendix A, Appraisal of a Professional, lists personal and professional characteristics as follows: ". . . 25. Has awareness of own strengths and weaknesses. 26. Strives for self-improvement. 27. Works harmoniously with school personnel. 28. Contributes to the improvement of curriculum/ education in the profession. 29. Attempts to gain confidence and respect of parents. 30. Makes adequate plans available in case of absence."5 The effective teacher, then, is enthusiastic, has initiative, is physically and mentally healthy, and handles the various teaching re- quirements adequately. These qualities are probably very similar to those required or expected for any position. It is only when the total combination of all four categories are examined does one have some un- derstanding of the effective teacher. The rating forms were based on several existing evaluation forms and modified by the writer. The final forms were developed after extensive consultations with the members of the writer's Doctoral Committee and the Testing Office of Evaluation 5 Appraisal of a Professional, Work Sheet, Lansing School District, Lansing, Michigan, 1976, Appendix A, p. 6. 43 Services at Michigan State University. The forms were then examined by several of the Center Directors at Michigan State University in the Division of Student Teaching and Professional Development. Revisions were made and the rating forms were then submitted to several administra- tors and teachers in the Lansing School District for pilot testing to determine what responses the comments would invoke in them. Final cor- rections, additions, and changes were made and the rating forms were sent to press. The second type of instrument used was a standardized personality test, the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. Each student teacher was asked to complete the test. The test was used to: (I) examine the characteristics of the experience categories of the population to de- termine if the groups consisted of similar or dissimilar individuals across categories, (2) to examine similarities and/or dissimilarities of the individuals within each of the groups, and (3) to compare the characteristics of the secondary student teachers with the results of other studies with student teachers. In addition, the scores on the manifest needs and the performance in student teaching were compared with results of other studies with teachers and others in educational fields. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule was designed to measure a number of relatively independently normal personality variables. The manifest needs associated with each of the 15 Edwards Personal Preference Schedule variables are: 1. Achievement (ach): To do one's best, to be successful, to accomplish task requiring skill and effort, to be a recog- 44 nized authority, to accomplish something of great significance, to do a difficult job well, to solve difficult problems and puzzles, to be able to do things better than others, to write a great novel or play. Deference (def): To get suggestions from others, to find out what others think, to follow instructions and do what is expected, to praise others, to tell others that they have done a good job, to accept the leadership of others, to read about great men, to conform to custom and avoid the unconven- tional, to let others make decisions. Order (ord): To have written work neat and organized, to make plans before starting on a difficult task, to have things organized, to keep things neat and orderly, to make advance plans when taking a trip, to organize details of work, to keep letters and files according to some system, to have meals organized and a definite time for eating, to have things arranged so that they run smoothly without change. Exhibition (exh): To say witty and clever things, to tell amusing jokes and stories, to talk about personal adventures and experiences, to have others notice and comment upon one's appearance, to say things just to see what effect it will have on others, to talk about personal achievements, to be the center of attention, to use words that others do not know the meaning of, to ask questions others cannot answer. Autonomy (aut): To be able to come and go as desired, to say what one thinks about things, to be independent to others in making decisions, to feel free to do what one wants, to do things that are unconventional, to avoid situations where one is expected to conform, to do things without regard to what others may think, to criticize those in positions of authority, to avoid responsibilities and obligations. Affiliation (aff): To be loyal to friends, to participate in friendly groups, to do things for friends, to form new friendships, to make as many friends as possible, to share things with friends, to do things with friends rather than alone, to form strong attachments, to write letters to friends. Intraception (int): To analyze one's motives and feelings, to observe others, to understand how others feel about prob- lems, to put one's self in another's place, to judge people by why they do things rather than by what they do, to ana- lyze the behavior of others, to analyze the motives of others, to predict how others will act. Succorance (suc): To have others provide help when in trouble, 10. ll. 12 13 14 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 45 to seek encouragement from others, to have others be kindly, to have others be sympathetic and understanding about personal problems, to receive a great deal of affection from others, to have others do favors cheerfully, to be helped by others when depressed, to have others feel sorry when one is sick, to have a fuss made over one when hurt. Dominance (dom): To argue for one's point of view, to be a leader in groups to which one belongs, to be regarded by others as a leader, to be elected or appointed chairman of committees, to make group decisions, to settle arguments and disputes be- tween others, to persuade and influence others to do what one wants, to supervise and direct the actions of others, to tell others how to do their jobs. Abasement (aba): To feel guilty when one does something wrong, to accept blame when things do not go right, to feel that per- sonal pain and misery suffered does more good than harm, to feel the need for punishment for wrongdoing, to feel better when giving in and avoiding a fight than when having one's own way, to feel the need for confession of errors, to feel de- pressed by inability to handle situations, to feel timid in the presence of superiors, to feel inferior to others in most respects. Nurturance (nur): To help friends when they are in trouble, to assist others less fortunate, to treat others with kind- ness and sympathy, to forgive others, to do small favors for others, to be generous with others, to sympathize with others who are hurt or sick, to show a great deal of affection toward others, to have others confide in one about personal problems. Change (chg): To do new and different things, to travel, to meet new people, to experience novelty and change in daily routine, to experiment and try new things, to eat in new and different places, to try new and different jobs, to move about the country and live in different places, to participate in new fads and fashions. Endurance (end): To keep at a job until it is finished, to complete any job undertaken, to work hard at a task, to keep at a puzzle or problem until it is solved, to work at a single job before taking on others, to stay up late working in order to get a job done, to put in long hours of work without'dis— traction, to stick at a problem even though it may seem as if no progress is being made, to avoid being interrupted while at work. Heterosexuality (het): To go out with members of the opposite sex, to engage in social activities with the opposite sex, to be in love with someone of the opposite sex, to kiss those of 46 the opposite sex, to be regarded as physically attractive by those of the opposite sex, to participate in discussions about sex, to read books and plays involving sex, to listen or tell jokes involving sex, to become sexually excited. 15. Aggression (agg): To attack contrary points of view, to tell others what one thinks about them, to criticize others pub- licly, to make fun of others, to tell others off when dis- agreeing with them, to get revenge for insults, to become angry, to blame otherg when things go wrong, to read newspaper accounts of violence. The consistency scores of the instrument at the .06 level is approximately seventy-five percent (75%). The split-half reliability coefficients were determined for the 15 personality variables. The test-retest reliability coefficients have also been determined and both are given in Table A—2. Since the test was administered on a population for which the test was designed, the reliability stated in the test manual was used. Research Questions Two research questions were developed and examined in this study. They are: 1. Are there any differences in student teachers who have spent varied amounts of time in early field experience and their level of effectiveness in student teaching? 2. Does the type of early field experience affect the level of effectiveness students have in student teaching? 6 Edwards, Allen L., gp_cit, p.11. 47 These were in turn developed into hypotheses which could be tested. In Chapter I the hypotheses were stated in positive form to facilitate un- derstanding. Here they are restated in null form. _Hypotheses 1. There will be no difference between the student teacher with early field experience and the student teacher with- out early field experience on a variety of measures. a) There will experience be no difference between the early field student teacher and the student teacher without early field experience on scores on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. b) There will experience experience teacher in c) There will experience experience be no difference between the early field student teacher and the non-early field student teacher as rated by his supervising classroom management techniques. be no difference between the early field student teacher and the non—early field student teacher as rated by his super- vising teacher in rapport with students and staff. d) There will experience experience teacher in be no difference between the early field student teacher and the non-early field student teacher as rated by his supervising preparedness for teaching techniques and subject knowledge. e) f) g) h) 1) 48 There will be no difference between the early field experience student teacher as rated by his supervising teacher in personal and professional characteristics. There will be no difference on self-rating of classroom management techniques between the early field experience student teacher and the non-early field experience student teacher. There will be no difference on self-rating of rapport with students and staff between the early field experi- ence student teacher and the non-early field experience student teacher. There will be no difference in self-rating of prepared- ness for teaching techniques and subject knowledge be- tween the early field experience student teacher and the non-early field experience student teacher. There will be no difference in self-rating of personal and professional characteristics between the early field experience student teacher and the non-early field ex- perience student teacher. There will be no difference between the student teacher who has had school setting early field experience and the student teacher with non-school setting early field experience on a variety of measures. a) There will be no difference between the student teacher with school setting early field experience and the stu- dent teacher with non-school setting early field experi- b) C) d) e) f) 49 ence on scores on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. There will be no difference between the student teacher with school setting early field experience and the stu- dent teacher with non-school setting early field experi- ence as rated by his supervising teacher in classroom management techniques. There will be no difference between the student teacher with school setting early field experience and the stu- dent teacher with non-school setting early field experi- ence as rated by his supervising teacher in rapport tech- niques. There will be no difference between the student teacher with school setting early field experience and the student teacher with non-school setting early field experience as rated by his supervising teacher in preparedness for teaching techniques and subject knowledge. There will be no difference between the student teacher with school setting early field experience and the stu- dent teacher with non-school setting early field experi- ence as rated by his supervising teacher in professional and personal characteristics. There will be no difference on self-rating between the student teacher with school setting early field experi- ence and the student teacher with non-school setting early field experience in classroom management techniques. g) h) i) 50 There will be no difference on self-rating of rapport with students and staff between the student teacher with school setting early field experience and the student teacher with non-school setting early field experience. There will be no difference on self-rating of prepared- ness for teaching techniques and subject knowledge be- tween the student teacher with school setting early field experience and the student teacher with non-school setting early field experience. There will be no difference on self-rating of profes- sional and personal characteristics between the student teacher with school setting early field experience and the student teacher with non-school setting early field experience. There will be no difference between the student teacher with more than fifty (50) hours in-school early field experience and the student teacher with less than fifty (50) hours in- school early field experience on a variety of measures. a) b) There will be no difference between the student teacher with more than fifty hours in-school early field experi— ence and the student teacher with less than fifty hours in-school early field experience on scores on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. There will be no difference between the student teacher with more than fifty hours in-school early field experi- ence and the student teacher with less than fifty hours e) d) e) f) g) 51 in-school early field experience as rated by his super- vising teacher in classroom management techniques. There will be no difference between the student teacher with more than fifty hours in-school early field experi- ence and the student teacher with less than fifty hours in—school early field experience as rated by his super- vising teacher in rapport. There will be no difference between the student teacher with more than fifty hours in-school early field experi- ence and the student teacher with less than fifty hours in-school early field experience as rated by his super- vising teacher in preparedness for teaching techniques and subject knowledge. There will be no difference between the student teacher with more than fifty hours in-school early field experi- ence and the student teacher with less than fifty hours in-school early field experience as rated by his super- vising teacher in professional and personal characteris- tics. There will be no difference on self-rating of classroom management techniques between the student teacher with more than fifty hours in-school early field experience and the student teacher with less than fifty hours in- school early field experience. There will be no difference on self-rating of rapport be- 52 tween the student teacher with more than fifty hours in- school early field experience and the student teacher with less than fifty hours in-school early field experi- ence. h) There will be no difference on self-rating of prepared- ness for teaching and subject knowledge between the stu- dent teacher with more than fifty hours in-school early field experience and the student teacher with less than fifty hours in-school early field experience. i) There will be no difference on self-rating of professional and personal characteristics between the student teacher with more than fifty hours in—school early field experi- ence and the student teacher with less than fifty hours in-school early field experience. Collection of Data Each of the measures used in the study was administered to the stu- dent teachers in the study by the Michigan State University Division of Student Teaching and Professional Development Department Center Direc- tors and their assistants. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule was administered during the middle of the term, either individually or in seminar. The student self-rating forms and the supervising teacher rating forms were administered during the last two weeks of the student teaching experience. The Center Directors were handed or mailed the items along with a cover letter which reviewed the general directions discussed at the Center Directors' staff meeting. This was to help insure that the data 53 were gathered in a consistent manner. Analysis of Data The raw information on three measures for each student were treated in the following ways: 1. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule was scored according to the form outlined in the manual. The scores for all 16 scales were totaled for each student giving each student one value for the EPPS dependent variable. The decision to total the results of the Edwards was made after consultation with the personnel in the Office of Research Consultation of Michi- gan State University. The supervising teacher's rating form was scored by combining the scores for each of the six questions in each of the four dependent variables into the total value for that dependent variable. Thus the raw data from the teacher rating form was a value for each of four dependent variables. The dependent variables for teacher ratings were: (a) rapport with students and staff, (b) classroom management techniques, (c) knowledge and preparedness, and (d) personal and professional character- istics. The student teacher self-rating form was scored in the same way as the teacher's rating form thus giving four raw scores for the four dependent variables of student self-ratings. Figure 3.1 shows the designed matrix which was used in this study. The perience The with ea: (2) com with no with in Th Varianc mula fc £0].le SiHUl1 Thel 54 These raw data were then fed into the computer and analyzed by ex- perience type using the Multivariate Analysis of Variance procedure. The data were analyzed in three ways by; (1) comparing students with early field experience and those without early field experience, (2) comparing students with in-school early field experience and those with non-school early field experience, and (3) comparing the two groups with in-school early field experience. The test of Major Hypothesis One was a Multivariate Analysis of Variance procedure in the form of a Helmert Contrast. The general for— mula for the contrast is represented below. “1+“2+”3 =11 3 4 The symbols represent the means of the various experience types as follows: “1 = mean of Type I ”2 = mean of Type II u3 = mean of Type III = mean of Type IV The contrast was conducted for each of the nine dependent variables simultaneously. Thus, the test examined the differences between the early field experience types and the non-experience type. The hypothesis was then rejected or not rejected using the p Value found in the test. The level of significance used for rejection was .15. The test of Major Hypothesis Two was a Multivariate Analysis of Variance procedure in the form of a Helmert Contrast. The formula for the contrast is represented below. The follows: The simultar school Perienc thEp V was .15 IT Varian( the cor taneoL Of 8 t1 thesis teSt . ' 55 u1+u2 =u 2 3 The symbols represent the means of the various experience types as follows: ul = mean of Type I “2 = mean of Type II u3 = mean of Type III The contrast was conducted for each of the nine dependent variables simultaneously. Thus the test examined the differences between the in- school early field experience types and the non-school early field ex- perience type. The hypothesis was then rejected or not rejected using the p Value found in the test. The level of significance for rejection was .15. The test for Major Hypothesis Three was a Multivariate Analysis of Variance procedure in the form of a Helmert Contrast. The formula for the contrast is represented below: 111=IJ2 The symbols represent the means of the experience groups as fol- lows: “l = mean of Type I “2 = mean of Type II The contrast was conducted for each of the nine variables simul- taneously. Thus the test examined the differences between the two types of students having reported in—school early field experience. The hypo- thesis was then rejected or not rejected using the p Value found in the test. The level of significance for rejection was .15. DESIGNED MATRIX SHOWING THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES AND DEPENDENT VARIABLES FIGURE 3.1 56 Dependent Variables Student Self4Rating Teacher Rating sornsriauoeleqo Ianorssa;oxa pus IBUOSJBJ ssaupaledald pus aBpaInoux nuamafieuen moo:sseto aloddeu SDIJSIJBJDBJBQD Ieuorssa;ozd p09 Iauoszaa ssaupaiedaaa pus aBpaIAoux nuamaseuen moorsseIo JJOddBH deH 28 19 53 27 n n = 127 Experience Type Type I Type II Type III Type IV 57 The .15 level of significance was selected since the study is ex- ploratory in nature. Using a level such as .05 might reduce the study to an exercise in statistics rather than giving a survey of what the early field experience situation actually looks like. A If any of the tests of the Major Hypotheses showed significance, 3 post hoc comparison in the form of the Univariate Analysis of Vari- ance for each dependent variable in that major hypothesis was used to test for any significant dependent variables. The level of significance for each dependent variable was determined in the following way: Significance level for rejection of Hypothesis = .15 Number of Dependent Variables 9 = .0166 The level of significance for each dependent variable was deter- mined to be .0166. However, the reasons for dividing the initial sig— nificance level by the number of variables would include (1) this divi- sion will take account for interaction among the variables, and (2) not cause the problems with rules of statistics dealing with total sig- nificance levels in multivariate analysis procedures. The rule for division of the initial significance level does, how- ever, violate the nature of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. 'lhat test was designed to show very little interaction among the 15 mani- fest needs the test examines. This violation entered into later ana- lysis of the Edwards Personal Preference Scheduleand thoseresults were examined using other criteria. Summary Students enrolled in secondary student teaching Winter term, 1977, 58 were tested with the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and rated on two rating forms dealing with the effectiveness of their student teach- ing performance. One was a student teacher self—rating form and the other a supervising teacher rating of student teacher performance. The data which were collected were analyzed by the IBM 6500 Computer. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Chapter IV contains the presentation and analysis of the data gathered to test the hypotheses. The chapter is divided into the following five sections: (1) composition of the study, (2) statisti- cal procedures used, (3) presentation of data, (4) presentation and testing of hypotheses, and (5) discussionznd summary. Composition of the Study One hundred twenty-seven student teachers, enrolled in ED 436, MSU, Secondary Teacher Certification program, were participants in the study. These participants were included in the study when all three parts of the survey materials were returned and could be formed into a set. Two geographical centers and part of a third did not participate. In one of the centers the data was collected but, due to problems in delivery, not received. In the other centers the directors and/or their assistants chose not to participate. Since it was assumed that no dif- ferences existed between centers, it was further assumed that the results received were not skewed due to such non-participation. Total possible sample N = 198. The groups for the study were formed from the responses of the student teachers to the question regarding their experiences with young 59 60 people other than family before they enrolled in any education courses. Early field experiences were used to divided the students into three categories. The first category (Type 1) includes all students with in- school early field experiences which exceed fifty (50) hours of student contact or observation. The second category (Type II) includes students with less than fifty (50) hours in-school early field experience only. The third category (Type III) includes students with early field ex- perience outside of a school setting and includes camp counseling, youth group work, Sunday school teaching, and similar experiences with no time limitations as well as students with both non—school and less than fifty (50) hours in-school experience. A fourth category (Type IV) refers to students who had no early field experiences. The supervising teachers of those students became the supervising teachers involved in the study. The number of student teachers involved in the study corresponding to experience types is presented in Table 4.1. The supervising teachers and student teachers were in a one-to-one ratio. 61 TABLE 4.1 NUMBER OF STUDENT TEACHER PARTICIPANTS BY EXPERIENCE TYPE Experience Type Number of Student Teachers Type I . 28 Type II 19 Type III 53 Type IV 27 TOTAL 127 Statistical Procedure Used The students answers to questions on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule were scored using the method outlined in the test manual. The scores for the scales were summed and this figure was used as the EPPS value, which was one of the dependent variables used in this analysis. The analysis by experience type means it was done using the Multivariate Analysis of Variance procedure. The data gathered from the student teachers' self-rating forms and the supervising teachers' rating forms were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences to obtain the sum scores for each individual on each of the eight dependent variables. The scores for each experience‘ type were then compiled and analyzed by contrasting different combina- tions of experience types using the Multivariate Analysis of Variance procedure. 62 In addition other information was collected and examined. Par- ticular data about the student teaching assignment was requested on the second page of the questionnaire. (See Appendix B). 'Information was gathered about the student teacher's grade and subject placement, as well as reactions to two questions dealing with knowledge and application of educational theory. The sex of the participants was reported on the EPPS answer sheet. This information is detailed in Tables A-3 through Table A-6, (see Appendix A). Presentation of the Data Tables 4.2 and 4.3 summarize each types score for each of the mani- fest needs from the EPPS. All the participants completed the 225 forced answer personality test. The values used in the procedure are the totals found at the bottom of each column. Table 4.4 shows the scores for each group on the student self-rating form. Each participant filled out a self-rating form containing ques- tions in four areas. The results for each of the questions in each vari- able were averaged giving each student four scores. These scores were then averaged by variable for all the students in each group. Table 4.5 summarizes the scores for each group from the supervising teacher rating form. Each supervising teacher was asked to fill out a rating form containing questions in four areas. The individual student teacher's ratings for the question in each variable were averaged giving each student four scores. These scores were then averaged by variable for all the students in each group. Student names were changed to numbers to protect the anonymity of each participant. Each student set, one self-rating form (SRF), one 63 * Different from Publishers Norms at .01 level. ** Different from Publishers Norms at .05 level. *** Different from Publishers Norms at .10 level. TABLE 4.2 PUBLISHER NORMS' MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF TYPE I (> 750 Hours in—school) AND TYPE II (< 50 hours in-school) EXPERIENCE GROUP FOR EACH VARIABLE AND TOTALS FROM THE EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE Publisher Norms Type I Experience Type II Experience n=1509 n=28 n=l9 Standard Standard Standard Variable Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Achievement 14.38 4.36 13.46 5.44 14.63 4.70 Deference 11.80 3.71 10.57** 3.14 11.68 2.50 Order 10.24 4.34 12.25** 4.20 10.53 5.21 Exhibition 14.34 3.59 14.89 3.07 14.74 3.28 Autonomy 13.31 4.53 12.25 4.19 12.47 4.31 Affiliation 16.16 4.36 15.32 3.86 16.84 5.56 Intraception 16.72 5.01 16.39 4.95 14.84 3.55 Succorance 11.63 4.65 11.21 4.31 12.53 4.44 Dominance 15.83 5.02 14.57 3.35 14.58 4.97 Abasement 13.66 5.14 13.96 4.65 12.42 5.85 Nurturance 15.22 4.76 14.68 4.06 16.31 3.71 Change 16.35 4.88 14.07* 5.54 16.11 4.48 Endurance 12.65 5.25 16.68* 4.99 14.26 4.64 Heterosexuality16.01 5.68 14.93 3.92 15.74 5.47 Aggression 11.70 4.73 713.43*** 3.54 12.63 5.34 Consistancy 11.64 1.84 11.11 2.62 10.95 2.06 TOTALS 220.85 4.47 221.08 3.05 64 TABLE 4.3 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR TYPES III (Non-School) AND TYPE IV (Non-Experience) EXPERIENCE GROUPS FOR EACH VARIABLE AND TOTALS FROM THE EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCE SCHEDULE. Type III Experience Type IV Experience n=53 Standard n=27 Standard Variable Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Achievement 14.43 4.27 14.19 3.88 Deference 10.60** 3.29 10.66 2.91 Order 10.21 3.92 10.81 4.50 Exhibition 14.66 3.21 15.00 3.22 Autonomy l4.87** 3.53 13.50 4.79 Affiliation 16.30 3.53 14.93 3.62 Intraception 17.04 4.59 17.07 4.09 Succorance 11.32 4.53 12.74 6.09 Dominance 15.08 4.36 14.20*** 3.76 Abasement 12.72 5.12 14.70 4.07 Nurturance 16.62** 4.46 14.93 5.41 Change 16.51 3.84 17.67 4.90 Endurance 12.66 5.14 12.26 4.12 Heterosexuality 15.57 5.37 17.00 5.76 Aggression. 11.47 3.86 10.59 5.29 Consistancy 11.02 2.27 10.48 2.95 TOTAL 220.26 4.31 219.79 4.72 * Different from Publishers Norms at .01 level. ** Different from Publishers Norm at .05 level. *** Different from Publishers Norm at .10 level. 65 TABLE 4.4 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR EACH EXPERIENCE TYPE ON EACH VARIABLE FROM THE STUDENT SELF—RATING FORM (SRF). EXPERIENCE TYPES Type I Type II Type III Type IV Variable Mean S.D.* Mean S.D.* Mean S.D.* Mean S.D.* Rapport 3.82 1.80 4.53 2.46 4.81 2.67 5.59 2.99 Classroom Management 5.46 2.70 6.37 3.25 6.34 3.36 7.70 2.97 Knowledge & Preparedness 4.57 2.46 5.05 2.86 4.89 3.09 5.93 3.36 Personal & Professional 1.64 1.99 2.84 2.83 3.21 3.25 3.81 3.45 Characteristics * = Standard Deviation TABLE 4.5 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR EACH EXPERIENCE TYPE ON EACH VARIABLE FROM THE TEACHER RATING FORM (TRF). EXPERIENCE TYPES Type I Type II Type III Type IV Variable Mean S.D.* Mean S.D.* Mean S.D.* Mean S.D.* Rapport 3.46 2.67 4.42 1.98 5.32 3.08 5.63 2.76 Classroom Management 5.11 3.50 6.16 2.63 6.72 3.42 7.56 3.34 Knowledge & Preparedness 4.11 2.64 4.74 2.90 6.09 4.35 6.48 3.39 Personal & Professional 2.25 2.62 2.63 2.91 4.21 3.81 3.94 3.55 Characteristics * - Standard Deivation 66 teacher rating form (TRF), and one EPPS and student teaching situation information had the same student number. The data from the teacher rating form in Table 4.5 shows the aver- age Type I experience student teacher was rated more effective than the average Type II experience student teacher for each variable. The aver- age Type EEIexperience student teacher was rated more effective than the average Type IV experience student teacher in all but personal and professional characteristics. Results from the student teacher self—rating form in Table 4.4 in— dicate similar results with the following exceptions. Type III experi- ence student teachers were rated more effective than Type II experience student teachers in Classroom Management and Knowledge and Preparedness. The Type III experience students were rated more effective than the Type IV experience student teachers in Personal and Professional Characteris- tics. These differences may have been due to the fact that student teachers rated themselves. 0n the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule the student teachers varied significantly from the publisher norms in the following ways. Type I student teachers were significantly higher in Order and Endurance and lower in Change at the 1 percent level. Type I student teachers were also significantly higher in Aggression and lower in Deference at the 10 percent level. Type III student teachers were higher in Autonomy and Nurturance and lower in Deference at the 5 percent level. Type IV -student teachers were significantly lower in Dominance at the 10 percent level. 67 contrasts were designed to determine if any of these differences were significant. Table A97 and A-8 show the contrasts which were conducted and the results.of the contrasts. The results will be examined later in this chapter and in Chapter V. It was also expected that some differences existed among the in— dividual and various combinations of types of experience. To find out if significant differences existed, several additional Helmert contrasts were developed. The order of the groups were inverted and analyzed using the analysis format. Also various other combinations were exam- ined. This was done by rearranging the various types of experience into different groupings. Table A~9 shows the results of the one-to- one contrast of the means of Types 1* vs. III, I vs. IV, II vs. III, II vs. IV, and III vs. IV for the nine rating dependent variables. Table A910 shows the results of combining types to contrast with a sin- gle type of experience. The combinations are as follows: 1. I vs. II & III 2. I vs. III & IV 3. I vs. II, III, & IV 4. II vs. III & IV 5. I & II vs. III & IV 6. IV vs. I & II 7. IV vs. II & III The results will be examined later in this chapter and in Chapter V. Type I = > 50 hours in-school. Type II = < 50 hours in-school. Type III = non-school Type IV - No experience 68 The composition by sex of the student teachers in each experience type was also analyzed. Table A-3 shows the number of males and fe— males in each experience type. Experience types I and IV were similar in composition by sex. Type II and III were reversed, but both were near 50 percent males to females. Information dealing with grade level and subject taught was also gathered on the questionnaire. Table A-4 shows the number and percent of each type that taught some combination of the following grades: 9 to 12, 7 to 9, and 7 to 12. Types I and III were similar in percent of each other and to the total participants. -Type 11 students were more likely by percent to teach in high school and Type IV were more likely by percent to teach in junior high or middle school than the total participants. The results of the data gathered regarding whether the students received the grade or subject placements desired and their satisfaction with those grade or subject placements are shown in Table A—5. The data indicates about 20 percent of the students did not receive the grade placement they desired. More than twice as many students by per- cent who did not receive the grade placement they desired were Type IV experience student teachers. Of the students who did not receive the subject placement they desired, more than twice as many by percent were Type IV experience student teachers than any other group. Two questions on the questionnaire dealt with educational theories. They were: 1. Were you able to relate personal experiences to educational theories? dents ories twice catio Prese of t} 69 2. Did the knowledge of any educational theories help you in student teaching? The data in Table A-6 indicates nearly twice as many Type II stu- dents were not able to relate personal experiences to educational the- ories as the total student participants. The data also shows about twice as many Type IV student teachers indicate the knowledge of edu- cational theories did not help in student teaching. Presentation and Testing of Hypotheses The Major Null Hypotheses analyzed were: 1. There will be no difference between the student teacher with early field experience and the student teacher without early field experience on a variety of measures. 2. There will be no differences on a variety of measures, be- tween the student teacher who had in-school early field ex- perience and the student teacher with non—school early field experience. 3. There will be no difference on a variety of measures between the student teacher with more than fifty (50) hours in-school early field experience and the student teacher with less than fifty (50) hours in-school early field experience. The data in Table 4.6 shows the results of the Multivariate F-Test of the three null hypotheses. 70 TABLE 4.6 MULTIVARIATE F-TEST OF EQUALITY OF THE MEANS OF THE GROUPS IN THE THREE HYPOTHESES Hypotheses F-Ratio df df P Value Rejected 1 2 Multivariate Test Hypothesis One .9668 9 115 .4713 No Hypothesis Two 1.6927 9 115 .0986 Yes Hypothesis Three .4163 9 115 .9242 No p < .15 for statistical significance. The results show that Major Hypothesis One which states there is no difference between student teachers with and without early field ex- perience cannot be rejected. The Multivariate F-Test dealing with dif- ference of means for the particular contrast is not significant at the .15 level since p <.4713, Major Hypothesis One is not rejected. The results show that Major Hypothesis Two which states there is no difference between in-school and non-school early field experience student teachers can be rejected. The Multivariate F-Test dealing with difference of means for the particular contrast is significant at the .15 level. Since p <.0986, Major Hypothesis Two is rejected. The results of Major Hypothesis Three which states there is no difference between the two experience types on amount of in-school ex- perience cannot be rejected. The Multivariate F-Test dealing with difference of means for the particular contrast is not significant at the .15 level. Since p <.9242, Major Hypothesis Three is not rejected. Since the results of the Multivariate F-Test for Major Null Hypo- 71 thesis Two were significant at the .15 level, the Univariate Analysis of Varianc e was conducted on the nine minor hypotheses to determine if any of the dependent variables showed a significant difference. The following are the minor null hypotheses and their test. Minor Null Hypothesis 2.a 2.a There will be no difference between the student teacher with school setting early field experience and the student teach- er with non-school setting early field experience on scores on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS). TABLE 4.7 UNIVARIATE F-TEST SCORE FOR DEPENDENT VARIABLE EPPS. Dependent Univariate dfl df2 P Value Rejected Variable F-Test EPPS 1.9002 1 123 .1706 No p <.0166 for significance Minor Null Hypothesis 2.b 2.b There will be no difference between the student teacher with early field experience and the student teacher with non-school setting early field experience as rated by his supervising teacher in classroom management techniques. 72 TABLE 4.8 UNIVARIATE F-TEST SCORE FOR THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE, TEACHER RATING CLASSROOM TECHNIQUE Dependent Univariate df df2 P Value Rejected Variable F-Test Teacher Rating Classroom Management 3.1765 1 123 .0772 No p <.0166 for significance Data presented in Table 4.8 shows that the above null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The Univariate F-Test dealing with differences of means for particular grouping is significant at the .0166 level. p <.0772, the hypothesis is not rejected. Minor Null Hypothesis 2.c 2.c There will be no difference between the student teacher with school setting early field experience and the student teacher with non-school setting early field experience as rated by his supervising teacher in rapport with students and staff. TABLE 4.9 UNIVARIATE F-TEST FOR THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE, TEACHER RATING RAPPORT Dependent Univariate df df2 P Value Rejected Variable .__ F-Test Teacher Rating Rapport 6.9267 9 115 .0096 Yes p <.0166 for significance Data rejected. 73 presented in Table 4.9 shows the above null hypothesis can be The Univariate F-Test dealing with the difference of means for the particular grouping is significant at the .0166 level. Since p <.0096, the hypothesis is rejected. Minor Null Hypothesis 2.d 2.d There will be no difference between the student teacher with school setting early field experience and the student teacher with non-school setting early field experience as rated by his supervising teacher in preparedness for teaching techniques and subject knowledge. TABLE 4.10 UNIVARIATE F-TEST SCORE FOR THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE, TEACH- ER RATING KNOWLEDGE AND PREPAREDNESS Dependent Univariate dfl df2 P Value Rejected Variable F-Test Teacher Rating Knowledge & Preparedness 5.6651 1 123 .0189 No p <.0166 for significance 74 Data presented in Table 4.10 shows that the above null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The Univariate F—Test dealing with difference of means for particular grouping is not significant at the .0166 level. Since p <.0189, the hypothesis is not rejected. Minor Null Hypothesis 2.e 2.e There will be no difference between the student teacher with school setting early field experience and the student teacher with non-school setting early field expereince as rated by his supervising teacher in professional and personal charac- teristics. TABLE 4.11 UNIVARIATE F-TEST SCORES FOR THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE TEACHER RATING PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Dependent Univariate dfl df2 P Value Rejected Variable F-Test Self-Rating Classroom Management .6621 1 123 .4174 No p <.0166 for significance. Data presented in Table 4.11 shows that the above null hypothesis can be rejected. The Univariate F-Test dealing with the difference of means for the particular grouping is significant at the .0166 level. Since p <.0092, the hypothesis is rejected. Minor Null Hypothesis 2.f 2.f There will be no difference on self-rating between the stu- dent teacher with school setting early field experience and 75 and the student teacher with non-school setting early field experience in classroom management techniques. TABLE 4.12 UNIVARIATE F-TEST FOR THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE, SELF—RATING CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT Dependent Univariate df1 df2 P Value Rejected Variable F-Test Self-Rating Classroom Management .6621 1 123 .4174 No p <.0166 for significance Data presented in Table 4.12 shows that the above null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The Univariate F—Test dealing with difference of means for particular groupings is not significant at the .0166 level. Since p <.4174, the hypothesis is rejected. Minor Null Hypothesis 2.g 2.g There will be no difference on self-rating of rapport with students and staff between the student teacher with school setting early field experience and the student teacher with non-school setting early field experience. 76 TABLE 4.13 UNIVARIATE F-TEST FOR THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE, SELF-RATING RAPPORT Dependent Univariate df1 df2 P Value Rejected Variable F—Test Self-Rating Rapport 1.9045 1 123 .1701 No p <.0166 for significance. Data cannot he means for Since p <. presented in Table 4.13 shows that the above null hypothesis rejected. The Univariate F-Test dealing with difference of particular groupings is not significant at the .0166 level. 1701, the hypothesis is not rejected. Minor Null Hypothesis 2.h 2.b TABLE 4.14 There will be no difference on self-rating of preparedness for teaching techniques and subject knowledge between the student teacher with school setting early field experience and the student teacher with non-school setting early field experience. UNIVARIATE F-TEST FOR THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE, SELF-RATING KNOWLEDGE AND PREPAREDNESS Dependent Variable Univariate df df P Value Rejected F-Test Self-Rating Knowledge & Preparedness .0407 l 123 .8405 No p <.0166 for significance 77 Data presented in Table 4.14 shows that the above null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The Univariate F-Test dealing with difference of means for particular groupings is not significant at the .0166 level. Since p <.8405, the hypothesis is not rejected. Minor Null Hypothesis 2.1 2.1 There will be no difference on self-rating of professional and personal characteristics between the student teacher with school setting early field experience and the student teacher with non-school setting early field experience. TABLE 4.15 UNIVARIATE F-TEST FOR THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE, SELF-RATING PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Dependent Univariate df1 df2 P Value Rejected Variable F-Test Self-Rating Personal & Professional 3 Characteristics 3.2197 1 123 .0753 No p <.0166 for significance. Data presented in Table 4.15 shows that the above null hypothesis cannot be rejected. The Univariate F-Test dealing with difference of means for particular groupings is not significant at the .15 level. Since p <.0753, the hypothesis is rejected. The results of the Univariate F-Test on the nine minor null hypo- theses show a significant difference between the student teacher who has had school setting early field experience and the student teacher 78 with non-school early field experience on two dependent variables, (1) Rapport with Students and Staff, and (2) Personal and Professional Characteristics. In addition to the results of the hypotheses presented above, the results of the various contrasts and specific information were as follows. Table Ar7 and Ae8 show the results of looking at both the first eight scales of EPPS as one test and the second eight scales of EPPS as the second test. The results indicate the following. Significant differences at the .0166 level exist between the following experience types or combinations of types. 1. Type I* vs. Type III on Autonomy and Endurance. 2. Type I vs. Type IV on Aggression, Endurance, and Change. 3. Type I vs. Type II and III on Endurance. 4. Type I vs. Type III and IV on Endurance and Change. 5. Type I vs. Type II, III, and IV on Change and Endurance. 6. Type 111 vs. Type I and II on Autonomy and Endurance. 7. Type IV vs. Type I and II on Aggression, Endurance, and Change. Because of the nature of the EPPS, the results of the comparison of scores for the various combinations of types used in the hypotheses were also examined using the .15 level for significant differences. The results are shown in Table A-11. These results combined with the results of the additional contrasts for the various types gives a much clearer picture of the characteristics of the student teachers in the Type I = > 50 hours. Type II = < 50 hours. Type III = non-school Type IV = No experience 79 various experience types. The results indicate Type I to be the most different, specifically in Endurance and Change. Type IV differed in two needs, Aggression and Abasement. Type III students were most likely to be Autonomous. The special contrast dealing with the results of the rating forms gives the following analysis. Tables A-9 and A-10 show that if the .15 level of significance were used, significant differences exist be- tween the following experience types or combinations of types. 1. Type I vs. Type III 2. Type I vs. Type IV 3. Type I vs. Type II, III, and IV 4. Type I vs. Type III and IV These data, Tables A—9 and A-lO, along with the test of the hypo- theses of the study, give the following as a possible analysis of the types. Type I experience student teachers, those with more than fif- ty (50) hours in—school experience differ from Types III and IV more than any other type differ from any other. Types I and II were most alike, while Types III and IV were also very similar. In addition, Type II was similar to Type IV on the total EPPS value. Since this study is exploratory in nature, the results of the Univariate F-test for all three hypotheses were also examined at dif- ferent significance levels. Tables A-12, A-13, and A-14 show the re- sults of the Univariate F-test for Major Hypotheses One, Two, and Three, respectively. Table 4.16 shows which hypotheses are rejected when ex- amined using the .15 level of significance. 80 TABLE 4.16 RESULTS OF TESTING THE DEPENDENT VARIABLES FOR EACH OF THE MINOR HYPOTHESES AT THE .15 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE Rejection Dependent Variable Minor Minor Minor Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis One* Two** Three*** EPPS No No No Teacher Ratings: Classroom Management Yes Yes No Rapport Yes Yes No Knowledge and Preparedness Yes Yes No Personal and Professional Characteristics No Yes No Student Self-Ratings: Classroom Management Yes No No Rapport Yes No No Knowledge and Preparedness Yes No No Personal and Professional Characteristics Yes Yes Yes ** Types I and II vs. *** Types I vs. Type II Type III * Types I and II and III vs. Type IV 81 The results of the tests show significant differences between the students with early field experience and those without early field ex- perience on all but two of the dependent variables, those two being the EPPS and Teacher Rating Personal and Professional Characteristics. The results also show significant differences between the students with in-school and the students with non-school early field experience on all four of the teacher ratings dependent variables. No significant differences were found between students with the different amounts of in-school early field experience. The results of the various tests indicate a greater number of differences between students with and without early field experience but larger differences, although fewer in number, between the students with in-school and non-school early field experiences. The students with no early field experience viewed their perfor- ance very similarly to the way their supervising teachers viewed the student's performance. This was also true in the ratings of the two in-school early field experience types. However, the students with non-school early field experience and those with in-school early field experience did not view their performance the same way as the supervising teachers did. The ratings indicate the student teachers perceived themselves as being more similar in performance than did the supervising teacher. Summary and Discussion The first hypothesis showed that students who reported having an early field experience before education classes were not significantly 82 different on the measures used in this study than those who reported no such experience. The second hypothesis showed that significant differences existed between the student teachers who reported in-school early field ex- periences and the student teachers who reported non-school early field experiences on two of the dependent variables. Specifically, it was found that a significant difference existed on (1) Rapport with Students and Staff, and (2) Personal and Profes- sional Characteristics. Further, the third hypothesis showed significant differences on the measures used in this study between the student teachers who re- ported more than fifty (50) hours in-school early field experiences and those who reported less than fifty (50) hours in-school early field experience. In addition to these results, the following observations were made from the results of the additional contrast and information. The re- sults indicate Type I to have the greatest amount of significant dif- ference on any EPPS scale, specifically, high in Endurance. Type III were most likely to be Autonomous. They were also highest in Aggres- sion. Type IV differed in two needs, lowest in Aggression and highest in Change. Type I student teachers were also significantly different from Types III and IV, as well as from the combinations types II, III, IV and III and IV. Type IV student teachers were most often not in their initial grade or subject placement request. They also were least able to incorporate 83 theory knowledge into personal experiences and found theory application least helpful. The ratios of males to females were not considerably different among the various rated groups. Actual grades taught indicated more Type II student teachers taught in high school and more Type IV were assigned to junior high or middle schools. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Chapter V is divided into four areas: (1) a summary of the study, (2) conclusions based on the study, (3) implications of the study, and (4) recommendations for further research. Summary The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between early field experience and student teaching performance at the secon- dary level. It was expected that the various types and amounts of ex— perience before education classes that students had with young people would make a difference in student teaching performance. The following questions became the basis for the hypotheses of the study: I 1. Did the amount of early field experience with young people affect student teaching performance in classroom management, rapport with students and staff, preparedness to teach, and personal and professional characteristics? 2. Were there certain types of experiences which affected stu— dent teacher performance? To test the questions, student teachers enrolled in secondary student 7 teaching at Michigan State University during Winter term, 1977, were 84 85 examined. The students answered questions about their early field ex- perience with young people and were divided into four experience level groups according to their experiences. Two groups of students reported various amounts of in-school experiences, while a third group reported non-school experiences. The fourth group indicated no experience with young people prior to their first education class. The participating students each completed the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and a self-rating form regarding their perceived effectiveness during student teaching and additional information about their student teaching situa- tion. The supervising teacher of each student also filled out a rating form regarding the student teacher's performance. The data collected was analyzed by using the Multivariate Analysis of Variance. The dependent variables were scores on the rating forms and the EPPS. The level of significance was .15 for the three major hypotheses. The preparation of teachers who are the most effective possible is the goal of education departments in colleges and universities today. Because an individual's experiences influence the way he deve10ps, much work is being done in the development of experiences for the pre-service teacher. It is hoped that the final product of these efforts are better prepared students graduating from our secondary schools. The literature reviewed several articles and studies dealing with teaching, field experience, and the EPPS. Test were made of the null hypotheses of the study and were accepted or rejected on the basis of the data collected. 86 Major Hypotheses l. The student teacher with earlyfield experience will rate higher on a number of measures than the student teacher without early field experience. The Multi- variate Analysis of Variance in the form of Helmert contrasts did not support Major Hypothesis One. 2. The student teacher who reported school setting early field experience will rate higher on a number of meas- ures than the student teacher who reported non-school setting early field experience. The Multivariate Analysis of Variance in the form of Helmert contrasts supported Major Hypothesis Two. Two of the dependent variables in Hypothesis Two, particularly Rapport with Students and Staff, and Personal and Professional Char— acteristics, were also supported when analyzed using post hoc comparisons in the form of the Univariate F-Test. 3. The student teacher indicating more than fifty (50) hours ineschool early field experince will rate higher on a number of measures than the student teacher indicating less than fifty (50) hours in—school early field experience. The Multivariate Analysis of Variance in the form of Helmert contrasts did not support Major Hypothesis Three. Conclusions and Discussion Does early field experience affect student teaching performance? In this study, the hypothesis that student teachers with early field experience 87 were different from those without early field experience was not sup- ported, neither was the hypothesis concerning the two groups that had in-school early experience. However, students with in-school early field experience were different from those with non-school early field experience. The results of the hypotheses testing indicated this major hy- pothesis was the only one in which the null hypothesis could be rejected at the .15 level of significance. This indicates that student teachers with in-school early field experience were rated higher by their supervising teacher in some areas, self-rated higher in some areas, or scored differently on the EPPS than student teachers with non-school early field experience. However, when the results of the individual hypothesis testings were examined more closely, several additional possibilities seemed to be present. The results indicated that the particular groupings of experience types did not tell the entire story. To vary the design and test additional hypotheses meant exceeding the degrees of freedom allowed. In this instance, however, the study is exploratory in nature and therefore the additional testings appeared to be warranted. To find out more about the differences among experience types, several additional Helmert contrasts were developed. The order of the experience types was inverted and analyzed using the same format as in the study. Also grouping the types of experience in various rearrangements was done. Table A29 shows the results of the one-to-one * contrast of means of Types I vs. III, I vs. IV, II * Type I -> 50 hours Type II -< 50 hours Type III - Non-school Type IV - No Experience 88 vs. III, II vs. IV, and III vs. IV for the rating variables. Table A—10 shows the results of combining experience types to contrast with one experience type. The combinations are as follows: 1. I vs. III and III 2. I vs. III and IV 3. I vs. II, III, and IV 4. II vs. III and IV 5. I and II vs. III and IV 6. IV vs. I and II 7. IV vs. II and III. The following analysis was made at the .15 level of significance. Statistically significant differences existed between the fol— lowing experience types or combinations of types. 1. Type I vs. Type III 2. Type I vs. Type IV 3. Type I vs. Type II, III, and IV 4. Type I vs. Type III and IV These data along with the test of the hypotheses of the study give the following as a possible analysis of the types. Type I experience student teachers, those with more than fifty (50) hours in-school ex- perience differ from Types III and IV more than any one type differs from any other. Type I differed significantly from Type III on teacher rating in Rapport and Personal and Professional Characteristics. Type I differed significantly from Type IV on teacher rating in Rapport and Classroom Management, as well as student self-rating on Rapport, Class- room Management, and Personal and Professional Characteristics. 89 Table A97 and A-8 show the results of looking at both the first eight scales of EPPS as one test and the second eight scales of EPPS as the second test. Significant differences at the .0166 level exist between the following experience types or combinations of types. 1. Type I vs. Type III on Autonomy and Endurance. 2. Type I vs. Type IV on Aggression, Endurance, and Change. 3. Type I and II vs. Type III on Endurance. 4. Type I vs. Type III and IV on Endurance and Change. 5. Type I vs. Type II, III, and IV on Change and Endurance. 6. Type III vs. Type I and II on Aggression, Endurance, and Change. 7. Type IV vs. Type I and II on Aggression, Endurance, and. Change. As with the rating forms, the results indicate Type I to be the most different, specifically in Endurance. Type IV differed in two needs, Aggression and Change. Type III students were most likely to be Autonomous Type I student teachers scored highest on Aggression and Endurance than any other experience type student teachers. They also scored lowest in Change of any experience type. These characteristics help to explain the results that Type I students were different from the other types on the various contrasts conducted. we may project that the Type I student teachers, because of their in-school experience, knew what to expect, were more aggressive in fulfilling what was expected, and more enduring in their efforts, all of which are traits the supervising teacher probably desired. In addition, the characteristic of less 90 change is likely to have caused the least alarm or threat to the supervising teacher. The differences on teacher ratings would have lappeared as a result of these reasons. In addition, the student teachers would have perceived themselves as more effective in meeting the requirements of the student teaching situation thereby causing the differences in the results of the ratings among experience types. The male-female ratios were also analyzed for each experience type. Table A93 shows the number of males and females in each experi- ence type. These results indicate that sex composition of the ex- perience types was not likely to be responsible for the differences in the ratings. Information dealing with grade level and subject taught is pre- sented in Table Ar4, which shows the number and percent of each type that taught some combination of the following grades: 9 to 12, 7 to 9, and 7 to 12. These results could possibly be explained this way. The Type IV student teacher might not have been as aggressive when inter- viewing with the placement personand therefore was assigned to the junior high or middle school while the Type II student was very aggresse ive and insisted upon the high school. This could have been so for the Type II student teacher because of not wanting to face another somewhat new situation while the Type IV student did not know much about either level and was therefore persuaded more easily. It is also possible that something the student teacher indicated, or in his record, suggested the student teacher of particular type be placed in a given grade level. Thus, the types of experience which the 91 students reported may have caused the particular grade placement. This might be tested in further research by having the interviewers fill out a check list or interview form The results of the data gathered regarding whether the students received the grade or subject placement desired and the student's satis- faction with those grade or subject placements are shown in Table A—5. It appears from this data that the grade and subject placement desired could affect the performance of the student. The idea that a particular placement was not received could cause the stu- dent teacher to react with less than full commitment to the requirements of the particular assignment. The largest percent of students who did not receive the grade or subject placements desired also were Type IV experience student teachers with the lowest supervising teacher ratings and student self-ratings. However, since most of the student teachers reported that they enjoyed their grade assignments, the particular grade assignment might not have caused any difference among groups but rather the individual student teacher's previous early field experi— ence or some other factor caused the difference. Also, the grade level at which the student teacher taught could demand different amounts of one or more of the items measured. Thus, the standards used to rate the student teachers could have been dif- ferent. Another possibilityis that students with no experience did not realize what the educational field looked like having not directly been a part of it at an early stage, thereby having too high an expecta- tion for a particular grade placement. 92 Two questions on the questionnaire dealt with usefulness of educational theories. They were: 1. Were you able to relate personal experiences to educational theories? 2. Did the knowledge of any educational theories help you in student teaching? The data in Table A-6 indicates a much larger percent of Type II students were not able to relate personal experiences to educational theories as the Type I and Type III students. One possible cause could be the amount of early field experience of those with early field ex- perience was least in this group. Since they could have been trying to relate the theories to early field experiences they had had they were least able to do so. The data also shows about twice as many Type IV student teachers by percent indicated that a knowledge of educational theories did not help in student teaching. This might be true at face value i.e. the knowledge simply did not help. 'A second exploration drawn from the data is that the student teacher possessed the knowledge of theory but the understanding of its application to situations in student teaching was not well enough developed to provide help. Another alternative could be that the student did not have knowledge of as many educational theories thereby not having them available for help. The secondary student teachers in this study were compared on the results of the EPPS with the elementary student teachers in Errington's studyl. Table A-1 shows the Errington study results and the results A; 1' Errington, op. cit. 93 of this study, compared to the publishers norms on each scale of the EPPS. The results indicatethe secondary student teacher is not the same with regard to personality characteristics as the elementary student teacher. They might also indicate the type of teaching situation at each level calls for a different type of person. That is to say, the teachers experience in a grade level might cause that teacher to desire to stay at that level, desire to change levels, or desire to discontinue teaching. The requirements of a grade level might then be the control- ling factor in determining a teacher personality. If we look at these last arguments and then add another factor, the ratings of the various types of student teachers, the following deduction becomes possible. Since the ratings for the types differed, the supervising teacher might have been the key figure in this particular situation. If that teacher fits into the particular pattern called for by the specific situation, then, when the supervising teacher rated the student teacher, he used himself as an example and rated the student teacher accordingly. Also, the supervising teacher, in dicussing the student teacher's performance with him, could have conveyed an idea about the student teacher's effectiveness. This then could show up in the student teacher's self-rating and not truly have been what the student teacher thought or perceived. How does all of this information relate to this study? There were differences, some of which were statistically significant, in some of the four experience types in personality characteristics and on the 94 rating forms. They did differe in their initial expectations regarding placements and in their perceived value of educational theories. Type I differed most greatly from Type IV on rating form variables and in amount of experience. The students in the Type I, however, did not differ greatly in ratio of males to females compared to Type IV stu- dents. Type I was significantly different from each Type II and Type III, as well as being different from various combinations of the three types. Type II and Type III also differed, although not significantly from Type IV and from.each other as shown in Table A-9, Type I and Type II appeared to be the most similar. The combinations which did not contrast against Type I, however, were not significant. From this, one might predict that a large amount of in-school experience by itself or including early non-school field experience seems to have the greatest impact on the performance of student teachers. However, the study shows that any amount of early in-school field experience has a significant influence on student teaching performance. Explanations regarding the hypothesis which indicates in-school experience makes a significant difference would include: 1. Students with early in-school field experience have a realistic view of education to which they can apply educational classwork and theory. Thus, the student does not have many individual pieces of information but rather a more complete unity with each piece fit- ting into this model. 95 2. Students with early in-school field experience may have been more committed to teaching and thus attempted to learn as much as possible about teaching. 3. Students with early in-school field experience may sime ply be a different type of peopel. They may be best equipped as individuals to fit into the educational system and thus benefit most from the interactions and mechanics which occur in education. 4. It is possible that non-early field experience teachers became more like the early field experience student teachers due to later field experience and classwork thus causing the difference to be less than significant. Since in the experience/non-experience contrast the experience group contained a type of student teacher experience, Type III, which was significantly different from the other two types, a special con- trast was conducted. The results of that contrast are contained in Table A-10 and indicate that Types I and II are significantly dif- ferent from Types III and IV on the overall Multinonate Test. Another explanation which might be given non-school early field experience is that the type of activity which the non-school early field experience students were involved in was considerably different from an in-school experience. The students then would not be able to relate the knowledge or activities to their student teaching experience. When the entire sphere of early field experience and student teach- ing used in this study is examined, the results agreed with the liter- 96 ature indicating that the various types of experience produce differ- ing results in performance in student teaching. The in-school early field experiences produce a significant increase in effectiveness in student teaching performance by any early field experience produces a difference in the performance of the student teacher. It may be that the relationship of personality characteristics to student teaching performance is considerably more involved than many people believe. The results of this study indicate that some of the personality needs of the various experience types differed signi- ficantly from each other and from the mean of the college population or publisher norms. In addition the two dependent variables which were significant at the .0166 level when testing Major Hypothesis Two were Rapport and Personal and Professional Characteristics, both of which deal with the personality make-up of the individual, his inter- personal relationships, his affective self as well as his cognitive self. The helping characteristics involved in the caring aspect of teaching might be the particular characteristics which should be given the most analysis and emphasis during pre-service education as well as through in-service education for teachers presently in the field. Implications of the Sttpdy 1. There is a need to examine existing formats or develop a new rating format which more distinctly differentiates between high and low effectiveness or the willing- ness of persons to make and then record these differences. 97 A closer look should be given to using student self— evaluation results in the evaluation of and recommenda— tion from student teaching experiences. This study sup- ported the idea that supervising teachers and student teachers view the student teacher's performance effec- tiveness rather similarly. Perhaps secondary students should have in-school experience before beginning their educational classwork. This could be done in a course similar to ED 101A or on an individual basis with the students taking responsibility for schedul- ing the experience. Personality needs of the individual students might be ex— amined and counseling given regarding those needs as they relate to the teaching process and level of teaching. The scores of each student on the EPPS might indicate a relationship of personality characteristics to teaching level. Counseling could then be given to help in the placement of the student teacher. The scores of each student on the EPPS might indicate a' relationship of personality characteristics to experience type.' The experience type might then be used to help placement of the student teacher to achieve the highest level of compatibility with the supervising teacher. Students who have had in-school early field experience and did not enjoy it or realized they would not enjoy this type of work might deselect themselves. This ex- perience could therefore be used as a counseling aid for prospective teachers. 98 Recommendations for Further Research 1. Research should be conducted to follow up on students in this study to determine their degree of effective- ness in teaching and/or gaining employment in the edu- cational field. A need exists to examine what characteristics of super- vising teachers make them most helpful in providing learning and assistance to various types of student teachers. Research needs to be conducted to examine whether stu- dent teachers and supervising teachers should be matched for personality characteristics. Studies should be conducted to examine the types of field experiences during pre-student teaching education class and their relationship to student teaching.per- formance. A need exists to examine the desire to teach in secon- dary schools after an early field experience. Research is needed regarding what teachers think is in- volved in achieving effectiveness in student teaching. Research should be conducted to examine the learning of educational theories and early field experiences in education. Studies should be conducted to examine what type of early field experience has any effect on the grade level placement in student teaching. 10. 11. 12. 99 Research should be done which examines the relation- ship of effectiveness in teaching and personality in elementary and secondary education. Research needs to be conducted to examine whether the teaching situation causes teachers' personality char- acteristics to change to meet certain expectations. There is a need to study how the size of one's family affects teaching performance and personality character- istics. Research is needed to examine how peer relationships during earlier years affects teaching performance and personality characteristics. APPENDICES APPENDIX A TABLES . 100 TABLE Ar 1 ERRINGTON'S STUDENT TEACHER HIGH AND LOW EVALUATION OF STUDENTS MEANS ON THE EPPS, THIS STUDY'S TYPES I AND IV EXPERIENCE STUDENT TEACHER'S MEANS, AND THE PUBLISHERS SAMPLE MEANS EPPS Scale Publishers Errington Experience Type Norms High Low Type I Type IV Achievement 14.38 11.48 13.63 13.46 14.19 Deference 11.80 11.85 11.75 10.57 10.67 Order 10.24 10.60 8.47 12.25 10.84 Exhibition 14.34 15.12 14.85 14.89 15.00 Autonomy 13.31 10.73 12.89 12.25 13.56 Affiliation 16.19 18.00 16.52 15.32 14.93 Intraception 16.72 18.75 18.60 16.39 17.07 Succorance 11.63 11.71 12.00 11.21 12.74 Dominance 15.83 12.84 13.60 14.57 14.26 Abasement 13.66 14.45 14.45 13.96 14.70 Nurturance 15.22 17.65 17.18 14.68 14.93 Change 16.35 19.12 18.91 14.07 17.67 Endurance 12.65 '12.00 12.55 16.68 12.26 Heterosexu- ality 16.01 15.27 13.21 14.93 17.00 Aggression 11.70 10.34 14.85 13.43 10.59 101 TABLE Ar2 COEFFICIENTS OF INTERNAL CONSISTENCY AND STABILITY FOR THE EPPS VARIABLES7 Variable Internal Consistencya Stabilityb r11 rII Mean SD 1. Achievement .74 .74 14.46 4.09 2. Deference .60 .78 12.02 3.68 3. Order .74 .87 11.31 4.45 4. Exhibition .61 .74 14.43 3.67 5. Autonomy .76 .83 13.62 4.48 6. Affiliation .70 .77 15.40 4.09 7. Intraception .79 .86 17.00 5.60 8. Succorance .76 .78 12.09 4.59 9. Dominance .81 .87 15.72 5.28 10. Abasement .84 .88 14.10 4.96 11. Nurturance .78 .79 14.04 4.78 12. Change .79 .83 16.17 4.88 13. Endurance .81 .86 12.52 5.11' 14. Heterosexuality .87 .85 15.08 5.66 15. Aggression .84 .78 11.55 4.57 Consistency Score .78 11.59 1.78 N 1509 89 aSplit-half, based on 14 items against 14 items, corrected. Means and standard deviations for each variable appear in Table 4-2. bTest and retest with one week interval. are for first testing. Means and standard deviations Ibid, p.19. 102 TABLE A93 NUMBER.AND PERCENT OF MALES AND FEMALES IN EACH EXPERIENCE TYPE AND TOTAL Experience Type Males Percent Females Percent Type I 9 32.1 19 67.9 n=28 Type II 10 52.6 9 47.4 n=19 Type III 25 47.2 28 52.8 n=53 Type IV 9 33.3 18 66.7 n=27 TOTALS 53 41.7 74 58.3 n-127 103 TABLE A-4 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF STUDENTS TEACHING SOME COMBINATION OF GRADES 9 TO 12, 7 TO 9, AND 7 TO 12 IN EACH EXPERIENCE TYPE AND TOTAL Experience Combination of Grades Type 9-12 7-9 7-12 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Type I 18 64.3 8 28.6 2 7.1 n=28 Type II 15 78.9 3 15.8 1 5.3 n=l9 Type III 35 66.0 15 28.3 3 5.7 n=53 Type IV 14 51.9 11 40.7 2 7.4 n=27 Total 82 64.6 37 29.1 8 6.3 n=127 104 TABLE A-S NUMBER AND PERCENT OF STUDENTS IN EACH EXPERIENCE TYPE AND TOTALS WHO RESPONDED EQ.TO ANY OR ALL OF THE QUESTIONS REGARDING GRADE OR SUBJECT PLACEMENT Experience Grade Placement Enjoyment Subject Placement Enjoyment Type Number 2 Number % umber Z Number Z Type I 5 17.8 0 O 2 7.1 0 0 n=28 Type II 1 5.3 0 0 l 5.3 0 0 n=l9 Type III 10 18.9 0 O 2 3.8 O 0 n=53 Type IV 10 37.0 1 h.7 4 14.8 1 3.7 n=27 TOTALS 26 20.5 1 .78 9 7.1 l 7.8 n=127 105 TABLE A-6 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF STUDENTS WHO RESPONDED EQ.TO EITHER OR BOTH OF THE QUESTIONS ABOUT EXUCATIONAL THEORIES BY EXPERIENCE TYPE AND TOTALS. Experience Question One Question Two Type Number Percent Number Percent Type I l 3.6 4 14.3 n=28 Type 11 4 21.0 3 ' 15.8 n=19 Type III 6 11.3 7 13.2 n=53 Type IV 4 14.8 9 33.3 n=27 TOTALS 15 11.8 23 18.1 n=127 106 TABLE Ar7 RESULTS OF CONTRAST FOR SELECTED COMBINATIONS OF TWO, THREE, AND FOUR EXPERIENCE TYPES NOT DONE AS PART OF THE HYPOTHESES TESTING, dfl = 8, df2 = 116 Experience Type F-Ratios of p Value Contrast Multivariate Test Type I vs Type II .8872* .5297* .8392** .5703** Type I vs Type 111 1.8743 .0706 2.8669 .0078 Type I vs Type IV .7843 .6174 3.1701 .0028 Type II vs Type III .7966 .6067 1.4160 .1971 Type II vs Type IV .9536 .4759 1.7036 .1048 Type III vs Type IV .7534 .6444 1.4274 .1924 Type I vs Type II & III 1.5387 .1514 2.4124 .0191 Type I vs Type III & IV 1.6098 .1294 3.3185 .0019 Type I vs Type II,III & IV 1.4044 .2018 2.8915 .0057 Type II vs Type III & IV 1.3283 .2364 1.0970 .3705 Type 111 vs Type I & II 2.0674 .0446 2.3701 .0212 Type IV vs Type I & 11 3.1090 .0033 .8520 .5592 Type IV vs Type II & III .6657 .7207 1.7278 .0991 Type IV vs Type I, II & III .5315 .0446 2.2068 .0212 * First scores in each contrast F-Ratio and p Value for MANOUA procedure indicates for first eight EPPS scales. ** MANOUA procedure for the last eight EPPS scales. Second scores in each contrast indicates F-Ratio and p Value TABLE A98 EPPS SCALES WHICH SHOWED SIGNIFICANCE IN CONTRAST OF MEANS FOR SELECTED COMBINATIONS OF TWO, THREE, AND FOUR EXPERIENCE TYPES NOT DONE AS PART OF THE HYPOTHESES TESTING Experience Type Contrast EPPS Scales Type I vs. Type III Autonomy, Endurance Type I vs. Type IV Aggression, Change, Endurance Type I vs. Type II & III Endurance Type I vs. Type III & IV Autonomy, Change, Endurance Type I vs. Type II, III & IV Change, Endurance Type III vs. Type I 8 II Autonomy, Endurance Type IV vs. Type I & II Aggression, Change, Endurance 108 TABLE A-9 RESULTS OF CONTRAST OF MEANS FOR EACH COMBINATION OF TWO EXPERIENCE TYPES (Not done as part of the hypotheses testing) Experience Type F-Ratio of dfl df2 p Value Multivariate Test Type I vs Type 111 1.6529 . 9 115 .1086 Type I vs Type IV 1.7153 9 115 .0932 Type II vs Type III .7980 9 115 .6189 Type II vs Type IV .4549 9 115 .9017 Type III vs Type IV .8057 9 115 .6119 TABLE Ar 10 RESULTS OF CONTRAST FOR SELECTED COMBINATIONS OF THREE OR FOUR EXPERIENCE TYPES (Not done as part of the hypotheses testing) Experience Type F-Ratio of dfl df2 p value Multivariape Test I vs II &III 1.3111 9 115 .2387 I vs III & IV ' 1.9044 9 115 .0581 I vs II, III, & IV 1.6331 9 115 .1139 II vs III & IV .6371 9 115 .7633 1 a 11 vs III & 1v 1.8648 '9 117 .0640 I & II vs IV 1.4058 9 115 .1937 II & III vs IV .7272 9 115 .6672‘ I 109 TABLE A-ll RESULTS OF THE SCALES OF THE EPPS FOR THE THREE COMBINA- TIONS USED IN THE HYPOTHESES TESTING WITH SIGNIFICANCE AT THE .15 LEVEL Experience Type Scale F-Ratio for Contrast Multivariate Test P Value Types I, II, & III vs. Type IV Abasement 2.5172 .1159 Change 3.7221 .0560 Endurance 3.0507 .0832 Aggression 3.0135 .0851 Types I & II vs. Type 111 Order 2.4240 .1221 Autonomy 9.5352 .0025 Change 3.0995 .0809 Endurance 9.8676 .0022 Aggression 3.4766 .0647 Type I ‘ vs. Type II Change 2.2314 .1378 Endurance 2.8274 .0953 110 TABLE A-12 RESULTS OF THE UNIVARIATE F-TEST FOR THE NINE DEPENDENT VARIABLES OF MAJOR HYPOTHESIS ONE Variable F-Ratio for df1 df2 P Value Univariate Test EPPS .1148 9 115 .7353 Teacher Rating: Classroom Management 3.7596 9 115 .0548 Rapport 2.7349 9 115 .1008 Knowledge and Preparedness 2.3249 9 115 .1299 Personal and Professional Characteristics .6684 9 115 .4151 Student Self-Rating: Classroom Management 5.5909 9 115 .0197 Rapport 4.0489 9 115 .0464 Knowledge and Preparedness 2.8578 9 115 .0935 Personal and Professional Characteristics 2.9285 9 115 .0896 111 TABLE Ael3 RESULTS OF THE UNIVARIATE F-TEST FOR THE NINE DEPENDENT VARIABLES OF MAJOR HYPOTHESIS TWO Variable F—Ratio for dfl df2 P Value Univariate Test EPPS 1.9002 9 115 .1706 Teacher Rating: Classroom Management .1765 115 .0772 Rapport .9267 9 115 .0096 Knowledge and Preparedness .6651 9 115 .0187 Personal and Professional Characteristics .0099 9 115 .0092 Student Self-Rating: Classroom Management .6621 9 115 .4184 Rapport .9045 9 115 .1701 Knowledge and Preparedness .0407 9 115 .8405 Personal and Professional Characteristics .2197 9 115 .0753 112 TABLE A-l4 RESULTS OF THE UNIVARIATE F-TEST FOR THE NINE DEPENDENT VARIABLES OF MAJOR HYPOTHESIS THREE Variable ’ F-Ratio for df df P Value Univariate Test EPPS .1636 9 115 .6866 Teacher Rating: Classroom Management 1.1347 9 115 .2889 Rapport 1.3339 9 115 .2504 Knowledge and Preparedness .3400 9 115 .5609 Personal and Professional Characteristics .1426 9 115 .7064 Student Self-Rating: Classroom Management .9461 9 115 .3327 Rapport .8643 9 115 .3541 Knowledge and . Preparedness .2934 9 115 .5891 Personal and Professional Characteristics 1.8043 9 115 .1817 APPENDIX B STUDENT TEACHER SELF-RATING FORM 113 Student Name: Supervising Teacher: SRF General overall rating in Knowledge and Preparedness PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. Am enthusiastic and cheerful 2. Have an interest in students and being a teacher 3. Have a good voice, health, posture 4. Am interested in school and community 5. Am concerned with individual needs General overall rating in Professional and Personal Characteristics 0-8152 01 .11 :21 s '41 Please answer the following comments by filling in the appropriate C 3 space in the chart below. Please use a #2 pencil. This is a self- § 3 rating of your perceived effectiveness. Use the following - 3 $2 1 - Very Effective, (V); 2 - Effective, (E); 3 - Adequate, (A); Elsi 4 - Not Effective, (N); 5 - Unsatisfactory, (U). 3 E P RAPPORT 1. Am able to motivate students 1. 2. Am accepted by staff and students 2. 3. Am honest, sincere, fair with all students 3. 4. Am able to understand student feelings 4. 5. Am able to influence students 5. General overall rating in Rapport CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT DO NOT USE-- 1. Am able to stimulate thinking 1. 2. Am able to change student behavior 2. 3. Am able to develop and use classroom goals ano daily plans 3. 4. Am able to anticipate and meet problems and new situations 4. 5. Am able to develop student self-control 5. General overall rating in Classroom Management aeumsamp. restAsrnii-Lss Do NOT USE-— 1. Am able to organize suhivct materials and classroom setting 1. 2. Am able to teach how to study 2. 5. Know subject matter and how to obtain additional information 3. 4. Know various methods and techniques to present material 4. 5. Know educational theories 5. DO NOT USE-- “(favor S'.|r Venn-or”, Fun I"; ;.- (0— n -._.._— --. -——— . 114 Student Teaching Rating Form Page 2 Please complete the following information. Name: The next section is about your student teaching experience. 8 , 9 , 1o__, 11_, 12 What grade(s) did you teach: 7 ___ __3 (5) (6) ( ) (3) (9) (10) Was this the grade assignment you originally wanted? No___Yes__ (11) Did you enjoy this grade assignment? No__ Yes___(12) Was this the subject assignment you originally wanted? No__ Yes__ (13) Did you enjoy this sub3ect assignment? No__'Yes__ (14) Were you able to relate personal experiences to educational theories? No___Yes (15) Did the knowledge of any educational theories help you in student teaching? No__ Yes__ (16) Comments: Please answer the following questions about the type and amount of experience you had with school aged persons other than family or baby sitting before ED 200, (MSU, Psychological Foundations) or similar course at another institution. Please check the appropriate box(es). 50 or more hours in school (17) Approximate number of hours (18-20) 49 or less hours in school (21) Approximate number of hours (22—23) Non-school (i.e., Club leader or Approximate number of hours. (26-28) sponsor, school teacher, etc.)(25) No experience (29) If you checked Non-school experience, please list the type(s) of experience(s) you have had. Any pertinent comments from your students. A. . A—_ _A._ g— APPENDIX C SUPERVISING TEACHER RATING FORM 115 Student Name: Supervising Teacher: Please answer the following comments by filling in the appropriate ‘ 2 space in the chart below. Please use a '2 pencil. This is a g :5 rating of the effectiveness of your student teacher. g g; 1 - Very Effective, (V); 2 - Effective, (E); 3 - Adequate, (A); S 2 4 - Not Effective, (N); 5 - Unsatisfactory, (U). " 3 RAPPORT 1. Is able to motivate students 1. 2. Is accepted by staff and students 2. 3. Is honest, sincere, fair with all students 3. 4. Is able to understand student feelings 4. 5. Is able to influence students 5. General overall rating in Rapport CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT DO NOT USE-- 1. Is able to stimulate thinking 1. 2. Is able to change student behavior 2. 3. Is able to develop and use classroom goals and daily plans 3. 4. Is able to anticipate and meet problems and new situations, 4. 5. Is able to develop student self-control 5. General overall rating in Classroom Management KNOWLEDGE AND PREPAREDNESS DO NOT USE-- 1. Is able to organize subject materials and classroom setting 1. 2. Is able to teach how to study 2. 3. Exhibits knowledge of subject matter and how to obtain additional 3. information 4. Exhibits knowledge of various methods and techniques to present 4. materials 5. Exhibits knowledge of educational theories 5. General overall rating in Knowledge and Preparedness PROFESSIONAL AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS DO NOT USE-- 1. Is enthusiastic and cheerful 1. 2. Has interest in students and being a teacher 2. 3. Has good voice, health, posture 3. 4. Is interested in school and community 4. 5. Has concerns for individual needs 5. General overall rating in Professional and Personal Characteristics 00152 “in.” Sun- Umyry hum", yu‘. APPENDIX 1) COVER LETTERS TO CENTER DIRECTORS 116 TO: Student Teaching Center Directors FROM: Lynn Folkert RE: Forms for supervising and student teachers Enclosed please find (1) Supervising Teacher Rating Forms, and (2) Student Teacher Self-rating Forms. Please have each supervising teacher fill out a supervising teacher rating form for his/her student teacher during the last two weeks of Winter term if possible. Have each student teacher fill out a student teacher self-rating form during the last two weeks of the term if possible, Please return the forms either to the Student Teaching and Professional Development Office on campus (may be hand carried, need not be mailed) or to Lynn A. Folkert 3010 Carriage Hill Lansing, Mich 48906 Than‘ you for y ur help. /. L A. Folkert ' ’ 117 TO: Student Teaching Center Directors FROM: Lynn A. Folkert RE: ‘Materials for supervising and student teachers Enclosed please find, (1) Supervising Teacher Rating Forms, (2) Student Teacher Self-rating Forms, (3) Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, and (4) Edwards Personal Preference Schedule answer sheets. Please have each student teacher complete an Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (may be done individually or in a group) before the end of the Winter term and return both the test booklet and answer sheet. Please have each supervising teacher fill out a supervising teacher rating form of his/her student teacher during the last two weeks of Winter term if possible. Have each student teacher fill out a student teacher self-rating form during the last two weeks of the term if possible. Please return all materials either to the Student Teaching and Professional Development Office on campus (may be hand carried, need not be sent) or to Lynn A. Folkert 3010 Carriage Hill Lansing, Mich 48906 man .you f or our_h21/p. n A. Fol kert BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Brandou, Julian Robert, "A Study of an Experimenal Program for the In-Service Science Education of Elementary School Teachers," Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. Combs, Arthur C., The Professional Education of Teachers, Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965. Combs, A,W., Blume, R.A., Newman A.J., and Wass, H.L., The Professional Education of Teachers, Boston, Mass.: Allyn and' Bacon, Inc., 1974. Crow, Lester and Grow, Alice, The Student Teacher in Secondary School, New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1964. Currie, James Francis, "A Study of the Effects of a Teacher Aide Experience on the Preparation of Secondary School Student Teachers." Ed.D. Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1970. Dewey, John, "The Relation of Theory to Practice in Education," The Third Yearbook of the National Society for the Scientific Study of Education, Part I, Bloomington, 111.: Public School Publishing Company, 1904. Errington, Garth Edward, "An Analysis of Certain Factors Leading to the Predictability of Success and Failure in Elementary Student Teachers," Ed.D. Dissertation, Michigan State Univer-. sity, 1970. Force, William, "The Classroom Environment: Discipline, Climate and Leadership," Toward Excellence in Student Teaching, Edited by Hugo David, Dubuque, Iowa, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1973. Halik, Richard J., "Teacher.In-Service Education in the Affective Domain: Outcomes for Teachers and Students," unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. Henry, Marvin A., and Beasley, W.Wayne, Supervising Student Teachers: The Professional way, Terre Haute, Indiana: Sycamore Press, 1972. 118 119 Books Jackson, Charles, "Purposes and Objectives in Student Teaching," in Toward Excellence in Student Teaching, Edited by Hugo David, Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., 1973. Lieberman, Myron, The Future of Public Education, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960. Lowery, Charles H., "The Impact of Pre—Education Clinical Experi- ence in Teacher Career Decision Making Among Selected Michigan State University Elementary Teacher Candidates," Ph.D. Disser— tation, Michigan State University, 1974. Medley, Donald Mg, and Krathwohl, David, "Task Force on Relating Teacher Competencies to Pupil Outcomes," Competency Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, A report of a National Conference, University of Houston, March 12-15, 1975. Shaplin, Jason T., "Practice in Teaching: Breakthrough to Better Teaching," Harvard Educational Review, Special Issue, 1965. Silberman, Charles E., Crisis in the Classroom, New York: Random House, 1970. Sinclair, William W., "An Analysis of Three- Pre—Student Teaching Experience in the Preparation of Elementary School Teachers," unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961. Steenbergen, Aaron L., "A Developmental Paraprofessional Program . for the Education of Future Teachers in the Two-Year Community Junior College," Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1972. Synnott, Thomas J., "Student Teachers' Perception of Their Student Teaching Experiences Through the University of Northern Colorado," Dissertation Abstracts International, 33:5020A, 1972. Thompson, Valerie, "Teachers Evaluation of Their Preparation to Teach: A Survey of Selected New York City Public Schools," Dissertation Abstracts International, 33:1066A, 1972. 120 Periodicals Barnett, Robert, "Teaching Experience - Early, Often and Varied," Journal of Health, Physical Education; and Recreation, Vol.43: 70, May, 1972. Barr, A.S., "The.Measurement and Prediction of Teaching Efficiency: A Summary of Investigation," Journal of Experimental Education, 1948. ' Brooks, Bonnie 8., "A Comparative Study of Selected Characteristics of Counselor-Education and Non-Counselor-Education Students," Texas Personnel and Guidance Association Journal, Sept, 1973. Cooper, James M. and Sadler, David, "Current Trends in Teacher Education Curriculums," Journal of Teacher Education, Fall, 1972. Garrison, Karl C., and Scott, Mary H., "The Relationship of Selected Personal Characteristics to the Needs of College Students Preparing to Teach," Educational and Psychological Measurement, Winter, 1962. Hunter, Elizabeth and AmidOn, Edmund, "Direct Experiences in Teacher Education: Innovations and Experimentation," Journal of Teacher Education, Fall, 1966. Jackson, Philip W., and Cuba, Egon G., "The Need Structure of In-Service Teachers, An Occupational Analysis," The School Review, April, 1957. Lang, Gerhard, "Motives in Selecting Elementary and Secondary School Teaching," Journal of Experimental Education, Sept.,l960. Sheldon, Stephen M., Cole, Jack.M., and Copple, Rochue, "Concurrent Validity of the Warm Teacher Scales," Journal of Educational Psychology, 1959. Wakefield, William M., and Growl, Thomas, "Personality Character- istics of Special Education," Journal of Experimental Education, 43:2, Winter, 1974. Watson, C., "The Surprising Discovery of Morale," Progressive Education, 1942. Watson, Joseph M., "Peer Perception of Counselor Effectiveness: A.Mu1tip1e Regression Approach," Counselor Education and Su- pervision, 1974. 121' Other Publications Bennie, William A., Copperation for Better Student Teachipg, Minneapolis: 'Burgess Publishing Company, 1966. Burnett, J.Da1e, "Evlauting Teachers," Research and Information Reports, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, 1975. Clark, Christopher Michel, "The Effects of Teacher Practice on Student Learning and Attitude in Small Group Instruction." Technical Report No. 47, Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching, Stanford University, California, Feb., 1976. "The Dynamics of Field Instruction: Learning Through Doing." Council of Social WOrk Education, New York, NY, 1975. Cooper, James C., and Bemis, Katherine A., "Teacher Personality, Teacher Behavior and Their Effect Upon Pupil Achievement, Final Report," New Mexico University, Albuquerque, College of Education, April, 1967. Demiany, Frances E., and Mulgrave, Norman W., "An Investigation of Sex Differences and Social Desirability in the EPPS," paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educa- tional Research Association, 59th. Chicago, 111.: April, 1974. Edwards, Allen L., Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, Univer- sity of Washington, (New York: The Psychological Corporation), Revised Manual, 1959. Edwards, Allen L., Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, Univer- sity of Washington, (New York: The Psychological Corporation), Test Booklet, 1953. "Student Teaching Evaluation Form," Mid-term Evaluation, Michigan State University, Division of Student Teaching and Professional Development, publication. Finley, John R., "Progressive Field Experience Program at Edgecliff College, Cincinnati, Ohio." Edgecliff College, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975. Gallen, Wayne H., and Toney, Myrna M., "Benefits Accuring for the Teaching Profession Via University - Public School Partnerships." Illinois State University, 1974. 122 Other Publications Gantt, walter N., and Daney, Beth, "Pre-Service Teachers React to Field Supplemented Methods Courses," University of Maryland, 1972. Medley, Donald M., "Indications and Measures of Teacher Effective- Ness: A Review of the Research," ERIC, Ed 08844, 1971. Melograno, Vincent J., "Changes in Selected Characteristics of Pre—Service Teachers following Variable, Semi-Variable, and Non-Variable Field Experiences," Cleveland State University, 1976. Metzner, Seymore, "An Empirical Criterion Validation Study on Some Psychological Inventory Findings Related to Elementary School .Teachers," Feb., 1967. A Description of Michigap_State's Full-Time Student Teaching Program, Michigan State University, College of Education, Sept., 1963. Otto, Paul B., "A First Course in a Competency Based/Field Based Teacher Preparation Program." Paper presented at the Annual Conference of ATE, (Headquarters of ATE, washington, D.C.),l976. Robbins, Jerry H., "Personality Characteristics of Teacher Education Students," University of Mississippi, School of Edu- cation, 1972. Swann, Margaret H., "An Experiment in Field Based Elementary Teacher Education," Shepherd College, Shepherdville, West Virginia, ERIC ED 124497, 1975. Elementary Pre-Student Teaching_Center: A Case Study. University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point, Wisconsin, School of Education, December, 1975. Walberg, Herbert J., "Teacher Personality and Classroom Climate," Harvard Universitym 1967. Appraisal of a Professional, WOrk Sheet, Lansing School District Lansing, Michigan, 1976. ERT "'TITI'ITIQ‘IITILEJEILHMI’{fliujlflujl'llfllflfljfiflmfl'ES