LIBRARY J'Midligan Stat. 1 University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled STABILITY OF EDUCATIONAL GOAL ORIENTATIONS HELD BY TEACHERS presented by Dewayne B. Anderson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _Ph.D. degreein Measurement, Eval. & Research Design WW 2’9ij Major professor Date March 10. 198 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 )V1ESI_J RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LIBRARJES remove this checkout from n your record. FINES will - be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. STABILITY OF EDUCATIONAL GOAL ORIENTATIONS HELD BY TEACHERS By DeWayne B. Anderson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education l987 ABSTRACT STABILITY OF EUJCATIONAL GOAL ORIENTATIONS HELD BY TEACHERS By DeWayne B. Anderson The purpose of this longitudinal study was to determine to what degree the educational goal orientations of teachers remain stable over time. Also of interest was the identification of factors (events, school environments, and personal characteristics) that are associated with change in teacher goal orientation. Seventy-four experienced teachers were the subjects in this study. Data were collected via questionnaires administered on four occasions during a 5-year period, and interviews that took place after the last questionnaire administration. It was found that teacher goal orientation is a relatively stable construct. Although a few teachers made major shifts in goal orientation, most of the changes did not persist over time. Teachers identified a variety of factors which they believed contributed to changes in educational goal orientation. They identified student behavior as the primary factor associated with major shifts in goal orientation. Contrary to research expectations: the most highly DeWayne B. Anderson experienced teachers made considerably more shifts in goal orientation than did the relatively inexperienced teachers. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was sponsored in part by the Institute for Research on Teaching, College of Education: Michigan State University. The Institute for Research on Teaching is funded primarily by the Program for Teaching and Instruction of the National Institute of Education, U.S. Department of Education (Contract 400-8l-00l4). The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the position; policy, or endorsement of the National Institute of Education. I would like to thank my committee members, Drs. William Mehrens, Richard Prawat, Fred Ignatovich, and Lawrence Lezotte: for the many valuable contributions each made to this dissertation. A special thanks to Dr. Mehrens for the time and effort he put into critiquing the many drafts and, more important, for his encouragement during the course of this study. In addition, a thank-you to Frank Jenkins for his assistance in data analysis and Susan Cooley for the proficient manner in which she prepared this manuscript. Special recognition is in order for my parents in Minnesota; Eddie and Bernice Anderson, and my "parents" in Michigan, Harold and Gerry Hart, for instilling and maintaining in me the value of educa- tion. Also, a warm thanks to my children, Michael, David, Brynn, and Steven, who have, without complaint, endured the loss of many hours of their father's time during the course of this study. And last; but by no means least; a very special thank-you to Ariel; who; as a wife and friend; gave me continuous support through- out this endeavor. She deserves much credit in providing me with the encouragement I needed to complete this project. TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTOFTABLES...................... Chapter I. THE meEM 0 O O O O O O I O I O I O O O U D O I Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Background of the Study . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Importance of the Study . . . . . . . . Importance of Goal Orientations . . . . Importance of Identifying Goal Orientations Changes in Goal Orientations . . . . . . . . Overview of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dimensionality of Teacher Attitudes . . . . . . Historical Review . . . . . . . Similarities Between Teacher Attitude Dimensions and Educational Goal Dimensions . . . . . . Questions Raised . . . . . . . . . . . Attitude-Behavior Relationships . . . . . . . . Attitude Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attitude Change During Preservice Training Attitude Change During Inservice Training . . Attitude Change as Adjustment to Institutional Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population and Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . Teacher Priorities Questionnaire (TPQ) . . . . . The Problems in Schools Questionnaire . . . . vi 0 a o . n o I ., V V 1 ’. V ‘ - R i T: 43"” «,mi"wfiaw<’ ‘ Page viii ——l NOONONU'I-b-JA _l_l l3 Data Collection . . . . . Administering the Questionnaires Teacher Interviews . . . . . . . Research Questions . . . . . . . . Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . o a o O o o o o c o o o a o o o o c o o o o o o o o 0 IV. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. DI APPENDICES A. TE B. TE REFERENCES Question l: How Stable Are Teacher Goal Orienta- tions? . . . . . . . . . Question 2: How Lasting Are the Shifts Which Do Occur in Teacher Goal Orientation? . . . . Question 3: What Personal Factors Are Associated With Goal- Orientation Stability? . . . . . . . . Question 4: What Environmental Factors Are Associated With Goal-Orientation Stability? Question 5: Is the Stability of Teacher Goal Orientation Related to the Control-Autonomy Dimension Tapped by the Deci et al. (l98l) Problems in Schools Questionnaire? . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SOJSSION; CONO_USIONS; LIMITATIONS; AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . Recommendations for. Future Research . . . . . . . ACHER PRIORITIES QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . ACHER INTERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5l 58 59 65 66 68 68 75 77 80 83 90 92 Table LIST OF TABLES Teaching Experience and Educational Background of Sample (l982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency Data Relating to the Number of Teachers Who Exhibited the Various Change Indices . . . . . . . Profiles of Teachers Having the Most Clear-Cut Goal Preferences I U D I C I O I O O I O I I C O I O O 0 Stability of Scale Scores: Test-Retest Reliability . Internal Consistency Estimates: Coefficient Alpha . . Comparison of Test-Retest Reliability to Internal Consistency Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Persistence of Change in Goal Orientation . . . . . . Persistence of Change in Goal Orientation Compared to Cause of Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Reported Contributions of Environmental Factors to Changes in Goal Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency Data Relating to the Nunber of Times Each Scale Was Selected . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 3T 47 48 49 50 50 52 54 62 64 mAWERI THE PROBLEM lnILgfluciiQn The educational goal orientations held by teachers represent a pivotal but often overlooked component of the teaching-learning process. These goal orientations are important for several critical reasons. First; they may have a significant influence on teacher decisions and behaviors; which in turn have a demonstrable relationship to the academic and social growth of students. Second; the goal orien- tations are important to the success of long-term attempts to improve our educational system because most improvements in the teaching- learning process must be implemented by teachers; and the extent to which teachers do or do not commit themselves will be determined by; among other things; their educational goal orientations. Thus; it is important to identify these orientations; use them as a base for pro- moting success in our schools; and; if need be; determine when and how changing these orientations will best facilitate the maximization of academic and social growth in students. W In the Affective Outcomes Project at Michigan State University's Institute for Research on Teaching; it was determined that different teachers place very different priorities on the many possible goals they may have for students (Prawat; Solomon; et al.; 1981). The goal orientations of 40 elementary teachers were assessed during tape- recorded 3—hour interviews. Content analysis of the transcripts revealed substantial differences; and a cluster analysis revealed some distinct goal orientations on the part of teachers (Prawat; l980). It was discovered that in addition to being concerned about a student's acquisition of content; many teachers were very concerned about two socialization dimensions. One of these dimensions related to indi- vidual students learning how to perform academic work (learning about academic responsibility); while the other related to students devel- oping the interpersonal skills requisite to functioning effectively as a member of a classroom or group (learning about social responsibil- ity). The discovery of the prominence of these socialization goal orien- tations; one emphasizing academic responsibility and the other social responsibility; led to the formation of the Socialization Outcomes Project in l98l at Michigan State University's Institute for Research on Teaching. A major premise of this project was that teachers face a complex task of trying to balance concerns they have for students' knowledge acquisition with concerns they have for the two areas of classroom socialization. Therefore; an instrument (the Teacher Priori- ties Questionnaire [TB1]) was designed to identify teachers' prioriti- zation of these three legitimate areas of concern (Prawat; Anderson; Anderson; Jenkins; & Anderson; l983). This 22-item forced-choice questionnaire was administered to 108 third- and fourth-grade teachers in May l982. Each teachefls responses resulted in a numerical profile (9.9” l5-2-5) representing the teacher's professed goal orientation (or how the teacher professed to balance goals in the three areas outlined above). Based on these profiles; teachers were selected for observation to determine how different teacher goal orientations are translated into classroom action (teacher behavior) and whether or not these differences are associated with differential effect on students (student outcomesL In addition to the TRI; a second instrument was simultaneously administered to the lO8 teachers. This was the Problems in Schools Questionnaire (Deci; Schwartz; Sheinman; & Ryan; l98l); an instrument that identifies the degree to which teachers profess to be autonomy- granting versus controlling when their students encounter problems in school. The purposes for using this instrument were to provide a validity check for the newer TRI; as well as to study how the autonomy- control dimension relates to teacher goal orientation. This study does not concern itself with how teacher goal orien- tations are manifested in teachers' classroom behaviors or with how they might relate to differences in the academic or social growth of students. These and other questions are within the purview of the much larger Socialization Outcomes Project ongoing at the Institute for Research on Teaching. What is presented here is a longitudinal study that assesses to what degree teacher goal orientations exhibit tem- poral stability. In other words; does a teacher's priority profile (relative balance among the three goal orientations) persist over time? This and related questions are presented in the next section of this report. W The purpose of this longitudinal study is to assess the stability of teacher goal orientations. The primary question of interest is: Do the educational goal orientations of teachers change over time? Also of interest is: When a shift in goal orientation occurs; how permanent is the shift? Other important questions include: What type of person is most likely to exhibit a change in goal orientation? In other words; is there a relationship between teacher age; experience; or educational background and the propensity to change? What job-related and other environmental factors are related to changes in teacher goal orientation? Does assignment to a different grade level or a different building; or a change in supervisor or administrative priority bring about a change in teacher goal orientation? Also of interest is whether or not propensity to change goal orientation relates to a teacher's position on the autonomy-control dimension and whether changes in goal orientation are associated with predictable; concurrent changes in scores on the Problems in Schools Questionnaire (Deci et al.; l98l). These and other questions are addressed in the current study. Qanjtjve gQa] orientation. A teacher having this goal orien- tation has expressed a relatively high degree of positive affect for the idea that cognitive goals are important. This teacher is primarily concerned with a student‘s academic ability and achievement; as well as with understanding; learning; self-expression; and creativity (Prawat; 1985). [ask demands gQaI anentatjgn. A teacher having this goal orientation has expressed a relatively high degree of positive affect for the idea that task-demands goals are important. This teacher is primarily concerned with how well a student is making an "adaptation to classroom" work demands (Lambert 8 Nicoll; 1977). Teachers with this orientation would tend to emphasize goals such as student self- motivation and independence; working neatly and carefully; following directions; and getting work done on time (A. Anderson; l985; Prawat; 1985). 1nteLpersgnal_ggal_grientatign. A teacher having this goal orientation has expressed a relatively high degree of positive affect for the idea that interpersonal goals are important. Teachers with this goal orientation tend to stress that their students should become more caring; cooperative; and respectful of others; as well as more thoughtful about how their actions affect others. " — ' " . This is a teacher who tends to grant a high degree of autonomy to students who are having problems by encouraging them to consider the various elements of the problem and then to arrive at solutions for themselves (Deci et al.; l98l). " ‘ ' " . This is a teacher who tends to react to classroom problems by independently deciding on solutions and then using sanctions to ensure that the solutions are implemented (Deci et al.; l981). MW There is an ever-growing body of research indicating that what teachers do in the classroom is inextricably linked to what they think (Shavelson & Stern; l98l). Thus; it becomes important to identify what teachers think. However; it is obviously not feasible to assess the entire domain of every teacher"s thoughts. Neither is it necessary. What is important is the identification of teacher thought most closely associated with teachers' classroom decisions and behaviors. Many feel the most germane area of teacher thinking is in the orientations teachers have to the two common; but competing; sets of educational goals: cognitive versus affective. These are sometimes labeled academic and socioemotional goals (Halperin; l976). Most educators believe both are important; and thus the competitive aspect of these sets of goals exists only in how teachers choose to balance classroom time in accomplishing each. However; it is evident that there are teachers who place major emphasis on one set of goals much to the detriment of the other set. Kremer (l98l) believed these teachers with "clear-cut" goal orientations must be located; and ways must be found “to change their focus of teaching in the direction of greater balance between the two domains" (p. 2). Thus; the current study is important because it assesses the feasibility of identifying and changing educa- tional goal orientations. I | E E ] Q . | I' The importance of teachers' goal orientations can be argued from both logical and empirical bases. It is inherently logical that differences among teachers with respect to goal orientations will create differences in classroom decisions; which will be manifested in differential classroom behavior on the part of teachers. In turn; these behavioral differences will result in differential outcomes among classrooms. This goal orientation-decision-behavior-outcome linkage also has its empirical foundations. Shavelson and Stern (l98l) in their review of research on teacher thoughts; decisions; and behaviors cited many researchers who have found that the goal orientations of teachers seem to influence eventual student outcomes in the areas of academic achievement; relationships with peers; and attitudes toward school. Halperin (l976) found that teachers with different orientations behaved differently in the classroom and that these differences seemed to affect children's perceptions of school. The BTES Phase III-B Study (Fisher et al.; l978) indicated that the goal orientations of teachers have some important implications for student outcomes. Thus; students of academic (content-oriented) teachers evidenced the most learning gains; while students of "affective" teachers showed the least. The data also suggest that it is difficult to simultaneously maximize student gain in both academic and affective areas. A study by Mitman; Mergendoller; Ward; and Tikunoff (l98l) seemed to indicate that placing a priority on affective growth was counter- productive; that is; successful cooperative group behaviors occurred much more often in formal contexts where teachers were providing a great deal of structure and guidance. Similar results were reported by Prawat and Nickerson (l985). In a sample of 40 elementary teachers; they found that teachers who placed a high priority on affective out- comes were no more successful in promoting cooperative group behavior than were the teachers who emphasized cognitive outcomes. Although the authors cautioned the interpretation of results due to small sample size; they found that teachers who professed a mixed orientation (i.eu a balance between cognitive and affective goal orientations) were most successful in producing affective growth in students. Kremer (l98l) found that for those teachers who had very distinct differences in goal orientations; the orientations were excellent predictors of teacher behavior; not only in the teaching objectives they selected for use; but also in the stimuli and questions they presented during classroan instruction. In sum; there are both logical and empirical bases for the view that teacher goal orientations are important. However; the empirical evidence linking goal-orientation differences with differential student outcomes is less than overwhelming. In the next section a factor which may contribute to this paucity of evidence is discussed. We 5111' II' Brophy (1978) indicated that certain dualistic personality traits seem to be closely associated with teaching behaviors. Examples of such traits include introversion and extroversion; internal and exter- nal locus of control; and open and closed belief systems. Several recent studies have suggested that certain goal orientations are incom- patible with some of these personality traits (Halperin; 1976; Kremer; 1978; 1981; Prawat; Anderson; et al.; 1986). For example; Halperin (1976) found that "permissive" teachers who focused on academic goals and "strict" teachers who focused on social goals caused much stress and anxiety in their students. Kremer (1978) found a similar situa- tion with a group of "closed-minded" teachers who exhibited "psuedo- progressive" classroom behavior. Prawat et al. (1986) found that "autonomy-granting" teachers who professed an academic goal orienta- tion and "controlling" teachers who professed an interpersonal goal orientation produced students who "were less knowledgeable academi- cally than their counterparts in the more ideologically consistent H.eu academic/control and social/ autonomous) classrooms" (p. G-17L Thus it appears that teachers and prospective teachers who possess goal orientations that are incongruent with certain personality traits should shift their goal orientations to some point of compatibility. Also; if as Kremer (1981) stated; teachers with clear-cut goal orienta- tions (highly affective or highly cognitive) need to be identified and have their orientations shifted so they become sensitive to both sets 10 of student needs; it may be necessary for teacher-training programs to become more individualized with student teachers made more aware of their orientations; and programs tailored to facilitate orientation adjustment. The present study demonstrates one means by which goal orientations may be identified and also suggests conditions that are conducive to bringing about change C “@111" This study centers on the stability of teachers' goal orienta- tions. Is it possible for the goal orientation of a teacher to undergo a substantive change over time? If so; what are the events and expe- riences that seem to be effective in bringing about change? The research literature does not provide conclusive answers to these questions. Mahan and Lacefield (1978) found that the values and attitudes of supervising teachers had a powerful influence on the student teachers they supervised. Kremer and Moore (1978) found that during a year-long teacher-training program they were able to signifi- cantly make their student teachers more "progressive" in their orienta- tions. However; Paschal and Treloar (1979) measured teacher attitudes during the first 3 years of teaching and found that significant changes that occurred during teacher training were only temporary; with oblit- eration occurring during the first few years of teaching. Fuller (1969) and Adams (1982) both found that teachers did undergo significant attitudinal change between their first and fifth years of teaching. On the other hand; Gabel and Rubba (1979) studied the effect of 4 weeks of training on 36 elementary teachers at a summer National Science Foundation Institute; they found neither a significant attitudinal change nor a significant behavioral change in these teach- ers during the subsequent school year. Do teachers make significant changes in goal orientations or do they not? The inconsistent and often contradictory research results obtained thus far have indicated the need for more and better research of the type presented here. Further support for this is found in Shavelson and Stern (1981). In their review of research on teacher thinking; they express the following: The need for research on teaching to examine teachers' intentions has been justified on several grounds. One justification is that the solely behavioral model is conceptually incomplete. It can not account for predictable variations in teachers' behavior arising from differences in their goals. A second justification is that research linking teachers' intentions to their behavior will provide a sound basis for educating teachers and implementing educational innovations. (p. 455) Shavelson and Stern conclude their review with six recommendations; one of which is: 'Research should examine how teachers balance goals; what scripts teachers use in planning instruction; and the relation between goals and scripts" (p. 491L It is evident that the answers are not in; and as Gabel and Rubba (1979) have said; Educators need to know the types and length of experiences that are necessary to change teachery attitudes and to maintain that change. This may be the most effective way of improving teachers' attitudes toward teaching and therefore improving the quality of teaching. (p. 24) In sum; the need for this study rests on the importance of teacher goal orientations; the need to measure these orientations accurately; 12 and the importance of identifying which experiences will bring about the desired changes in teacher goal orientations. W1 Chapter I has presented the problem; provided a rationale for; and stated the purpose of the present study. In Chapter II; research relevant to the study is reviewed. Chapter III provides a description of the methods involved in the study; including sample characteristics; instrumentation; data-collection procedures; research questions; and analysis procedures. Chapter IV presents the data and the results of analyses. A discussion of the results is found in Chapter V; where relationships to past research and implications for future study are made. The limitations of the present study are also addressed. GMWERII REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction The following review selectively presents research pertinent to the current study. It is divided into three major sections. First; the dimensionality of teacher attitudes is surveyed via a historical perspective. Starting with John Dewey at the turn of the century and continuing through to the present study; research is chronologically presented and questions are raised as to the structure and content of the teacher attitude domain. In section two; research investigating relationships between teacher attitude and teacher behavior is pre— sented. Studies suggesting the possibility of predicting desirable teacher behavior from knowledge of teacher attitudes and characteris- tics are reviewed. In section three; literature relating to the stability of teacher attitudes is discussed. Research is presented in which attempts were made to change the attitudes of teacher candidates during preservice training; as well as the attitudes of experienced teachers through inservice training. Research associating certain personality characteristics with increased probability of attitude change is also presented. l4 Di . ]'| E I | EII'I I H' I . ] B 1 In 1902; John Dewey outlined what he considered to be two funda- mental and disparate points of view on education and suggested that individuals tend to hold to one or the other of these views. One view emphasizes individual differences; children's needs; and the importance of social learning. The other view emphasizes discipline; subject matter; and the importance of moral standards. The former has since been given the label "progressivism" and the latter termed "tradition— alism" (Kerlinger; 1958). In the 50 years that followed the publication of Dewey's (1902) essay; few attempts were made to empirically determine the structure and dimensionality of educational attitudes. Kerlinger (1956; 1958) and Kerlinger and Kaya (1959) performed some of the first major experi- ments on the measurement of teacher attitudes. Kerlinger and Kaya constructed a self-report instrument; the Attitude Toward Education Scale; to measure the extent to which teachers believed in each of the two global educational philosophical orientations: progressivism and traditionalism. The major question of interest was that of determining the factorial nature of educational attitudes-—that is; do they form a bipolar continuum; two separate factors; or many factors? They con— cluded that educational attitudes consist of two relatively independent and orthogonal dimensions (factors) called "progressivism" and "tradi- tionalist' In other words; progressivism is not simply the opposite 15 of traditionalism; rather; each is an independent system in its own right. Since the 19505; researchers have been somewhat divided as to whether or not progressivism and traditionalism are; in fact; two independent dimensions. Similarly; they are divided on whether or not these two dimensions exhaust the domain of teachers'educational attitudes. Several studies that lend support to the notion of two independent and exhaustive attitudinal dimensions are Shaw and Wright (1967); Kerlinger (1970); Sontag and Pedhazur (1972); and Adwere- Boamah; Delay; and Jones (1982). Other research has seemed to challenge the idea that the progres- sive and traditional dimensions exhaust the domain of educational attitudes. As Kerlinger (1967a) admitted; 'the attitude domain was inadequately covered and the measurement instrument had too few items" (p. 191). The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI) developed by Cook; Leeds; and Callis (1951) was designed to measure a single factor; which had at one extreme a preference for democratic values (implied was a tendency to use democratic teaching methods) and at the other extreme a belief in and preference for autocratic values. Horn and Morrison (1965) conducted a factor-analytic study of the MTAI based on responses from 306 college students. They found five independent dimensions of teacher attitudes. Yee and Fruchter (1971) did a similar factor-analytic study and found the same five factors present. These are: a Wnodern" attitude toward classroom control versus a 'traditionalistic" attitude; an optimistic; favorable attitude toward 16 students versus a pessimistic; unfavorable attitude; a permissive concern about "smart;" "rebellious" behavior versus a punitive concern; an acceptance of students versus a reflection of students; and a desire to let children "run free" versus a desire to maintain control. Although the five dimensions were reported to be statistically independent; there certainly appear to be some similarities and logical associations among them. Also; although the researchers concluded that their analyses refuted the uniqueness of the progressive versus tradi- tional dimension; it certainly appears that each of the five factors represents a partial definition of the progressive and traditional dimensions. Wehling and Charters (1969) developed several questionnaires containing a few original items; as well as items borrowed from the MTAI and Kerlinger and Kaya's (1959) Attitude Toward Education Scale. These were administered to several teacher samples (N = 52 to N = 125% Factor analysis led to the identification of eight dimensions of teacher belief. These are: subject matter emphasis; personal adjust— ment ideology; student autonomy versus teacher direction; emotional disengagement; consideration of student viewpoint; classroan order; student challenge; and integrative learning. However; most of these; at least the last six; dealt with very specific instructional strate- gies and thus may be only distantly related to a teacher's philosophi— cal orientations. Another difference not resolved by the authors was that many of the dimensions were unipolar. Therefore; if teachers scored low on the dimensions; no presumptions could be made about what 17 they did believe in because the antithetical goal preferences were missing. Wolfe and Engel (1978) developed an instrument containing 18 items from the MTAI and 52 items from Wehling and Charter§s (1969) questionnaire. The results of responses from 364 education majors were factor analyzed and yielded three interpretable factors. Wolfe and Engel believed that the 28 items loading positively on Factor I suggested a belief that children are naturally lazy and irresponsible. They also stated that their Factor I was a composite of Wehling and Charter§s first and fourth factors and strongly resembled Kerlingefls (1967a) factor; 'traditionalism." Factor II had 23 items that loaded positively on it and suggested a belief that instruction should be organized around the needs and interests of children. The researchers considered this factor to be an amalgam of Wehling and Charters's second; third; fifth; seventh; and eighth factors and that it bore a strong resemblance to KerlingeHs (1967a) "progressivism." Factor III was an expression of concern for a child's need for emotional support in the classroom. Because only four items loaded on this factor; Wolfe and Engel considered it to be a minor factor. Although Factor III was statistically independent of Factor II; one would logically want to make it a subset of Factor II. Wolfe and Engel did consider their research (the finding of two major factors) a confirmation of Kerlinger's (1967a) two independent and orthogonal attitudinal dimen— sions. 18 Bunting (1981) had 290 elementary teachers rate 56 items describing various facets of education. Submitting these items to factor analysis yielded four moderately independent dimensions of belief. These four factors were labeled "affectivefl"tognitive;" "directive;" and "interpretiveJ' The affective dimension emphasized the importance of emotional development as an educational goal and stressed self-esteem and self-awareness as important objectives. The cognitive dimension stressed the active involvement of students in such mental processes as predicting; inferring; generalizing; and evaluat- ing. The directive dimension stressed close teacher supervision of students and use of traditional curricula. The interpretive dimension stressed the importance of meaning and relevancy in the teaching of subject matten Several years later; Bunting (1985) attempted a validation study using an amended questionnaire and a new sample of elementary school teachers. She found that the four factors identified in her early research (1981; 1984) were not replicated in the new study. She did discover two factors; one of which was identical to her original "directive" dimension. The "affective;" "cognitive;" and "inter- pretive" dimensions collapsed into one new factor; which she called "student-centeredfl' Again; the emergence of two independent dimensions lends support to the theory proposed by Kerlinger (1967a); with Buntings (1985) "directive" and "student-centered" dimensions appear- ing identical to Kerlinger's "traditional" and "progressive" dimen- sions. 19 S' .1 . . E I El I . D' . I E I. ] E ] D' . How do the three scales in the TPQ (Prawat et al.; 1983) compare to those that preceded it in the research literature? That is; do the statements made in the "content;" "task demands;" and "interper- sonal" response options of the TPQ bear any resemblance to statements that load heavily on factors identified by previous researchers? In comparing the TPQ to Bunting's (1981) original four scales; the interpersonal scale is very similar to her "affective" scale; and the content scale is similar to her "directive" scale. In relation to Bunting's (1985) later work; the interpersonal and content scales (from the TPQ) are similar to the "student-centered" and "directive" scales; respectively. The "task demands" statements do not appear in Bunting's factors (if; indeed; she used any of this type). It is quite possible that Bunting ignored the task demands dimension (as used in the TPQ) in her research. The TPQ scales do appear to have similarities with the eight dimensions identified by Wehling and Charters (1969). 111e content scale corresponds with Factor I; "subject-matter emphasis." The inter- personal scale corresponds with Factor II; "personal adjustment ideology;" Factor IV; "emotional disengagement;" and Factor V; "consid- eration of student viewpoint." The task demands scale corresponds with Factor III; "student autonomy versus teacher control;" Factor VI; "classroom order;" and Factor VII; "student challenge." Factor VIII; "integrative learning;" is not tapped by the TPQ. 20 The statements used by Kerlinger (1967a) and Horn and Morrison (1965) bear almost no similarity to those used in the TPQ. However; "content" and "task demands" priorities seem to best fit "tradition- alism;" with an interpersonal emphasis corresponding with "progres- sivism." (Uu13t19n5_I§Lised The review of past research on the dimensionality of teacher belief systems raises many questions. Among these are: Why do so many dimensions seem unipolar? Why do researchers identify and deem impor- tant different sets of dimensions? Why do so many of these sets of dimensions appear to easily reduce to the same two dimensions: 'tradi- tionalism" and "progressivism"? In answer to the first question; Kerlinger (1967b) suggested that the unipolarity of a dimension would disappear if one used the entire domain of teacher attitudes. He also suggested that the true bipolarity of the domain might be detected at a more fundamental level through second-order factor analysis. In response to the second question; if one considers the complexity of human thought and behavior; it might be expected that more than one set of dimensions would be necessary to describe the way teachers think and behave in classroom situations. This view would support the use of instruments like the TPQ to identify how teachers differ in their goal orientations. Regarding the third question; 'traditionalism" and "progressiv- ism" may be the two pervasive; underlying psychological orientations 21 held by humans; and it is these orientations that continue to surface because they serve to organize the more specific attitude systems that were earlier identified. EII' l -B I . B ] I. I. Knowledge of teacher attitudes is of little value unless these attitudes are related to teacher behaviors and subsequently to student outcomes. Can attitudes be used to predict behavior? In most studies on teacher attitude there is an assumption that teachers' beliefs regarding education will influence teacher behaviors in the classroom. A second assumption is that teachers' classroom behavior will have an effect on the academic and social development of students (Wolfe & Engel; 1978). In their review of empirical research on attitude-behavior relationships; Ajzen and Fishbein (1977) reported that many negative findings and nonsignificant relationships between attitudinal predic- tors and behavioral criteria have been accumulating for 50 years. These prominent social psychologists did conclude; however; that although a person's attitude may not predict any single action (behav- ior); it certainly influences the overall pattern of responses to an object. They pointed to a missing link; namely "intention;" as a primary cause of nonsignificant relationships between attitudes and behaviors. According to their analysis; a single behavior is deter- mined by a person's intentinn to perform the behavior. Thus; the link is one of attitude-intention-behavior. 22 In their review of research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts; judgments; decisions; and behavior; Shavelson and Stern (1981) cited numerous studies showing a definite link between teacher attitudes; intentions; and behavior and the effects of teacher behavior on student achievement. The empirical link between teacher attitudes and teacher behavior has also been strengthened through research focusing on teacher expectations (Bunting; 1981). For example; Harvey; Prather; White; and Hoffmeister (1968) identified a bipolar dimension of teacher belief called "concrete-abstractfl' The concrete pole represents a fixed; authoritarian attitude; while the abstract pole reflects a tolerant; flexible attitude. They found that behaviors of the two teacher "types" varied considerably; with the behavior of the "abstract" teachers being in a direction usually considered educa- tionally desirable. Ekstrom (1976) also found a systematic rela- tionship between teacher attitude scores and identifiable teaching behaviors. Halperin (1976) investigated the goals of 13 first-grade teachers and how these were behaviorally translated to students over the course of a school year. Her study indicated that teachers with different goals behaved differently in the classroom. Also; these differences seemed to affect students' perceptions of school. Rose and Medway (1981) developed a Teacher Locus of Control Scale (TLC) and found significant associations between teachers' TLC scores and class- room behavior variables. 23 But there are instances where teacher behaviors seem inconsis- tent with a teacher's professed belief system. Kremer (l978) hypothe- sized that when teacher behavior is at variance with teacher attitude; it is because teacher attitude is not congruent with teacher personal- ity traits. The personality trait he studied was closed-mindedness versus open-mindedness as measured by Rokeach's Dognatism Scale. Although he believed that the traditional and progressive attitudes toward education should correspond with closed-mindedness and open- mindedness; respectively; he discovered a few "closed—minded" teachers who professed progressive attitudes. Most of these "pseudoprogres- sives" exhibited classroom behaviors inconsistent with what was expected from progressive teachers. Kremer (l978) believed that teacher behavior is highly predictable if one has knowledge of teacher attitudes and personality traits. Attitude_flhange There is overwhelming support for the proposition that atti- tudes change as people encounter and adjust to their environments. However; there is much disagreement regarding the mechanism for change. Insko (1967) cited a variety of prominent theories that attempt to describe the mechanism. Some of these are: Sherif and Hoveland's Assimilation-Contrast theory; Helson's Adaptation-Level theory; McGuire's Logical-Affective Consistency theory; Osgood and Tannenbaum's Congruity theory; Rokeach's Belief Congruence theory; Festinger's Dissonance theory; Sarnoff's Psychoanalytic theory; and McGuire's Inoculation theory. 24 00 teachers and teacher candidates make significant changes in their belief systems as a result of planned and unplanned factors in their environments? And; if significant changes do occur; do these changes persist over time? This literature review focuses on three arenas in which change is often purported to occur: preservice train- ing (including student teaching); inservice training (workshops for experienced teachers); and the day-to-day experiences of teachers in our schools. . . W 'I" Kremer and Moore (1978) studied 125 first-year female students at a large metropolitan school of teacher training in Israel. The year-long program was designed to make teacher candidates more "pro- gressive" and less "traditional" in their educational orientations They found a statistically significant overall change took place. They also found that the effects of the training were not the same for all students; but varied according to students' personalities. The person- ality traits they studied were open-mindedness and closed-mindedness; as measured by Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale; a test that had been adminis- tered to the students before the year—long training. Students who scored either low on closed-mindedness or high on open-mindedness tended to make significant changes in their orientations. In contrast; there were no significant changes for students high on closed- mindedness or for those low on open-mindedness. 25 Research also exists that indicates that student teachers experience attitude change when placed in a situation in which their educational orientations are at odds with those of their supervising teachers (Yee; 1969) or the school district (Walberg; 1966). Price (1961) and Mahan and Macefield (1978) found that student teachers' attitude change was usually in a conservative direction as somewhat progressive student teachers tended to get placed with more '‘tradi- tional" supervising teachers. However; they did find that student teachers' attitude change can be in a more liberal direction when conservative student teachers are placed with more liberal supervising teachers. Mahan and Macefield stated that "there seems little doubt that the supervising teachers' values and attitudes; expressed vocally and/or concretely presented in their professional conduct; exercise a powerful influence upon the orientation of their student teachers" (p. 13). In a 5—year study; Paschal and Treloar (1979) investigated the stability of teacher dogmatism (openness versus closedness in belief systems) and pupil-control ideology (custodial versus humanistic orientation toward control). They found that in pretraining (third year of college) an educational psychology course made college students more open in their belief systems and more humanistic in their pupil- control ideology. However; by the end of their student-teaching expe- rience most had regressed in the direction of their original scores; and by the end of 3 years of teaching all changes had been obliterated. 26 Thus; it appears that some teacher candidates H.e» open- minded) are amenable to making changes in their educational orienta- tions; but it is questionable how permanent these changes are; especially if the change is in a direction that is contrary to the existing educational mores of the employing school district. Attitude_fihinge_flu£ifl9 I . I . . Many attempts have been made to change teacher attitudes via inservice workshops. In the area of elementary teacher attitudes toward science and science teaching; Hasan and Billek (1975) found no change in teacher attitudes. In a longer workshop (4 weeks); Moore (1975) found a significant change in teacher attitudes; however; the change did not persist beyond 1 year. Gabel and Rubba (1979) used Moore's (1975) instrument to pretest and posttest 36 elementary teachers who participated in a 4-week summer workshop. The posttest revealed a significant change in attitude toward science; but in readministering the instrument 4 months later (mid-November); they found that this change no longer existed. Donlan (1981) investigated the attitudes of 27 teachers who participated in an intensive S-week summer workshop. The participants took the Rotter Internal-External Locus of Control Scale; a 26-item; forced-choice questionnaire; to determine locus of control before participating. Results of this study indicated that teachers scoring high on internal locus of control showed significantly more positive 27 attitudes toward inservice education than did teachers with an external locus of control. Nicholson and Tracy (1982) examined the influence a principal might have on a teachefls attitude toward curricular change and willingness to implement the change. They found that the following variables were neither significantly related to teacher attitude regarding curricular change nor teacher willingness to implement the change: teacher sex; race; educational level; length of teaching experience; and grade level taught. Those variables that significantly related to teacher attitude toward change were: teacher sense of participation and power; principal viewed as instructional leader; teacher age (younger teachers were more positive); principal's clarity of role and knowledge of the change; and principal age (the older the better). Of these five variables; only the first and the second were significantly related to teacher willingness to implement curricular change. EII'I I CI 11' Wares Fuller's (1969) "concern theory" of teacher change is one in which she hypothesized that teachers move through three attitude phases (stages of concern) as teaching experience is gained. She provided enpirical evidence to support the notion that inexperienced teachers exhibit a high degree of self-concern; that is; they are very concerned about how they are perceived by students; colleagues; administrators; and parents. As experience is gained; this self-concern of stage one 28 decreases and concern for instructional tasks and discipline increases. In the third stage; these task concerns diminish and the teacher's primary concern becomes centered on the effect he/she has on students' academic and social growth and well-being. Adams (1982) did a partial replication of Fuller's "concern theoryfl' He engaged in a longitudinal study in which he collected data from participating teachers at four points: student teaching; and near the end of the first; third; and fifth years of teaching. His findings supported only the first part of Fuller's concern theory; that is; teacher self-concern decreased across experience levels; and instruc- tional task concerns tended to increase across the same levels. His data indicated that academic-effect concerns were highest of all concerns; and this did not change across experience levels Lipka and Goulet (1979) investigated whether teacher attitudes toward the profession change with age and/or the amount of professional experience accumulated by the teachers. A Likert-type scale was used; and teachers were asked to rate the importance of such factors as economic rewards; prestige; job security; opportunities for creativity; sense of fulfillment; and meeting of altruistic needs. They discovered that attitudinal differences were nonexistent among the age groups with the exception of some differences in first-year teachers. From the above; it appears that in addition to socializing students; the enterprise of education also shapes and socializes teach- ers. Thus; any changes brought about by external staff-development workshops tend to disappear unless there is continued support for the 29 change within the daily environment of the teacher. Research evidence has seemed to support the idea that certain teacher characteristics (internal locus of control; open belief system; and teacher age) are associated with capacity for change. It is also quite possible that for any change to have permanence it must take place over a long period of time (4- and 5—week workshops were ineffectiveh Therefore; it may be that the best environment for change is the individual school build- ing; with a respected and knowledgeable administrator as the primary change agent. Summary It is of course impossible; in a review of this type; to be totally inclusive. The research reviewed here indicated that although there is much information available concerning teacher attitudes; we are still a long way from fully understanding how these attitudes are developed; how they affect subsequent teacher behavior; and what environmental factors are most closely associated with change in atti- tudes. In the present study it is hoped that through a quantitative and qualitative analysis of data; gathered over time; and in several forms; the relationships between environmental factors and attitude change will become somewhat more clear. G-(APTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Bopulatimandfimpje The target population for this study was all 120 third- and fourth-grade teachers employed by a large; urban; midwestern school district during the 1981-1982 school year. This population was originally targeted by the Socialization Outcomes Project (described earlier in this reportx These teachers were mailed the instrumenta- tion used in the present study during May 1982; 1983; and 1984. Of the original 120 teachers in the target population; 108 responded in 1982; 80 in 1983; and 88 in 1984. Seventy-four of the teachers responded all 3 years; it is these 74 teachers who made up the sample for this study. This sample was very homogeneous: 64 were female; 10 were male; most were highly experienced; and most had considerable training beyond the bachelor's degree (see Table 1). Neither teacher age nor ethnicity was ascertained. Instnumentatjnn I I E . 'I' D . . (IEO) This questionnaire was developed by members of the Socialization Outcomes research project at Michigan State University's Institute for Research on Teaching (IRT). The purpose of the instrument is to assess 3O 31 the relative emphasis teachers place on three common classroom goals One common goal is the learning of subject matter; or "contentfl' A second goal is "academic responsibility;" or getting students to learn how to adapt to the various task-related demands of classroom life. The third goal is the development of "social responsibility;" that is; teaching students the interpersonal skills that enable them to function effectively within the classroom group. Table 1: Teaching Experience and Educational Background of Sample (1982) Years of Number of Educational Number of Experience Teachers Background Teachers 0— 3 0 4— 6 3 Bachelor's degree 0 7- 9 7 10-12 11 Bachelor's degree + 13-15 19 additional credits 16 16-18 11 19-21 6 Master's degree 39 22—24 7 25-27 3 Master's degree + 17 28-30 4 additional credits 31-33 2 34-36 1 Doctoral degree 0 The TPQ consists of 30 forced-choice items. Eight of these items serve as distractors; in other words; their only function is to pre- vent (or slow) the respondents' identification of the purpose of the 32 questionnaire. For each of the remaining 22 items; subjects must select one of three given response alternatives as being most prefer- able; or most representative of the subject's own goal orientation. Selection of one alternative indicates a preference for students' academic growth; the selection of a second alternative indicates a preference for students' interpersonal growth; while the selection of a third alternative indicates that students' adaptation to classroom task demands is of highest priority for the respondent. A sample item follows: Which of the following is most essential to successful teaching at the elementary school level? a. ability to communicate knowledge at a level that students understand b. ability to create a cooperative atmosphere in the classroom c. ability to foster student initiative in responding promptly and accurately to work assignments A composite of the scores a teacher receives on these three scales (content; adaptation to task demands; and interpersonal adjust- ment) is used as a measure of his/her professed overall priority system or goal orientation in the classroom. A complete copy of the TPQ is located in Appendix A. £Em§lgpm§nt_gi_tne;flfll The Socialization Outcomes research team wanted an instrument that would identify the degree to which a teacher professed having each of the three goal orientations discussed above. A literature search was conducted to locate existing instru- ments that assessed teacher beliefs; values; or goal orientations. 33 Because none was found that adequately served the teanfls purpose; the research team decided to develop its own instrument. A pool of multiple-choice items was generated for possible inclusion in a ques- tionnaire. Several sources were very helpful in the generation of items; especially the transcripts of teacher interviews conducted by the IRTls Affective Outcomes Project. This project was carried out in the 2 years before the commencement of the Socialization Outcomes Project and was a driving force in the initial development of the Socialization Outcomes Project. The interview protocols of Lortie (1975) and Bussis; Chittenden; and Amarel (1976) were also valuable sources of item stems and alternative responses. The TRI was piloted in three stages. First; an initial draft consisting of 65 items was administered to four elementary school teachers; all of whom were affiliated with the IRT. These teachers provided detailed feedback regarding the clarity of written instruc- tions and of each of the 65 items. They also critiqued the plausibil- ity of each response alternative. Based on this feedback; many items were revised to improve clarity and plausibility. In the second stage of piloting; the revised questionnaire; still consisting of 65 items; was administered to 40 teachers in two graduate-level; off—campus education classes. This sample was quite diverse; including both elementary and junior high school teachers The author of this report conducted an extensive item analysis using the results of this second pilot test. Indices of difficulty and discrimination were computed for each item and used to revise or 34 delete items. This resulted in an instrument composed of only 27 items; each of which appeared to have high discriminating power. Many of the 27 items in the revised instrument appeared highly similar; this was to be expected as; essentially; the same question was being asked in 27 slightly different ways. In an attempt to prevent respondents from realizing this and thus identifying immedi— ately the purpose of the questionnaire; eight distracting items were generated for inclusion in the questionnaire (see Items 1; 4; 8; 14; 15; 18; 20; and 23; Appendix A). These were interspersed among the "real" items to make it appear as though the questionnaire was a survey of teacher attitudes regarding a variety of issues; not just one. In the third stage of piloting; the revised 27-item TPQ was administered to a sample of 24 third-; fourth-; and fifth-grade teachers in a suburban school district. An extensive item analysis was again used to further revise or delete items. Five of the 27 items were subsequently deleted; resulting in the 22-item (plus eight distractors) TRl used in the current study. Internal-consistency estimates were also computed for each of the three scales embedded in the TPQ (content; task demands; and interper— sonal). These reliability estimates (Cronbach's alpha) were 0.73; 0.84; and 0.90 for the content; task demands; and interpersonal scales; respectively. (For more details regarding the development of the TPQ; see Prawat et al.; 1983.) 35 Ihe_ELQhlems_in_SchQle_Que§Iianai£e This instrument is used to assess teachers' orientations toward using control versus granting autonomy as a technique for dealing with problem situations that commonly occur in schools (Deci et al.; 1981L The Problems in Schools Questionnaire contains eight short vignettes describing typical school—related problem situations. Teachers who complete this questionnaire are asked to study each vignette along with four alternative solutions; or possible ways of dealing with the problem situation. These four behavioral options; or solutions; rep- resent four points along a continuum from highly controlling behavior to highly autonomy-granting behavior on the part of the responding teacher. A 'highly controlling" (HC) solution is one in which the teacher makes a decision about how to deal with the problem and then uses restrictive measures (sanctions) to ensure that the solution is implemented. In the Wnoderately controlling" (MC) solution; the teacher makes the decision and then attempts to get the child to implement it by invoking feelings of guilt in the child or by empha- sizing that the child should do something for his/her own good. A third solution; one that is categorized as Wuoderately autonomous" (MA); is one in which the teacher encourages the child to look at what other students are doing as a means of solving the problem. In the fourth means of solving the problem; the "highly autonomous" (HA) approach; the teacher encourages the student to analyze the problem and then to devise his/her own solution. The following is an example 36 of one of the vignettes; along with its four alternative solutions. The HC; MC; MA; or HA appearing before the response alternative iden— tifies the subscale to which it belongs. Jim is an average student who has been working at grade level. During the past two weeks he has appeared listless and has not been participating during reading group. The work he does is accurate but he has not been completing assignments. A phone conversation with his mother revealed no useful information. The most appropriate thing for Jim's teacher to do is: (MC) 1. She should impress upon him the importance of finishing his assignments since he needs to learn this material for his own good. (HA) 2. Let him know that he doesn't have to finish all of his work now and see if she can help him work out the cause of the listlessness. (HC) 3. Make him stay after school until the day's assignments are done. (MA) 4. Let him see how he compares with the other children in terms of his assignments and encourage him to catch up with the others. For each of the eight vignettes; responding teachers rate the appropriateness of each of the four behavioral options (solutions) on a scale of 1 (highly inappropriate) to 7 (highly appropriate). Thus; the respondent evaluates a total of eight highly controlling; eight moderately controlling; eight moderately autonomous; and eight highly autonomous solutions The psychometric properties of the Problems in Schools Question- naire are quite good and are fully reported elsewhere (see Deci et al.; 1981). Briefly; the internal-consistency estimates (Cronbach's alpha) obtained for the HC; MC; MA; and HA subscales were 0:70; 0.69; 37 0.63; and 0.76; respectively. Also; if the four subscales truly represent points along a continuum; then a given subscale should correlate more strongly with adjacent subscales than with distant ones. One should also expect negative correlations between the highly controlling and highly autonomous subscales. The work of Deci et al. (1981) confirms these expectations. DflIa_CQllesilnn This investigation used two primary sources of data: question- naires (TR) and the Problems in Schools Questionnaire); which were administered on four occasions during a 5-year period; and teacher interviews; which took place after the last questionnaire administra- tion. 9 . . I . II D . . The author of this report assumed primary responsibility for distribution and collection during each administration of the instru- ments. In May 1982; the TPQ and the Problems in Schools Questionnaire were mailed to all third- and fourth-grade teachers in the targeted school district. If a teacher chose to respond; he/she was to return the completed questionnaire to the building secretary. Responding teachers would subsequently receive an honorarium of $10 from the IRT. One hundred eight of the original target population (120 teachers) responded. One year later; each respondent still teaching in the school district (100 of the 108) was again asked to respond to the two 38 questionnaires. For this administration ten additional items were added to the TRl. These items (see Items 31 through 40; Appendix A) were designed to identify recent changes in each teacheris environment that might account for a change in goal orientation. It was thought that graduate studies; changes in teaching assignment (grade level or building change); behavior of students; and supportiveness of parents might influence teacher goal orientations Question 40 was open ended; asking teachers to describe recent significant experiences that might have affected their attitudes about teaching One year later (May 1984); the questionnaires (along with the ten additional items accompanying the TPQ) were readministered to the same teachers. Eighty-eight teachers responded to this third administra- tion. For all three administrations; data-collection procedures were essentially identical; and in each case respondents received the $10 honorarium. In Spring 1986; the questionnaires (TRI and Problems in Schools Questionnaire) were administered to 20 teachers from the original sample. Five of these teachers had exhibited the greatest stability in their goal orientations on the 1982; 1983; and 1984 administrations of the questionnaires. The other 15 exhibited major shifts in goal orientations between the 1982 and 1983 administrations of the ques- tionnaire. One purpose for this final administration of the question- naires was to assess to what degree the changes in goal orientation persisted over time. A second purpose was to identify which environ- mental factors and personal characteristics seemed to be associated 39 with stability in goal orientations and which seemed to be associated with major shifts in goal orientations. leacneLIntemLisns Following the fourth administration of the questionnaires; telephone interviews were conducted with the 15 teachers who showed the greatest shift in goal orientation. The primary purpose was to gain further insight regarding the causes of major shifts in goal orientation. Interviews followed a commonly structured format both in tenns of sequence and questions asked. However; specific probes varied in response to the uniqueness of each teacher's responses. Before telephoning a teacher; the teacher's four TFQ profiles (1982; 1983; 1984; and 1986) were studied. In addition; demographic data (grade level taught; building; supervisor; years of teaching experi- ence; amount of education; and so on); as well as answers to Questions 31 through 40 of the TPQ; were studied in an attempt to generate a complete profile of the teacher during the 1982 to 1986 time interval. Each telephone interview commenced with an expression of appre- ciation for responding to the questionnaire and an inquiry as to whether the teacher was willing to spend 15 minutes discussing the TPQ results. Every teacher was very willing to do this. A debriefing session followed; during which the teacher was told the purpose of the TPQ and given descriptions of the common goal orientations (content; task demands; and interpersonalL This was followed by an attempt to help the teacher recall the setting in which he/she had taught during the 1981-1982 school year. Once oriented to that year; the relevant 40 TPQ profile (May 1982) was described. The subject was then asked if he/she felt it was an accurate indicator of his/her goal orientation at that time and; if not; what would have been a more accurate description. The teacher was then oriented to his/her teaching posi- tion for the following year (1982-1983); including any changes that had taken place in teaching assignment. The new TFQ profile (May 1983) was presented; and the teacher was asked if he/she knew why he/she had made such a major shift in orientation. Whether a teacher was able to identify causes or not; probes were then made to determine if certain factors in the environment had contributed in any way to the change in goal orientation. These probes were based on teachers' responses to Items 31 through 40 of the TTO.(professional development; change in grade level; change in administration; change in building; change in quality of students; and so on). In addition; teachers were asked if they felt their goal orientations had been influenced in any way by the primacy of a goal established by a new superintendent of schools who had been hired during the time interval between the 1982 and 1983 administrations of the TPQ. This administrator was very emphatic about establishing as the number-one districtwide priority an increase of at least 10% in student scores on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAPL Teachers were also asked if societal pressures; the mass media; and the Commission on Excellence in Educa- tion had had any influence on their goal orientations. 41 The interview proceeded in a similar fashion for the 1984 and 1986 administrations of the TPQ. First the context for the school year was established; then the teacher's relevant TPQ profile was described; and finally; if there had been a shift in TRI profile; probes were made to determine the causes for change. All interviews were conducted by the author of this report. Dur- ing each interview; careful notes were taken on all relevant informa- tion. At the conclusion of the interview; these notes were read back to the teacher to verify their accuracy. In every case; the teacher confirmed the accuracy of the intervieweris notes. A complete copy of the teacher interview schedule is found in Appendix B. 8W 1. How stable are teacher goal orientations? This question is asked because it is important to determine the degree to which changes in goal orientation are feasible. The primary implication is that if goal orientations are essentially fixed and turn out to be related to teacher effectiveness; teacher training centers may want to use the goal orientations of teacher candidates as one criterion in the selec- tion process 2. How lasting are the shifts that do occur in teacher goal orientation? If changing a teachefls (or teacher candidates) goal orientation is important; then the permanence of the change is also important. The research literature seems to indicate that many changes of this type are only temporary (Gabel & Rubba; 1979; Moore; 1975L Therefore; it is important to determine what kinds and/or 42 lengths of experience are associated with goal-orientation shifts that are relatively permanent 3. What personal factors are associated with goal-orientation stability? Does educational background; years of teaching experience; or gender of a teacher relate in any way to shifts in goal orienta- tion? Answers to these questions may help determine the wisdom of investing time; money; and energy trying to change the goal orienta- tions of a certain group of teachers. 4. What environmental factors are associated with goal- orientation stability? For example; does a change in building prin- cipal create a shift in teacher goal orientation? Does a change in teaching assignment bring about a shift in goal orientation? Are shifts in goal orientation associated with teacher participation in workshops; inservice training; or university coursework? Is a change in central administration likely to influence goal orientation? For example; in the school district in which this study was based; a new superintendent was hired during the time period between the first and second adminsitrations of the questionnaires. He established that a 10% increase in student MEAP scores would become the primary instruc- tional goal of the school district. Did this pronouncement create a districtwide shift in teacher goal orientation? These questions are of great interest to teacher trainers; teacher supervisors; school administrators; and others interested in influencing teacher thinking. 5. Is the stability of teacher goal orientation related to the control-autonomy dimension tapped by the Deci et a1. (1981) Problems 43 in Schools Questionnaire? In other words; does a teachefls position along the control-autonomy continuum predict the teacher's goal- orientation stability? This question is important because if one type of teacher (e.g; controlling) is highly resistant to change; this knowledge can be used to determine the utility of investing time; money; and energy trying to change those teachers Data_Anal¥sis The data analyzed in the study came from the following sources: 1. The responses of 74 teachers to the May 1982 administration of the two questionnaires 2. The responses of 74 teachers to the May 1983 administration of the two questionnaires. 3. The responses of 74 teachers to the May 1984 administration of the two questionnaires. 4. The responses of 20 teachers (5 very stable; 15 showing major shifts in goal orientation) to the June 1986 administration of the questionnaires. 5. Interview data (July 1986) from 15 teachers who made major shifts in goal orientation. Research Questions 1 and 2 deal with the overall stability of goal orientation for the sample of 74 teachers; and the permanence of the goal-orientation shifts when they occurred. For these questions the stability of a teachefls goal orientation from one testing to the next was quantified in the following manner: Sum the differences 44 between the three sets of scale scores and divide that sum by two. This quotient; which hereafter is called a change index; represented the net shift in number of items on the TPQ. For example: JEKZI 1251 fiifliiL .Qnange D. ID IE D. ID IE D. ID IE Teacher A: 3 18 l 5 15 2 2 + 3 + 1 6 6 1 2 = 3 Teacher B: 5 7 10 0 12 10 5 + 5 + O = 10 10 e 2 = 5 Teacher A had a change index of 3; representing a net shift of three items (three away from TD: two went to content; one to interper- sonal). Teacher B showed a net shift of five items (five away from content; all five went to task demands). Therefore; the higher the change index the greater the shift in goal orientation. Maximum stability would; of course; be represented by a score of 0. Note that the change index indicates the magnitude but not the direction of the change in goal orientation. Four change indices were computed for each teacher: one for the change that occurred between May 1982 and May 1983; a second for the change between May 1983 and May 1984; a third for the overall change between May 1982 and May 1984; and a fourth; called the variability index; which is the sum of the first two indices. Interview data were used to identify those environmental factors that seemed to be asso- ciated with goal-orientation shifts that persisted and those shifts that were only temporary. 45 Test-retest reliabilities were computed to determine the degree of correlation between the 1982 and 1983 scale scores; between the 1983 and 1984 scale scores; and between the 1982 and 1984 scale scores. Internal consistency estimates (coefficient alpha) were also computed for the scale scores of each test administration and subse- quently compared to the test-retest reliabilities in order to better assess the degree of goal-orientation stability. Research Question 3 raises the issue of relationships between changes in teaching environment and change in goal orientation. Statistical correlations were run to see if the environmental changes identified by teacher responses to Items 31 through 39 of the TPQ for a given year correlated with concurrent change indices. Teacher responses to TPQ Item 40 and teacher interview data were analyzed in a more qualitative fashion to assess the factors that these teachers specified as causes of major shifts in their goal orientations. Regarding Research Questions 4 and 5; statistical correlations were computed to determine if any of the following factors correlated with the TPQ change indices: gender; grade level taught; years of teaching experience; level of formal education attained; and total autonomy score on the Problems in Schools Questionnaire. Interview data were qualitatively analyzed to assess whether any trends existed that might suggest some tentative answers and meaningful avenues for further study. The results of these and other previously mentioned analyses are presented in the next chapter of this report. GMHERIV RESULTS Data were gathered to find answers to the five questions of interest in this study. In this chapter; each question will be presented; together with pertinent data and analyses of these data. Overall; teacher goal orientations appear to be relatively stable. Although most teachers exhibited some year-to-year shifting in their TRQ profiles; very few made major shifts. Table 2 illus- trates this by showing the numbers of teachers who exhibited the various change indices. The change index for a teacher was computed by summing the changes in the three scale scores of the TPQ and divid- ing that sum by two. This quotient represents the net shift (maximum = 22) in number of items on the TPQ. Of those few teachers who made major shifts in goal orientation; most (12 out of 15) eventually reverted to their original goal orientations. These reversions can be viewed as supportive evidence for the stableness of teacher goal orientation. Data on these reversions will be presented in response to Question 2 later in this chapter. Another piece of evidence supporting the contention of stability of goal orientation is as follows. Those teachers with the most 46 ited the Various Change Indices Frequency Data Relating to the Number of Teachers Who Exhi Table 2 a) > 4-! 00 (UN - - -— 0C) :5 E 3 U 00 N no 00 (n i. <1) .Cl UMJ moooo (DOWOW |—;—-;— CO l+——>~>~ 0mm 22 0 Z 0 > 4—4 00 (“N I o .— OO 3 E 3 U 00 N on 00 m 1. 0.) .CI UNM (DCDCD (venom 1—-—— oo H—>~>~ 0mm 22 0 Z A xm CUE '00) cu N— QU- NN 0'10 C (a. .CO 02 V CO 00 OO 00 o: o;— 0:? O— 117 OJJJfNNQ—NJNMQQDMO O;— O: o;— (Du—- 4‘41: __ CO CO CO ——-——NN\OCD\CwM-— JM 0 MN ““0me oooqo—J—Nm—momm COO—O‘TI—QDNJ'WMMQN .—;— ;—N OOO—OM—Om—KOONNN t—F—w—wNQNLfiNmNLfiKD iixooooo—mxochmoooo -—NNMM~TI\O\C\ NONfNJf—xNQMM— NON—NmmJON04Tow NONI—NJJMle—hwmw— 100.0 1.4 OO‘mNQLfl‘TMN—O Total 48 "clear-cut" goal orientations; that is; those who reported a strong preference for just one type of goal (content; task demands; 9: inter- personal); were found to maintain their preferred goal orientations throughout the course of this study. As can be seen in Table 3; the eight teachers in the sample of 74 who had the most clear-cut orienta- tions all maintained their goal preferences; with three of the teachers (Nos. 56; 80; and 70) moving in the direction of even greater prefer- ence for their chosen goal type. Table 3: Profiles of Teachers Having the Most Clear-Cut Goal Preferences Teacher May 1982 May 1983 May 1984 May 1982 May 1984 Number C TD IP C TD IP C TD IP Preference Preference 86 22 0 0 l7 3 2 21 0 1 Content Content 101 0 0 22 2 5 15 O O 22 Interpersonal Interpersonal 47 0 O 22 0 0 22 5 1 l6 Interpersonal Interpersonal 78 1 0 21 2 2 18 7 3 12 Interpersonal Interpersonal 56 2 1 19 1 1 20 O 0 22 Interpersonal Interpersonal 80 2 2 l8 5 5 12 0 l 21 Interpersonal Interpersonal 70 2 2 18 4 l 17 0 l 21 Interpersonal Interpersonal l4 3 18 l 6 l6 0 9 12 1 Task demands Task demands Table 4 presents the overall stability (test-retest reliability) of the scale scores. The figures in the column on the right (0.623; 0.618; and 0.731) represent a relatively high degree of stability considering the 2-year time interval between test administrations. Note that there is lower test-retest reliability between the 1982 and 1983 scores (0.576; 0.456; and 0.730) than there is between the 1983 49 and 1984 scale scores (0.807; 0.679; and 0.771). Although it is sheer speculation; it may be that the newly hired superintendent's goal of a substantial increase in student scores on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program created the higher degree of instability during the 1982-83 school year. Another possible explanation for the increased stability between the 1983 and 1984 scores might be that with repeated testing the memory effects became greater; thus the apparent increase in stability is actually increased error due to memory effects. Table 4: Stability of Scale Scores: Test-Retest Reliability May 1982 to May 1983 to May 1982 to Scale May 1983 May 1984 May 1984 Content 0.576 0.807 0.623 Task demands 0.456 0.679 0.618 Interpersonal 0.730 0.771 0.731 The test-retest reliability appears to be somewhat greater in the interpersonal scale than in either the content scale or the task demands scale. The same trend can be seen in the internal consistency estimates (coefficient alpha) found in Table 5. While it may be diffi- cult to assess the reasons for the differences among the three scales; it may be that teachers tend to feel more strongly (either positive or negative) toward interpersonal goals. Note that back in Table 3; six of the eight "clear-cut" preferred interpersonal goals and maintained that preference throughout the study. 50 Table 5: Internal Consistency Estimates: Coefficient Alpha Scale May 1982 May 1983 May 1984 Average Content 0.832 0.832 0.847 0.837 Task demands 0.784 0.823 0.844 0.817 Interpersonal 0.914 0.920 0.943 0.926 Table 6 lists the 1982 to 1984 test-retest reliabilities found in the right-hand column of Table 4; together with the average internal consistency estimates found in the right-hand column of Table 5. Although reasonable people might interpret these data differently; this writer believes that the 1982 to 1984 test-retest reliabilities are sufficiently close to the average internal consistency estimates to warrant using these data as further evidence in support of stability of teacher goal orientation. Table 6: Comparison of Test-Retest Reliability to Internal Consistency Estimates 1982 to 1984 Test- Internal Scale Retest Reliability Consistency Difference Content 0.623 0.837 0.214 Task demands 0.618 0.817 0.198 Interpersonal 0.731 0.926 0.195 51 In summary; the frequency distribution of teacher change indices (Table 2); the stability of the profiles of teachers having clear-cut goal orientations (Table 3); the relatively high degree of test-retest reliability (Table 4); together with the fact that these reliabilities are quite close to the internal consistency estimates (Table 6) all point to the conclusion that teacher goal orientation is a relatively stable construct. WW 'II l'll'? Fifteen teachers who made main: shifts in goal orientation between May 1982 and May 1983 were administered the questionnaire in June 1986 (also May 1984) to determine if the changes persisted over time. Table 7 presents the 1982; 1983; 1984; and 1986 profiles for each of the 15 teachers. It appears that five of the teachers (the first five listed) exhibited a relatively high degree of pennanence in their new orientations. In other words; their 1986 profiles continued to differ from the original 1982 profiles by at least eight items (see right—hand column of Table 7). The eight teachers at the bottom of the table appear to have shown very little permanence in the original change. Their 1986 profiles appear quite similar to those they originally held in 1982; with all eight teachers showing a preference for the same goal orientation they preferred in 1982. Interviews were conducted with the 15 teachers to detenmine what events and experiences contributed to the goal-orientation shifts. One of the purposes of the interviews was to detenmine what kinds and .uc_;m mwm_ i Nam. _m:_m_ro may to “was ou_moaao co_uuac_e m :_ mm; mam. :_ uc_;m seem mmEou_ ANIV .chmcoacouc_ 01mim_ minim m_1m-: N1N1m_ w m— mmEou_ A_-v _mcomcoacouc_ N_;m1_ mnmnm m;w1__ __;N;: w: :_ mmEou_ A_1V _mcomcoacouc_ o;N_;o_ m-o_;m w_1_;m _-__uo_ o: m_ mEou_ N acouEOU Ono—1N. N;N_-w cum—1: o:w;:_ mm N— mEou_ N acoucoU _1N;:_ o;__;__ _1N_;m oumum_ mm __ mEou_ N acoucou _;m;N_ o-m;m. o;mIN_ :iwuo_ o_ o. msou_ N acoucou mic—1N N1w1N_ _1N;m_ m1:_1m mm m mEou_ m mncweov xmmh m_1m1m m;o_-m mic—1: m_;_-m No_ w meao_ e .mcomtaaranc_ N-w-N s-m-m_ m-N-o_ m_-m-s : N we mEou_ o mvcmeou xmmk _;m_1w sum—1m :;N_-_ o_1m-m m m mEou_ m mucmeov xmmh aim—1m _1m_1w N;N_;m m_1m1: m. m memes N. _mc0mcoacuuc_ _;N_;m cum—1m m1N_1N m_;:-m om : meou_ N_ acoucou _1_-oN ow_1_N N1010N m1__;w mN m mEou_ m_ _mcomcoacouc_ o;m_1N Ono—1o ale—1m m_-m1N mN N mEou_ :_ acoucou N;m_;: elm—1m o-w_1: 01:1m_ _o _ mmm. ; Nmm_ mwm_ + Nmm_ .02 6—mom umch c_ omcmcu umoumocw mmm. :wm_ mwm_ Nwm_ cocoons xcmm omcmcu __mco>o mcmzoxm o_mom comumuco_co .mom c_ omcmco so mucoum_mcom "m o_nmh 53 lengths of experience might be related to permanence in goal- orientation shifts. Eight of the 15 teachers cited year-to—year changes in the characteristics of their students as the primary cause of the shift in goal orientation. Five of the eight teachers indicated they had been given classes with many discipline problems; one teacher had been given his best class in years; one had been given an "impos- sible" class due its size (36 students); and another had been given an assignment in special education. Of the remaining seven teachers; one was unable to identify a cause for his goal-orientation shift. Each of the other six cited a different factor as the primary cause of goal-orientation shift. These were: pressure from a colleague; influence of a student teacher; change in attitude resulting from university coursework; the educa- tional experiences of high school- and university-age sons; emotional stress resulting from a personal problem; and the influence of in- service training workshops regarding the "effective schools." Table 8 lists the 15 teachers according to the apparent permanence in their goal-orientation shifts; along with the teachers' explanations for what caused the shift. The most frequently mentioned cause; characteristics of students; does not appear to be associated with permanence in goal-orientation shifts. Although the response of Teacher 50 (ranked 4th) seems to contradict this; during the interview this teacher indicated that it was a "very difficult" class in 1982; which caused her profile for that year (preference for interpersonal) to be different from her r—w— 54 normal profile (preference for tasks-demands goals). Therefore; what appeared to be a shift to a new profile in 1983 was simply a reversion to an original (pre-1982) profile. Table 8: Persistence of Change in Goal Orientation Compared to Cause of Change Rank Teacher ID No. Primary Cause 1 61 Pressure from a teaching colleague 2 29 High school and university experiences of sons 3 28 In—service training on effective schools 4 50 Characteristics of students 5 19 Emotional stress from a personal/legal problem 6 9 Experiences with a student teacher 7 4 Characteristics of students 8 107 Characteristics of students 9 93 University coursework 10 10 Unknown 11 37 Characteristics of students 12 87 Characteristics of students 13 40 Characteristics of students 14 48 Characteristics of students 15 8 University coursework 55 Teacher 19 (ranked 5th) also indicated that her 1982 profile was an aberration due to a personal emotional problem she was having during that school year. Therefore; her change in goal orientation between May 1982 and May 1983 was also a reversion to her pre—l982 profile. Because these teachers (ranked 4th and 5th) were simply reverting to prior "stable" profiles; and because by 1986 the teachers ranked 8th through 15th had all reverted to their 1982 orientations; it is only the teachers ranked lst; 2nd; 3rd; and possibly 6th who might provide answers to what kinds of experiences cause permanent change in goal orientation. Teacher 61 (ranked lst) showed a dramatic shift from preferring content goals in 1982 (18-4-0) to preferring task-demands goals in 1983 (4—18-0). When first asked about this; she had no idea why the change occurred. She believed that the 1983; 1984 (3-19-0); and 1985 (4-16-2) profiles were very representative of her feelings but was not sure why she would have been expressing such an interest in content goals before 1983. It was much later in the interview while responding to a question about the Michigan Educational Assessment Program that she suddenly realized why her 1982 profile showed a "content" orientation. As a third-grade teacher she had been especially sensitive to the complaints of a fourth-grade teacher regarding the lack of math and reading skills held by incoming fourth- grade students. Because of this she concentrated her efforts on teaching math and reading skills; and in May 1982 her responses to the 56 TPQ showed this priority (18-4-0). When she returned to her job in September 1982; she discovered that the fourth-grade teacher had retired. No longer feeling pressure from fourth-grade teachers to concentrate on preparing her third-grade students for fourth-grade math and reading; her "true" priority emerged; and in May 1983 her responses to the THO indicated a preference for task-demands goals (4—18—0). She maintained this priority during the 1984 (3-19-0) and 1986 (4-16-2) testings. Teacher 29 (ranked 2nd) had 16 years of teaching experience before her 1982 profile; which indicated her preference for interper- sonal goals (2-7-13). While being interviewed; she mentioned that some of this emphasis was a result of the priority placed on affective education during the time the school district was becoming racially integrated. She believed that the primary reason she shifted her priorities to an emphasis on task demands in 1983 (8-10-4); 1984 (6-16-0); and 1986 (7-15-0) was the experience one of her sons was having at a large university. He enrolled at the university during the 1982-83 school year and experienced much difficulty adapting to the academic demands. At about the same time; another son started experiencing difficulty fulfilling teachers' expectations in his high school classrooms. She said this made it very clear to her that academic preparation was a very important responsibility for elementary school teachers; and that is why she made and had maintained the shift to a task-demands orientation. 57 Teacher 28 (ranked 3rd) had 15 years of experience before responding to the 1982 administration of the TRI. Her 1982 profile (8-11-3) indicated she had a slight preference for task demands. Her profiles in 1983 (20—0—2); 1984 (21-1-0); and 1986 (20-1-1) indicate she shifted to a very strong content orientation. During the inter- view she expressed surprise when told of her 1982 profile (8-11-3); for she believed she had always held a strong content orientation. About the only thing she could think of which might have affected her goal orientation was her participation in some in-service workshops on effective schools. However; she was not sure if the workshops were held in 1981-82 and caused a temporary shift to task demands; or were held in 1982-83 and caused a permanent shift to content. Teacher 9 (ranked 6th) had 16 years of experience before her May 1982 response to the TPQ. Her 1981-82 profile (3—9-10) showed a slight preference for interpersonal goals. During the 1982-83 school year; a student teacher working in her room for a lO-week period made quite an impact on her. Through discussions with and observations of the student teacher; Teacher 9 became increasingly aware that the students seemed much happier and more productive when teaching was geared to giving them skills and helping them become successful. As a result the teacher started placing less time and emphasis on activi- ties related to affective goals. Her profiles in 1983 (1-17-4); 1984 (3-15-4); and 1986 (6-15-1); when compared to her original profile (3-9-10); are indicative of this shift in emphasis. 58 In summary; in this study; permanence in goal-orientation shift was infrequent; but when it did occur; it was associated with the teacher being exposed to the relatively long-term influence of a significant proximal adult; the examples were a colleague; student teacher; and son in college. Dmmwatmmfiamwmiated 'II ]_ i I I' I ll'l 2 Data on only three personal factors were gathered. These were gender (64 female; 10 male); amount of education (see Table l); and years of teaching experience (see Table 1). Statistical correlations were run to see if these factors correlated with goal-orientation stability. Neither gender nor amount of education significantly correlated with the TPQ change indices. However; there was a statis- tically significant correlation between years of teaching experience and the changes in goal orientation which occurred between May 1982 and May 1983. Contrary to what one might expect; it was the more experienced teachers who were more apt to change their goal orienta- tions. The positive correlation; which was .203; is statistically significant at the .05 level. During the following year; between May 1983 and May 1984; changes in goal orientation did not show a statis- tically significant correlation with teacher experience. However; the relationship was positive; thus showing some support for the signifi- cant findings of the preceding year. 59 WW Statistical correlations were run to determine if relationships existed between responses to Items 31 through 39 of the TRI and concur- rent goal-orientation change indices. There were no significant rela- tionships found for Items 31 (participation in university coursework); 32 (receipt of an advanced degree); 33 (teaching in a different build- ing); 34 (teaching at a different grade level); 35 (having students of a different ability level); 37 (having students with a different level of student skills); 38 (having a different level of support from parents); and 39 (having a student group with a different level of cohesiveness). The only statistically significant correlation occurred with Item 36; which asked: 36. On the average; which class created more discipline problems? a. this year's class b. last year's class c. they were about the same The selection of 36(a.); "this year's class;" had a statistically significant correlation (L = .2267; p < .05) with the changing of one's goal orientation (between May 1982 and May 1983). However; the 1983- 1984 results were nonsignificant. Because of the statistical signifi- cance of the 1982-1983 results; further analysis was conducted to determine if the direction of goal orientation shift might correlate with responses to Item 36. Interview data strongly suggested that teachers faced with severe classroom discipline problems often make major shifts toward an interpersonal goal orientation. A subgroup analysis was conducted on those teachers who scored less than 11 on the 60 interpersonal scale (55 of the 74 teachers in 1982 and 58 of the 74 in 1983). The subgroup (rather than the entire sample) was chosen in an attempt to reduce the influence of "ceiling effect" on the likelihood of finding significant results. Correlations were run to see if responses to Item 36 correlated with change in interpersonal goal orientation. Results showed a positive (0.2006) though nonsignificant (p = .071) correlation between the selection of choice 36(a.) and increased interpersonal orientation in 1983. However; in 1984 there was essentially no correlation (.0305). Based on these data; it would not be wise to predict that a given teacher will shift to a more interper— sonal goal orientation when faced with severe classroom discipline problems. Correlations were also run to see if the grade level being taught was related to propensity to change. Results were nonsig- nificant. Interviews conducted with 15 teachers who showed major goal- orientation shifts between May 1982 and May 1983 shed some light as to what factors teachers identify as affecting their goal orientations. Early in the interview; each teacher was asked what he/she believed to be the primary cause(s) of the goal-orientation shift. If the teacher did not identify student characteristics; building administrators; the district superintendent's goals; the mass media or society; or educa- tional experience of his/her own children as having an influence on goal orientation; near the end of the interview teachers were asked (a) did they feel their goal orientations have been changed by any of 61 these factors; and if not; (b) did they feel these factors could have a future effect? Table 9 represents a summary of their responses. It is evident that change in the characteristics of a classroom group is a major factor in bringing about shifts in goal orientation. There appeared to be a pattern in direction of shift and its cause. Of the eight teachers who attributed their shifts in goal orientations to student characteristics; five shifted to an interpersonal orientation and all indicated their classes were loaded with discipline problems. 0f the two teachers who shifted to a task-demands orientation; one said he had his best class in years; while the other said she had a very large class of 36 students and could only babysit with them. The one teacher who shifted to a content orientation had been given a special education assignment which she disliked very much. She was unable to explain why this new teaching assignment changed her to a content orientation. Ten of the 15 teachers believed that a building administrator could cause them to shift their goal orientations. A very frequent qualification was that it could only happen if they respected the administrator. Two of the teachers added that if a district wanted to get them to change their emphasis; they would insist that time; money; and resources be made available to teachers before implementing the program. Three of the teachers believed that the veteran teaching staffs in their buildings were so cohesive that a new building principal would have to shift in their direction rather than they shift in the principal's direction. 62 .cocc__;u omen—cocom o: nmzm mm o o _ N wov_ooc:: N N_ —_ J o omcmcu menus» m Cu ou:n_cucoo uOc >_nmnoLm : _ N w m omcmco menus» m Ou ou:n_cucoo v.30u co_umuco_co N N N N w _m0m c_ omcmco m Cu wou:n_cucoo o>mI cocn__;u czo >po_oOm “caucus acumcu mo_om_ so mooco_LoQXm m. o. mmm newcoosm 1mmc_En< uncuumcmzu _mco_umo:vm \ .v z z uo_cum_o mc_u__:m “seesaw comumucm_co .mOo c_ momcmsu Cu maOuumu _mucuE:oL_>cm so mco_u:n_cucou voucoaom och um o_nmh 63 The new superintendent was very vocal in his demands that the district's scores on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) be raised by at least 10%. Because the MEAP included fall testing of fourth-grade students; the teachers in this sample; most of whom taught third or fourth grade; were very much implicated by the superintendent's directive. In May 1982; before the hiring of the new superintendent; the content scale was selected 556 times (see Table 3). In May 1983; after the hiring of the new superintendent; the content scale was selected 594 times; an increase of 6.8%. This increase may have been a result of the superintendent's influence. However; even though the superintendent maintained a staunch advocacy of improved MEAP scores for the following year; in May 1984 teachers selected the content scale only 577 times; this represents a decrease of 2.9% from the preceding year. As can be seen in Table 10; the district-wide shift was primarily toward a task-demands orientation (total increase of 24%) and away from an interpersonal orientation (down 27.7%). Whether or not the superintendent may have played a role in creating this shift will be discussed in Chapter V. The last two factors displayed in Table 9 are the influence of the mass media/society and the educational experiences of one's own children. As can be seen; most teachers (12 of 15) do not believe that the mass media and societal trends have much effect on their own goal orientations. However; six of the eight teachers who have school-age children indicated that the educational experiences of their children can and do create shifts in their goal orientations. 64 sz._ mNs._ sz._ .muoe N.NN; N.m_1 mwm N.o_1 _m: mmm _mcomcoacouc_ o.¢N+ m.__+ Nww N.m+ mwm :mm mvcmeov xmmh w.m+ m.N1 Rum w.w+ :mm 0mm ucmu:0u 1 o co_uom_om so a co_uuo_om mo co_uoo_om so :mmwwmwmw omcmgu s >ocozoocn omcmcu s >ucoaoocu >ucosvmcn :wm. >mz mwm_ >mz Nwm_ >mz wouoo_om mm3 o_mom :omm moE_k so consaz osu Cu m:_um_om mama >ocosoocn no. o_nmh 65 In sum; it appears that the factor most commonly responsible for goal-orientation shifts is the attitude/behavior of students in the classroom. Of secondary importance are the educational experiences of the teacher's own chi1d(ren) and the influence of a respected building administrator. DueatiQn_5J__ls_IhsLstah1liIx_Qi_teache£_gna1_nnientatinn Le1ated;mLJJELsQnILQl:autQnQm¥_fi1men&huLJ:uumuLh¥_the WWW Statistical correlations were computed to determine if changes in goal orientation were related to concurrent changes in the control- autonomy dimension tapped by the Deci et al. (1981) Problems in Schools Questionnaire. This was done to determine if a directional change (increase or decrease) on the content scale; the task-demands scale; or the interpersonal scale correlates with a concurrent directional change in a teacher's total autonomy score. Sets of correlations were run for changes that occurred during two lZ-month time periods (May 1982 to May 1983 and May 1983 to May 1984). All results were nonsignificant with the possible exception of an increased interpersonal orientation being positively correlated with an increase in autonomy-granting. Between May 1983 and May 1984; the positive correlation between the two was .23 (p < .05). During the preceding year (between May 1982 and May 1983); the correlation for the change that took place was not significant. However; the direction of the relationship was positive (.10); which is consistent with the results found in 1983-84. Therefore; there is limited support for the 66 contention that an increase in interpersonal goal orientation is asso- ciated with an increase in autonomy-granting. For the same two time periods; correlations were also run to see if changing one's goal orientation was related to one's position on the control-autonomy continuum (total autonomy score); that is; to determine if one type of teacher ("controlling" or "autonomy- granting") is more likely than another to undergo a change in goal orientation. The TPQ change index for 1983-84 was significantly related to total autonomy score (.2157; p < .05). Based on this; one might conclude that "autonomy-granting" teachers are more amenable to making changes in their goal orientations. However; for the preceding year (1982-83); the correlation between the total autonomy score and TPQ change index was not only nonsignificant; but also negative (-.1053). Thus; the 1983-84 correlation coefficient; although sta- tistically significant; is probably not meaningfully significant. Summarx The data presented and analyzed in this chapter suggest some interesting possibilities for further discussion and future study. First; teacher goal orientation appears to be a relatively stable construct. Although a few teachers did make major shifts in goal orientation; very few of these shifts were permanent; and when they were; they tended to occur via the influence of a significant and proximal adult. Surprisingly; it appears that it is the most experienced teachers who tend toward more frequent shifts in goal orientation. In addition; there was a district-wide shift in goal 67 orientation. Further discussion and interpretation of these and other results will follow in Chapter V. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION; CONCLUSIONS; LIMITATIONS; AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEAROi In this chapter; results presented in Chapter IV are linked to past research and are further discussed. Conclusions are presented along with their implications for educational processes. In addition; limitations of this study are put forth and discussed. Finally; several recommendations for future research are proposed. Discussion In this discussion of results; particular attention is paid to the following three issues: 1. Do the results of this study portray teacher goal orientation as a relatively stable construct or as an easily modifiable variable? 2. What are the apparent causes of shifts in goal orientation at an individual as well as a collective (district-wide) level? 3. Why do highly experienced teachers tend to have less stable goal orientations than teachers with less experience? One of the major purposes of this longitudinal study was to assess the stability of teacher goal orientations. Based on the data gathered and analyzed; it appears that teacher goal orientations in the population are relatively stable. Although there was much 68 69 literature which indicated that teachers' attitudes could be changed (Adams; 1982; Fuller; 1969; Gabel & Rubba; 1979; Kremer & Moore; 1978; Mahan & Lacefield; 1978); these studies were planned attempts to deliberately change the attitude of teacher candidates and relatively inexperienced teachers. Most attempts were successful; but only in producing temporary change. The results of these studies appear somewhat consistent with the present study; that is; some changes are taking place; but most are temporary. What may be different about the present study is that no organized intervention was taking place save for the superintendent's dictum regarding an increase in student scores on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP). What effect; if any; this had on teachers' goal orientations is unknown. What is known is that the entire teacher sample made a directional shift in goal orientation between May 1982 and May 1984. In Table 10; previously presented; it can be seen that there was a 24% increase in preference for task-demands goals and a 28% decrease in selection of interpersonal goals. It may be that the superintendent's goal of a 10% improvement in MEAP scores may have been having a greater effect on teacher goal orientation than the teachers wanted to admit (or were themselves aware of). The teachers were given several opportunities to cite the effect of the superintendent: All teachers were asked to respond to Item 40 of the TPQ; an open-ended question which asked: "If you had any sig- nificant experiences during the past 12 months which may have affected your attitude about teaching; please respond below." 70 In the 1983 responses to this question; only 5 of the 80 responding teachers complained of the school district's emphasis placed on testing. In 1984; only 4 of the 88 responding teachers voiced similar complaints. However; none of these nine teachers indicated that he/she had made a shift in goal orientation which accommodated the testing emphasis. Recall that 15 teachers were interviewed in 1986. At this time they were specifically asked about the possible influence of the superintendent's stand. Two teachers indicated that the superin- tendent's goal had affected them; and two others said that although the superintendent had not affected them; they believed he had affected other teachers. It is quite possible the teachers were underestimating just how much they were being influenced by the super- intendent. Several teachers indicated that the pressure was on the building administrators; not on them; however; it seems logical that building administrators would transfer at least some of the pressure to the teachers. The superintendent's goal created two additional not- so—subtle changes in the teachers' environment. For the first time ever; the school calendar was changed to have classes start the week before Labor Day; and the school district moved its MEAP testing date back 1 week. The effect was that fourth-; seventh—; and tenth-grade teachers had 2 additional weeks in which to prepare students for the test. It is possible that logistical changes such as these made a definite statement to teachers as to the seriousness of the district's position. 71 It would appear that the school district's emphasis on raising MEAP scores may have been a primary cause for the decrease (-27.7%) in selection of interpersonal goals. However; with the emphasis on test scores; why did the teachers shift their goal orientations primarily in the direction of task-demands goals (24% increase); rather than to content goals; which showed an increase of only 3.8%? It is possible the teachers believed that success on the basic math and reading skills measured by the NEAR is much more closely linked to such "task demands" skills as following directions; working neatly and care- fully; and getting work done on time; than it is to a student's academic ability and achievement. One example of a task demands alternative that these teachers might find attractive is found in Item 2 of the TPQ where: a teacher might select as an ideal student one who . . . completes all work on time; neatly and accurately. Another reason for the shift to task-demands goals may be that the teachers in the sample were encountering classroom groups of students who were better socialized than the students of previous years. The data from the teacher interviews (as well as responses to TPQ Item 40) suggest that teachers tend to shift to a task-demands orientation when they encounter "good" classes; and to an interper- sonal orientation when they encounter classroom groups with severe discipline problems. There is support for teachers shifting their goal orientations when confronted with the realities of the classroom; both in the case of student teachers (Paschal & Treloar; 1979) and experi- enced teachers (Gabel & Rubba; 1979; Moore; 1975). In each study 72 teachers spent a minimum of 4 weeks in workshops and classes during which significant changes in attitude occurred. However; the changes did not persist once the teachers had been in the classroom for a rela- tively short period of time (3 months to 1 year). The issue of permanence in goal-orientation shifts is rather difficult to analyze. It is tempting to dichotomize the goal- orientation shifts into those that are temporary and those that are permanent. However; it is with some reservation that any shift should be considered permanent. In this study; the 15 teachers who made major goal-orientation shifts during the first year were monitored for the following 3 years. Of the 15; only four had changes which persisted for the 3 years; of these four; two may have been reversions to prior goal orientations. This is because neither of these two teachers seemed too sure about her goal orientation before the initial administration of the TPQ. As for the two teachers who seemed to adopt totally new goal orientations between the 1982 and 1983 admin- istrations of the TPQ; both seemed very committed to their new orien- tations and; therefore; based on the interview with each; it appears that each has made a permanent shift to a new goal orientation. Of the two; one attributed her change to the academic problems her teen- age sons were having in high school and college; while the other indicated she changed after observing the dramatic successes her student teacher was having. Although these shifts seem permanent in the minds of these two teachers; it seems possible that if they were confronted with classroom groups having major discipline problems; 73 these teachers might shift back to their original emphasis on inter- personal goals. To satisfy a need for cognitive economy; it is often tempting to dichotomize or categorize factors in the environment. Examples in the present study include: describing goal-orientation shifts as being either temporary or permanent; and describing teachers as those who shift (in goal orientation) and those who do not. It may make more sense to view the situation as that of all teachers trying to estab- lish and maintain an equilibrium between their goal orientations and their roles in the classroom. As long as the teachers' lives and teaching environments are stable; goal orientations tend to remain stable. However; as teachers encounter stress which upsets the equi- libria; they adjust their goal orientations to alleviate the stress; and new equilibria get established. The stress is not necessarily good or bad; but may stem from a variety of sources; including those listed in Table 9. Teachers have different thresholds in how they perceive and react to stress; therefore; two teachers having identical goal-orientation profiles may not make the same shift in response to a given type of stress. However; it certainly seems possible that given the right set of circumstances; any teacher will undergo a shift in goal orientation. As previously mentioned; it was discovered in this study that experienced teachers tended to have goal orientations which were significantly less stable than those of relatively inexperienced teachers. This appears to contradict research which shows that trait 74 stability increases with age (Fishbein & Ajzen; 1975). How can this apparent contradiction be explained? One possible explanation is that these experienced teachers represent a very select group of "sur- vivors." Their survival as teachers can be traced to their capacity to adjust to the many contextual variables in the system. This capacity has enabled them to be tolerant of; and tolerated by; a wide variety of administrators; colleagues; students; and parents; thus reducing their frustration levels considerably. It may be that it is these teachers who continue to be very sensitive to changes in their environment and are ready and willing to adjust their goal orienta- tions accordingly. The finding that experienced teachers tend to make adjustments in their goal orientations based on how they perceive the needs of their students would not surprise Francis Fuller. Fuller (1969) formulated a concern theory based on interviews; questionnaires; and observations. In this theory Fuller purported that teachers move through three stages of concern: (a) concern over how they are perceived by others; (b) concern over teaching tasks and discipline; and (c) concern for the impact of their instruction on the students. Fuller contends that it is the last concern which characterizes the thinking of the mature and highly experienced teacher. It is these teachers who are sensitive to the impact they are having on students and; more important; have the repertoire of knowledge; skills; and techniques which enable them to make the necessary adjustments. 75 Conclusions The results of this study lead to the following general conclu- sions: First; teacher goal orientation is a relatively stable construct. Second; student behavior is a primary cause of the major shifts that do occur in teacher goal orientation. Third; highly experienced teachers tend to make more frequent shifts in goal orientation than do teachers with relatively little experience. It should be stressed; given the size and homogeneity of the sample; that these conclusions should be viewed as tentative; especially with regard to generalizability. However; for this sample of teachers; major shifts in goal orientation were quite rare; and those that did occur seldom persisted; as most of these teachers reverted to their original orientations. The fact that so many (8 of 15) teachers who made major shifts in goal orientations attributed their change to the behavior of students is somewhat surprising. It is well known that teachers adjust their plans and activities to meet the needs of individual students and groups of students; but that a group of students can make such a major alteration in teacher thought regarding something as fundamental as educational goals is certainly surprising. Possible implications of this and other results are presented in the next section. 76 Implisatims There were some teachers who were making major shifts in goal orientation in response to year-to—year differences in their students. Quite often a dramatic shift was made to an interpersonal goal orien- tation in response to classroom discipline problems. It would seem the more time and energy spent attending to discipline problems; the less spent on the academic preparation of students. This would be to the detriment of the academic growth of students; including those stu- dents who had no part in creating the discipline problem. It is those students; and they make up a sizable majority in a given classroom; who are being penalized by not being provided with sufficient opportu- nity for academic growth. If this persists from year to year as stu- dents move through a school system with a relatively unsocialized cohort; what might the cumulative effects on those children be? If teachers; in response to discipline problems; are prone to major shifts in goal orientation; the implication for parents interested in finding opportunities for optimal academic growth is that they should take great care in not enrolling their children in school districts reported to be experiencing many discipline problems. The implication for building administrators is that if they are interested in main- taining a high level of academic growth among students; they should make every attenpt to see that each teacher is provided with training and support necessary to prevent discipline problems from becoming the primary focus of teacher thought and action in the classroom. 77 The fact that the most experienced teachers appear to be willing to change and do change; should be of great interest to school dis- tricts; adninistrators; and teacher trainers. The implication is that providing professional-growth opportunities for teachers may be a wise investment; if done properly. Even though most of the change taking place in this study seemed to be reactive and temporary; proactive and more permanent changes appear to be feasible as well. Those changes that were proactive and seemed to have a high degree of pennanence were usually due to the influence of an adult respected by the teacher. It also seened the adult had to have a relatively continuous presence in the life of the teacher for an extended period of time. Because participation in workshops outside the school did not seem to bring about lasting change; it may be that the most effective way of improving instruction is to have everyone; including administrators; participate in the training programs; with mechanisms for long-term monitoring; evaluation; and feedback built into the process. It would seem that via the support and guidance of a respected building adnin- istrator; the probabilities for a more permanent growth will be greatly enhanced. Limitations One factor which limits the value of this study is the absence of a goal-orientation profile representing the prototype of the ideal (maximally effective) teacher. Which of the three types of goals examined is most important? Are they equally important? Krener (l98l) argues that some balance is necessary. He proposes that 78 teachers with clear-cut goal orientations be identified and that ways be found to change their focus of teaching in the direction of greater balance between the orientations. In the present study most of the teachers who indicated a strong preference for one of the three types of goals examined (i.e.; content; task; and interpersonal) maintained that preference throughout the study. No attempt was made to get them to balance the goal preferences. Unless and until more work is done which permits valid and reliable judgments as to the desirability of various profiles; the value of the results of this study is somewhat limited. A second limitation in this study is that the generalizability of the findings is restricted due to size; hanogeneity; and nonrandomness of the sample. Of the original l20 teachers in the target population; 108 responded at least once and 74 responded all three times. The target population came fron a single school district; most were female; highly experienced (all had at least 4 years of experience and over 85% had more than l0 years of experience); and well-educated (more than 75% had master's degrees). No data were gathered regarding the l2 teachers (of the original l20) who failed to respond to the initial administration of the questionnaire; so no comparisons can be made. Data are available on the 34 teachers (of the l08) who responded only once or twice. These 34 teachers appear to be quite similar to the sample of 74 in gender-ratio; experience; education; grade level taught; and range of goal orientations. Therefore; although the sample is nonrandom; its demographic characteristics 79 suggest it is fairly representative of the target population. The findings of this study may well apply to other populations; but only to the extent that the characteristics of other school districts and teacher populations are similar to what is portrayed in this study. Although the instrumentation used in this study was carefully developed through pilot studies; item analysis; and reliability coefficients; the ipsative nature of the TED scale scores may have limited the probability of finding significant results. Because the scale scores were ipsative; it was not really possible to rank the teachers in terms of goal priorities (Clemans; 1956). That is; the fact that a teacher has the maximum score (22) on one of the scales does not necessarily mean that he/she places a particularly strong emphasis on those goals. The teacher might be very apathetic and not really committed to any goals. 0n the other hand; a very intense and dynamic teacher who scores very low on that same scale might; in fact; consider goals in all three areas very important and put much energy and enphasis on having students achieve in each area. Based on this; one can only make intra-individual comparisons; such as: Teacher 80 (2-2-l8) thinks that interpersonal goals are more important than content and task-demands goals; or Teacher l7 (8-7-7) thinks that all goals are equally important. If one had evidence that all teachers have about the same total reserve of energy and emphasis to be spread among the goals; then it could be argued that the pro- files can be used to make comparisons between teachers. 80 The ipsative nature of the TPQ creates another dilemma if; as Kerlinger and Kaya (l959) concluded; "progressivism" and "tradition- alism" are two relatively independent; orthogonal factors. This posi- tion has been challenged by some (Wehling & Charters; l969; Wolf & Engel; l978) and supported by others (Adwere-Boamah; Dalay; & Jones; l982; Sontag & Pedhazur; l972). However; whatever degree of inde- pendence that exists between the content; task demands; and interper- sonal scales will probably be destroyed by using the forced-choice format. Because of this the TR) might pick up a change on one of the three scales when none actually occurred. For example; a person with a 4-9—9 profile one year may decide that content goals should be made much more important the following year; but also that task-demands goals and interpersonal goals are as important as ever. The new profile l6-3-3 suggests that the teacher now has a decreased emphasis on task-demands and interpersonal goals; when in fact the teacher may emphasize than as much as ever. It is the ipsative nature of the instrument which dictates that if one scale is to change another must also change; even if they are theoretically independent. RecommendationsJoLfiutumBeseanch Although the TPQ exhibited desirable psychometric properties; the ipsative nature of the scales made ranking the teachers on the basis of their scale scores somewhat suspect. This may have severely decreased the probability of finding significant relationships between goal orientation and teacher effectiveness. In the future; the TPQ could be revised to remove its forced-choice format and the ipsative 81 nature of the scales. This could be done by selecting a wide variety of statements representing preferences for each of the three goal orientations and having teachers respond to each on a Likert-type scale. (Work in this direction is currently underway.) This would give not only an expression of goal preferences; but also a measure of the intensity of preference for each goal orientation. Based on this; teachers could be ranked in several ways; and statistical analyses could be used to see how these preferences relate to indicants of teacher effectiveness. Another line of inquiry might be expanding the research effort to include a more heterogeneous population of teachers; with the possible inclusion of teacher candidates (preservice teachers). For example; the instrumentation might be used in a longitudinal study in which it is administered to a cadre of teacher candidates at the onset of their professional training. Readministration would occur just before and after student teaching; and after (for example) the first; third; and fifth years of teaching. These data could be used to study; among other things; the short-term and long-term effects of teacher training programs. Another line of research which merits consideration might be an attempt to identify how goal orientations get established. Through the use of instrumentation and interviews of teacher candidates; successful probes might be possible. In sum; the line of inquiry started here points in a variety of directions for increasing the knowledge base regarding teacher 82 classroom goals. The fact that this study suggests that some teachers can and do change should serve as an inducement to continue this line of research; and is certainly some cause for optimism in the enter- prise of improving teacher effectiveness. APPENDICES APPENDIX A TEACHER PRIORITIES QUESTIONNAIRE 83 PLEASE RETURN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE BUILDING SECRETARY WITHIN 24 W- Before responding to this questionnaire, please provide the following information by checking the appropriate boxes and filling in blanks where indicated. Your responses to this questionnaire will remain confidential. To allow for possible follow-up, however, and also to process your honorarium, we need your name, address, and social security number. The additional information requested below will help us in analyzing the data. Name Address 1. Social Security Number 2. Sex: ( ) Male ( ) Female 3. Present Position: ( ) 2nd grade ( ) 5th grade ) 3rd grade ( ) 3rd—4th combination ( ) 4th grade ( ) Other please specify 4. Teaching experience (as of the end of this academic year) years. 5. Amount of education ) Bachelor's degree ) Bachelor's degree plus additional credits ) Master's degree ) Master's degree plus additional credits ) Doctor's degree As you respond to the questionnaire, please keep the following in mind: There are no right or wrong answers to these items; they concern matters of value or preference upon which teachers disagree. Tell us what you think about each item. For each item, select the one response which comes closest to what you think. Do not select more than one response. Answer every item. NOTE: Respond to Part I of the questionnaire (items 1 through 39) on the answer sheet provided. Write only your social security number at the top of the answer sheet. (Ignore all other requests for personal information which appear on the answer sheet.) Respond to Part II of the questionnaire on the questionnaire itself. Follow instructions provided at the beginning of Part II. Thank you for your time and cooperation. 81+ What do you see as the biggest problem in American education today? a. school finance b. declining enrollment c. disciplinary problems with students Which of the following best describes your image of an ideal student? a. completes all work on time, neatly and accurately b. very thoughtful and caring for the needs of others c. does excellent work on the basics (reading, writing, and math) Which of the following affective goals should teachers try hardest to accomplish? a. getting students very excited about learning new things b. getting students to work on their own c. getting students to cooperate with one another If you could omit one of the following subjects from your teaching load, which would it be? a. reading b. mathematics c. science Some classes are better than others. Think of an especially good class that you've had. What made it good? a. the class readily grasped ideas and new content b. the class was close knit and got along socially c. the class got right to work, managing its time well Which of the following is most essential to successful teaching at the elementary school level? a. ability to communicate knowledge at a level that students understand b. ability to create a cooperative atmosphere in the classroom c. ability to foster student initiative in responding promptly and accurately to work assignments What kind of reputation would you most like to have with your teaching colleagues? a. that my students learn to care about one another b. that my students develop excellent study skills c. that my students really learn the subject matter What type of community would you prefer to teach in? a. suburban b. inner-city c. rural 85 Which is most apt to contribute to your feeling that you had a really good day? a. all students seemed to learn something new b. all students stayed "on task" for the day c. the students were especially helpful to each other Which statement comes closest to one you might make? a. developing positive attitudes toward others is more important than learning subject matter. b. our educational system must ensure that all students develop the basic skills necessary for promotion to the next grade level c. developing skills necessary for finding answers to questions is more important than learning specific content Which of the following attitudes is most important for third and fourth graders to develop? a. taking responsibility for doing their assignments b. respect for others c. interest in learning what is taught Which of the following affective goals for students do you consider to be the most important? a. to get students to value reading b. to get students to be able to decide for themselves what is good use of their time c. to get students to think about how their actions influence others Which of the following reasons would you most like parents to give for selecting you as their child's teacher? a. children in your room really learn how to study b. children in your rOOm really learn reading, math, and writing c. children in your room really learn how to make friends and get along with other people In your classroom, which type of student tends to be viewed as a leader by his/her peers? a. the good athlete b. the attractive, well-groomed student c. the high achiever 0f the following, which is the most important means of motivating students? a. displaying work b. building on intrinsic interests c. using tokens as rewards l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 86 Which would you most prefer to hear your principal say about you? a. your students learn how to learn b. your students develop a good understanding of the subject matter c. your students learn the social skills necessary for being productive members of a group Which best describes your overall emphasis in teaching? a. I concentrate my efforts on helping my students achieve grade level mastery (or above) b. I'm mostly concerned with developing interpersonal skills which prepare each student to be a responsible member of society c. I tend to emphasize the development of work skills and study habits which aid students in their learning Which student behavior is most apt to cause you to alter your in- structional pace? a. fatigue b. boredom c. confusion What kind of reputation would you most like your classes to have with the building administrator? a. my students develop excellent study skills b. my students get excellent instruction in the basics (reading, writing, math) o. my students are well-behaved and respectful Which of the following subjects do your students have the greatest difficulty with? a. science b. math c. social studies Which of the following teaching colleagues would you most admire? a. one whose students develop the ability to take responsibility for their own learning b. one whose students always seem to learn the content necessary to prepare them to continue at the next grade level c. one whose classroom groups work harmoniously on cooperative learning tasks When you are remembered by your students twenty years from now, what would you most like it to be for? a. that I got them to learn many important and worthwhile things b. that I cared about them, and taught them to respect the rights of others c. that I taught them to take responsibility for their own actions, and to become independent workers 26. 27. 29. 87 Which of the following subjects received too little emphasis in elementary schools today a. math b. reading c. science Which of the following do you consider most important for an elementary teacher to accomplish? a. fostering basic skill acquisition in reading, writing, and math b. getting students to take responsibility for doing their work carefully and getting it in on time c. fostering cooperation and positive interaction between students Of the various things you do, which of the following do you consider most important? a. getting students interested in learning b. getting students to take pride in their work c. fostering students' respect for others Which of the following statements most accurately describes the best class you've ever had? a. the students really liked and cared for each other b. the students worked very well independently c. the students grasped the subject matter easily Some goals for students like the following are not primarily academic. Which do you consider to be the most important? a. for students to experience satisfaction in learning new content b. for students to take responsibility for completing classroom work c. for students to learn how to interact positively with one another Which is most apt to contribute to your feeling that you had a really good day? a. students were extremely courteous and cooperative with one another b. students were very interested in what they learned that day c. the students who usually do not complete work assignments turned in their work on time and it was carefully done Which of the following is most important for your students to learn? a. good work habits b. respect for the rights of others c. basic academic skills 30. 31. 33. 34. 35. 88 If you could choose, which student would you select for your class? a. one who is very respectful and kind to others b. one who is eager and anxious to learn c. one who has the skills needed to take responsibility for his/her own learning Have you received graduate credit for any coursework taken during the past 12 months? a. yes b. no Have you received a master's or doctoral degree within the past twelve months? a. yes b. no Are you teaching in the same building as you did last year? a. yes b. no Do you have the same grade-level assignment that you had last year? a. yes b. no On the average, how does the achievement level of your current students compare with that of the students you taught one year ago. (If you are teaching at a different grade level this year, equate your current students' achievement level with the expectations you had for them at the start of this school year.) a. this year's class is higher b. last year's class was higher c. they were about the same 0n the average, which class created more discipline problems? a. this year's class b. last year's class c. they were about the same 0n the average, which group of students had better study skills? a. this year's class b. last year's class c. they were about the same 39. so. 89 Which group of parents was more supportive of your efforts to help students? a. the parents of this year's students c. the parents of last year's students c. I received the same amount of support from both groups On the average, which group of students was more cohesive, with members of the class getting along really well with each other? a. this year's class b. last year's class c. they were about the same If you had any significant experiences during the past 12 months which may have affected your attitude about teaching, and feel comfortable telling us about them, please respond below. APPENDIX B TEACHER INTERVIEW Preparation: Study a. b. 90 TEACH ER INTERV IEW Demographics such as gender, grade level. and years of experience. Answers to TFO.Questions 3l-40 for 1983. 1984, and 1986. TRl profiles for 1982, 1983, l984: and 1986. Interview Process: A. B. Introduction l. Put the subject at ease by: a. b. Thanking him/her for participating. Expressing a desire to share some results with him/her. 2. Debriefing a. b. C. Describe and discuss with the subject the three types of goals (content, task. interpersonal). Emphasize that all three types of goals are legitimate. Inform the subject that he/she (like most teachers) made some shifts in goal orientation from one year to the next; express interest in trying to identify some factors which may cause teachers to change their goal orientations. Discuss each year with the subject 1. l98l-82 a. Orient the subject to the setting by reviewing building. grade-level assignment, and administrator for the year. Once oriented to the year, describe to the subject his/her TRl profile for the spring of that year. Take the time to explain what the profile means in terms of goal preferences, and redefine (giving examples) the three types of goals. Enge. Does the subject believe the l98l-82 TR) profile was an accurate representation of his/her goal orientation at that point in time? 91 2. 1982-83 a. Reorient the subject to his/her school setting for the year. b. Describe the 1982-83 TR) profile and how it was substantially different from that of the preceding year. Probe. Does the subject have any ideas as to why such a dramatic change took place? - Give him/her time to think. — Make further probes to get more detail to answers. - Ask subject if he/she can think of additional causes for for the change. c. At this point use pertinent information in answers to TPQ Questions 31-40 (professional-growth experiences. change in teaching assignment, changes in students) to fonmulate probes. Probe. Did any of the changes mentioned in TR} Items 31-40 have any effect on the subject's goal orientations? 3. 1983-84: Repeat the above process (1982—83). 4. l985-86: Repeat the above process (1982-83). Additional probes Ecgbe I. Did the superintendent's goal of a 10% increase in scores on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program affect the subject's goal orientation? Ecobe 2. Have such well-publicized issues as the report of the Commission on Excellence or the "back to the basics" movement had any effect on the subject's goal orientation? ELQQQJL Have the educational experiences of the subjectG children had any effect on his/her goal orientation? If the subject has had no children (or only has children below school age), does he/she think the educational experience of one's children can affect teacher goal orientation? Closure l. Verify the accuracy of notes taken during the interview by reading then back to the interviewee. 2. Give an expression of thanks for cooperating in the interview process. REFERENCES REFERENtIS Adams. R. D. (1982). Teacher development: A look at changes in teacher perceptions and behavior across time. of league: Education. 33.. 40- 43 Adwere-Boamah. J.. Delay. D. H.. 8. Jones. 0. C. (l982). Fundamental points of view of teachers on education: An investigation of the Kerlinger and Kaya Attitudinal Scale. mm 1, Ajzen. I.. & Fishbein. M. (1977). Attitude- behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. 53.. 888-918. Anderson. A. L. H. (1985) Socialization intothe elementary school student Lole: An examination of student and teacher influences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University. Brophy. J. E. (l978). Interactions between learner characteristics and optimal instruction. In Bar-Tal. D.. &Saxe. L. (Eds.). Social W! .Qfeducatien (pp. l35-l48). New York: Wiley & Sons. Bunting. C. E. (l981). The development and validation of the educational attitudes inventory. ' and 4.1. 559-565. Bunting. C. E. (l984). Dimensionality of teacher education beliefs. An exploratory study. ioumal of Experimental Educatiom 52. 195- l98. Bunting. C. E. (l985). Dimensionality of teacher educational beliefs: A validation study- .Lomznal of Experimental Education. 51. 188-192. Bussis. A. M. Chittenden. E. A.. &Amarel. M. (1976). mm curriculum Boulder. CO: Westview Press. Clemans. w. V. (1956). An analyticaland empiLical examination of some empenties of ipsatjie measunes. Psychometric Monograph No. 14. Richmond. VA: W. B. Press. Cook. W. W.. Leeds. C. H.. 8 Callis. R. (1951). Minnesota leacbec Attitude lnxentm New York: The Psychological Corporation. 92 93 Deci. E. L.. Schwartz. A. J.. Sheinman. L.. & Ryan. R. M. (l981). An instrument to assess adults' orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. immal of Educational Esmnology; 11. 642- 65 Dewey. J. (1902). lbs child and the catniculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Donlan. D. (198l). The effects of two models of staff development on self-awareness and attitudes of teachers with internal versus external locus of control. Journal of Experimental Education. i2. lOQ-ll3. Ekstrom. R. B. (1976). Teacher aptitudes. knowledge. attitudes and cognitive style as predictors of teaching behavior. Education. 21. 329-331. Fishbein. M.. 8. Ajzen. I. (l975). Beref. attitude. intention and hehayicnz An introduction to theory and ceseanch Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley. Fisher. C. W.. Filby. N. N.. Marliave. R. S.. Cahen. L. 5.. Dishaw. M. M.. Moore. J. E.. &Berliner. D. C. (1978). leache: academic learning time and student achieiementt final LQQQL'I'. of phasellhhfieginningleachetExaldaticnStudy (Tech. Rep. v- I). San Francisco: Far West Regional Laboratory for Educational Research 8. Development. Fuller. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptuali- zation. Amenican Educational Beseanch Jeannal. a. 207-226. Gabel. D.. & Rubba. P. (l979). Attitude changes of elementary teachers according to the curriculum studied during workshop participation and their role as model science teachers. Journal of Research in Scienceleaching._L6. l9— 24. Hal perin. M. S. (l976). F1 rst-grade teachers' goals and children's developing perceptions of school. lounnal of Educational Esxcholch. 65. 366-648. Harvey. O. J.. Prather. M.. White. B. J.. &Hoffmeister. J. K. (l968). Teachers' beliefs. classroom atmosphere. and student behavior. ' ' Research lounnal. E.. lSl-l65. Hasan. D. E. . &Billek. V. Y. (l975). Relationship between teachers' change in attitudes toward science and some professional variables. loucnal of Research in Science leaching. 12. 247- 253 911 Horn. J. L.. & Morrison. W. L. (1965). Dimensions of teacher attitudes. Bsuchclch. 5.6.. 118-125. Insko. C. A. (l967). IheQLies of attitude change. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts. Kerlinger. F. N. (l956). The attitude structure of the individual. A (1 study of the educational attitudes of professors and laymen. 53.. 283-289. Kerlinger. F. N. (1958). Progressivism and traditionalism: Basic factors of educational attitudes. lounnaldf 4a. lll-l35. Kerlinger. F. N. (1967a). Social attitudes and their critical referents: A structural theory. Bsxcliolcgical Kellen. 1.4.. llO- l21. Kerlinger. F. N. (l967b). The first- and second- order factor structures of attitudes toward education. American Educational Beseacch lounnal. A. 191- -205. Kerlinger. F. N. (1970). A social attitude scale: Evidence on relia- bility and validity. Esycbolcgical Regents. 2_6_. 379-383. Kerl inger. J. N. . 8. Kaya. E. (1959). The construction and factor analytic validation of scales to measure attitudes toward education. Educational and Esichological Measunement. l2. 305— 317. Kremer. L. (l978). Teachers' attitudes toward educational goals as reflected in classroom behavior. Journal of Esxchologx. IQ. 993- 997. Kremer. L. (1981). Cognitive and affective orientations and teaching behaviors—~A study of differentiation. Scandinanan lounnal _of_ Research. 25.. 1 -7. Kremer. L.. 8. Moore. M. (1978). Changes in attitudes toward education during teacher training. lntennational Beyieu of Education. 2.4.. 5ll-5l3. Lambert. N. J.. &Nicoll. R. C. (1977). Conceptual model for nonintel- lectual behavior and its relationship to early reading achieve- ment. lounnal of Educational Esichclogx. 6.9.. 481- 490. Lemon. N. (l973). Attiiudesandineji measdnement. London: B. T. Batsford. 95 Lipka. R. P.. &Goulet. L. R. (1979). Aging and experience-rel ated changes in teacher attitudes toward the profession. Educational Beseacch .Quarterlu. A. 19-28. Lortie. D. C. (l973). Observation on teaching as work. In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.). Second handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally. Mahan. J. M.. & Lacefiel d. W. (1978). Educational attitude changes during year-long student teaching. m1 of Experimental Education. as. 4-l5. Mitman. A. L.. Mergendoller. J. R.. Ward. 8. A.. &Tikunoff. W. J. (1981). leniiicationinuuim lLol.§_: Ecologicalcasestudiesof clasemom instruction in a successtul school (Report EPSSP—81-15). San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research 8. Development. Moore. R. W. (1975). A two-year study of a CCSS group's attitudes toward science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics. 15.. 288-290. Nicholson. E. W.. &Tracy. S. J. (l982). Principal's influence on teacher's attitude and implementation of curricular change. Education. lQi. 68-73. Paschal. B. J.. 8. Trel oar. J. H. (1979). A longitudinal study of attitude change in prospective and beginning elementary school teachers. leacher Educator. l5. 2-9. Prawat. R. S. (1980). Teacher perceptions of student affect. American Educational Beseanch lounnal. l1. 61-73. Prawat. R. S. (1985). Affective versus cognitive goal orientations in elementary teachers. American Educational Beseacch Joucnal. 22. 587-604. Prawat. R. 5.. Anderson. 0.. Anderson. A.. Jenkins. F.. 8. Anderson. L. (1983. April). lhe development of an instrument to measune teacher: .goal.ocientations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal. Prawat. R.. Anderson. L.. Nickerson. J.. Anderson. A.. Bird. 0.. 8. Nix. S. (1986. March). Socializing outcomes orogress Leoont (NIE Contract No. 400-8l-00l4). East Lansing: Institute for Research on Teaching. Michigan State University. Praw at. R. 3.. & Nickerson. J. R. (l985). The relationship between teacher thought and action and student affective outcomes. Ihe Elementaru School Joucnal. Si. 529-540. 96 Prawat. R.. Solomon. 0.. Nickerson. J.. Anderson. A.. Diamond. 8.. McKeague. D.. 8 Whitmer. S. (l98l. September). Aftectm outcomes licences: Lepoct (NIE Contract No. 400-76-0073). East Lansing: Institute for Research on Teaching. Michigan State University. Price. R. D. (1961). The influence of supervising teachers. Joutnal of leacher Education. .12. 471-475. Rose. J. 3.. 8 Medw ay. J. J. (1981). Measurement of teacher beliefs in their control over students' outcomes. Journal of Educational Research. 14.. 185-190. Shavel son. R. J.. 8. Stern. P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts. decisions. and behavior. Beaten ofEducational Research. 5i. 455-498. Shaw. M. E.. 8 Wright. J. M. (l967)..$_cales_f_o_r_t_hemeasdnement_o_f attitudes. New York: MoGraw-Hill. Sontag. M.. 8. Pedhazur. E. (1972). Dimensions of educational attitudes: Factorial congruence of two scales. louLnal ciEducational Measucement. 2. l89-l98. Walberg. H. J. (1966). Self-conception in beginning teachers. lounnal of leacheJ: Education. l1. 254. Wehling. L. J.. 8 Charters. W. W. (1969). Dimensions of teacher beliefs about the teaching process. American Educational Beseaccn Joucnal. a. 7-29. Wolfe. M. L.. 8 Engel. J. D. (1978). Dimensions of opinion about teacher-pupil relations. Joucnal of Experimental Education. 4o. 4l-45. Yee. A H. (l969). Do cooperating teachers influence the attitudes of student teachers? .loutnal of Educational Esxcholooy. so. 327-332. Yee. A. H.. 8 Fruchter. B. (1971). Factor content of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. American Educational Research Journal. a. 119-133. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111lilliiilliiiliiii11118111111111i