A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF THE MECHTGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FULL TIME RESTDENT STUUENT TEACHING PROGRAM ON THE MTCHTGAN CENTER FOR FULT.= TIME RESIDENT STUDENT TEACHING T ThaIsIlooDogrooofiEdb MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSTTYé Carl William. Brufligam r . 1959 I An... THENS This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Study of the Effects of the Michigan State University Full-Time Resident Student Teaching Program on the Local Schools in the Southwestern Michigan Center for Fullh Time Resident Student Teaching presented by Qarl William Brautigam has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for l/fILIYII); fl, r I ._' I? 56? I zl- Ed. D. degree in mm .3 / l/A‘e. W4». #23 . Major professor Date—floxembeW959 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan State University I _4.L ! A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FULL-TIME RESIDENT STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAM ON THE LOCAL SCHOOLS IN THE SOUTHWESTERN EHCHIGAN CENTER FOR FULL-TIME RESIDENT STUDENT TEACHING by Carl William Brautigam AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administrative and Educational Services //‘T 4 I,/ 1? Approved 4 441. ."/O CARL WILLIAM BRAUTIGAM ABSTRACT The purpose of this dissertation was to: (1) De- scribe the Michigan State University full-time resident stu- dent teaching program in the Southwestern Michigan Center, and (2) Discover the effects of having full-time resident student teachers in the local cooperating schools with parti- cular emphasis on instruction, teachers, administrators, and pupils. The Southwestern Michigan Center for Full-Time Resi- dent Student Teaching was studied because it has been a cooperating center since the inception of the program. This choice permitted the investigation of three different school systems which had one resident coordinator and had been co- operating with the University under a single agreement. In reviewing the literature in the field of student teaching, particular care Was taken to study carefully those references dealing with off-campus student teaching. After intensive reading, questionnaires were developed and given to pupils and parents. A cross sectional approach to the opinions of both pupils and parents was used by giving questionnaires to all parents of sixth graders who had had student teachers in the past three years; and by giving questionnaires to 3h5 pupils in grades six, nine, and twelve. CARL WILLIAM BRAUTIGAM Administrators and teachers in all three school systems were interviewed. The administrators were inter- viewed by the writer and the teachers by one of their col- leagues within their own school system. A total of thirty- two teachers were interviewed, equally divided between ele- mentary and secondary teachers, supervising and non- supervising teachers, and teachers with two through five years' experience and teachers with over five years' ex- perience in the local school system. The conclusions reached were as follows: 1) A cOOperative arrangement between the institu- tions for teacher education and the local school systems for student teaching can be beneficial to the local school systems. 2) The work load of both teachers and administrators was not materially increased. The study shows that the aVerage number of extra hours spent by supervising teachers was fifty-six. It also shows that the average number of hours that the teacher could spend away from class per stu- dent teacher was sixteen. 3) Parents, generally, approved the schools' co- operating with teacher education institutions in the full- time resident student teaching program. A) Pupils' reactions to the full-time resident stu- dent teaching program are generally favorable. 52 ..Iirx,T IETJ 1 Lt CARL WILLIAM BRAUTIGAM ABSTRACT The following recommendations are offered as sug- gestions relative to the present cooperative program and to programs which might be established in the future. 1) The local administration and the teacher education institution should use all possible means to inform teachers of the services available and should encourage their use. 2) The teacher education institution should continue to study its pre-orientation program so that the transition of students from campus life to student teaching can be improved. 3) Supervising teachers, in all cases, should be desirous of participating in the program, and under no cir- cumstances, should they feel that supervising a student ‘ teacher is a duty required of them. 4) Supervising teachers should have but one student teacher a year. I S) The teacher education institution and the cooper- ating school systems should strive constantly to improve the evaluation aspects of the program. 6) Payment to the local school systems for their part in this aspect of teacher education should be to the school systems and not to the supervising teacher. The ad- ministration should be given as much freedom in the use of this payment as is consistent with good educational prac- tice. The payments should be used basically for the improve- ment of instruction within the local school systems. A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FULL-TIME RESIDENT STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAM ON THE LOCAL SCHOOLS IN THE SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN CENTER FOR FULL-TIME RESIDENT STUDENT TEACHING by Carl William Brautigam A THESIS Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administrative and Educational Services 1959 61 .20 34-5» .F/Llflé '2. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his sincere apprecia- tion to all who by their continued inspiration, coopera- tion, and guidance, have given valuable help to him in the accomplishment of this study. He is especially indebted to Dr. William H. Roe, Chairman of the committee, for his encouragement and help- ful criticisms and to Dr. David Krathwohl for his invalu- able help in the research aspects of the study. The interest, aid, and encouragement received from Dr. William V. Hicks, Dr. Clyde Campbell, and Dr. Charles Hoffer, is also acknowledged. Finally, the writer wishes to express his thanks to the teachers and administrators for their time and effort in assisting him in conducting the research phase of the study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS....T.............. LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Need for the Study . . . Statement of the Problem Limitations of the Study : Definition of terms . . . O O O . II. HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTH- WESTERN MICHIGAN CENTER FOR FULL-TIME RESIDENT STUDENT TEACHING. . . . . . . Early Experiments in Off-Campus Student Teaching at Michigan State University Development of the Southwestern Michi- gan Center for Full—Time Resident Student Teaching . . . . . . . . . Description of the Operation of the Full-Time Resident Student Teaching Program in the Southwestern Michigan Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . .‘. . . . . . III. A REVIEW OF THE PERTINENT LITERATURE . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV . WTHODOLOGY O O O O O 0 O D C I O 0 I O 0 Selection of Interviewers . . . . . . Selection of Teachers to be Interviewed Selection of Pupils . . . . . . . . . Selection of Parents . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Page ii ~JO47¥7 Id errata own» I-‘ \O 6h Chapter V. VI. Page ANALYSIS OF THE DATA SECURED . . . . . . . 47 General Effects of the COOperative Relationship Between the Local Schools and the University in the Full- Time Resident Student Teacher Program . . . . h? Analysis of Benefits or Hindrances to Instruction in the Cooperating Local Schools . . . . . . . R9 Analysis of the Services Provided to the Cooperating Schools by the Uni- versity . . . . 57 Analysis of the Effectiveness of Present Methods of Payments by University to Local Schools . . . . . . 67 Analysis of Work Load Increase to Administrators and Teachers Caused by Having Full-Time Resident Student Teaching in the Local School Systems 70 Analysis of the Present Operational Procedures of the Cooperative Rela— tionship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . 90 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . 9h Recommendations for Further Study . . . 97 BIBLIOGRAPHY o o o 0 O O c c D o o o o o O I o O o o 99 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D onoooooooooooocoooooe123 cocoooooouooo-oooouoolZS iv Table 1. LIST OF TABLES Opinions of Parents, Teachers and Admin- istrators Concerning the General Effect of Having Full-Time Resident Student Page Teachers upon the Cooperating Schools . . . ha Amount of Individual Help Given to Pupils as a Result of the Full-Time Resident Student Teaching Program in the South- western Michigan Center, as Observed by Pupils and Parents in the Three Com- munities of the Center . . . . . . . . . . SO Opinions of Teachers and Administrators Con- cerning the Effects of Full-Time Resident Student Teaching upon Instruction in Schools as a Whole . . . . . . . . . . . . Opinions of Teachers Regarding the Specific Effects upon Instruction in Classes with Full-Time Resident Student Teachers . . . . Opinions of Teachers and Administrators Con- cerning Specific Effects to Instruction Resulting from the Local School's Cooperat- ing in the Full-Time Resident Student Teaching Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . In-Service Aids Provided by Michigan State University Which Administrators Observed Being Used by Teachers, and Comparative Ranking of Each of These Aids . . . . . . . Percentages of Teachers Making Use of Services from the University . . . . . . . Rating of Each of the Services by Teachers Who Used Them (Number of Teachers ~ 14) . . Percentages of Teachers Indicating More Time Available for In-Service Education Activities Because of the Student Teaching Program Being in Local Schools . . . . . . 51 53 5h 58 60 61 62 Table 10. ll. 12. 13. 1h. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Page In—Service Activities That Teachers Indi- cated They Had More Time to Participate In Because of the Full—Time Resident Student Teaching Program . . . . . . . . . . 63 Desirable Additional Services Which Teachers Indicated the Teacher Education Institution Could Provide the Local Schools . . . . . . Present Usage of Payments to Cooperating Schools and Suggested Changes in Payment Method, as Reported by Administrators . . . 68 Amount of Work Load Increase Caused by the Full-Time Resident Student Teaching Program, as Observed by Teachers and Administrators in the Southwestern Michigan Center . . . . 71 Percentage of Teachers and Administrators Reporting Specific Tasks Resulting from the Student Teaching Program Which Increased TheirWorkLoad..............72 Ranking of Specific Tasks on a Basis of Extra Time Required, by Supervising Teachers and Administrators 0 o n o o o o I o o o o o O O 73 Comparison of Extra Hours Work and Hours Away from Class by Individual Supervising Teachers 0 o O O o o c o o o o o o o n o o 0 71‘- Information on the Use of Student Teachers as Substitutes Given by Teachers and Administrators in the Southwestern Michigan Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7? Present Methods of Appointing Supervising Teachers and the Resultant Problems Observed by Administrators in the Southwestern Michi- gan Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Teachers' Reaction Regarding Whether the Pro- cess Used to Select Supervising Teachers (1) Protects the Ability of the Supervising Teacher to Work with the Student Teacher, (2) Effects the Morale of the Staff, (3) As- sures Adequate Learning for Children . . . . 80 Present Policies Used and Changes Suggested by Administrators. I O O O I I O 0 O O I O O 83 Page Table 21. Percentage of Teachers and Administrators Reporting Particular Kinds of Parental c omen t O O I O O I O O O C O O O O I O O I 85 22. General Impressions of 3h5 Pupils in the Southwestern Michigan Center Concerning the Effectiveness of Full-Time Resident Student Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 "1:4 ............. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION For many years colleges and universities have been sending their teacher trainees to the public schools for student teaching. These students have been placed in the public schools for varying lengths of time. Early student teaching was acCOmplished for brief periods of the school day. In many instances the student teacher taught and ob- served for only a single period a day for a total length of one semester or term. This wasdone in either a college controlled campus school or in a nearby public school. Mere recently, it has been felt that this brief period of practical experience was all too inadequate. Lawson points out in a survey of the five teachers' col- leges in Illinois that the traditional practice teaching courses provide little more than classroom routine train- -ing.1 He further states that if the student teacher is to really participate in the richer experiences of the pro- fession, he cannot ordinarily do so on a part-time schedule which shares his interests with academic courses and numer- ous campus activities. 1Douglas E. Lawson, "Implications of a Survey of Teacher Training Practices in Illinois," Educational Admin- istration and Supervision Vol. 25 (October 1939’ pp. §23- 3—3.1 . 3 , 5 1 2 The program of full-time resident student teaching has been a step toward correcting this situation by pro- viding a more complete program in preparation for teaching. Colleges and universities have felt that the program of full-time resident student teaching would result in more adequately prepared teachers. Harry in his study of the student teaching programs at Ball State Teachers College, Indiana University, University of Minnesota, Ohio State University, and Western Michigan University found through interviews with deans of schools of education, heads of departments of education, and coordinators of laboratory experiences, that increasing the amount of student teaching to a full day for one quarter or one semester and including internship as a part of the requirements of the fourth year or of an added fifth year were perceived as being forward looking aspects of their schools' undergraduate professional programs in secondary and elementary education.2 Rucker noted a trend-toward either full-time student teaching or an integrated bloc near the end of the college experience.3 He also noted a greater use of laboratory experience in teacher education, provision for more off—campus experience in stu- dent teaching, and an increased use of laboratory experi— ence including student teaching, as reference points of the 2Shizuko N. Harry, "Some Trends in Teacher Education," Educational Research Bulletin, College of Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio (September 10, 1958), DP 0 158‘160 0 3Roy W. Rucker, "Trends in Student Teaching 1932- 1952," Journal 9; Teacher Education, (December, 1953), p. 263. 3 ‘ whole curriculum in teacher education. Michigan State University was one of the institutions that early saw the need for a change in the traditional type of student teaching experience for its students and took several significant steps to accomplish this change.u As the need for more and more laboratory experiences for stu- dent teachers became apparent, Michigan State University met this need by establishing resident student teaching centers in various communities throughout the State of Michigan. The establishment of these centers offered not only more 10- cations for an ever increasing number of students, but also offered experiences for potential teachers more in keeping with present educational needs and methods. Public schools have long accepted student teachers from teacher training institutions and aided in providing experiences for student teachers. Studies have been made of the attitudes of pupils in the public schools, attitudes of the supervising teachers, and the values of this type of student teaching experience from the viewpoint of the student teachers.5 However, very few studies describing the effects uThe history of these steps is traced in more detail in Chapter II of this dissertation. 5Vincent J. Glennon, Edwin E. Weeks, and William Ulrich, "The Administration of Programs of Off-Campus Student Teaching," Allen D. Patterson, "The Student Teachers Look at the Program," Donald M. Sharpe, "The Pupils Look at the Pro- gram," 30th Yearbook g: the Association :23 Student Teaching, State Teachers College, (Lock Haven, Pa.: l9§1§. Paul N. Clem, "A Study of the Michigan State University Full-Time Resident Student Teaching Pro ram" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University . u on the local schools as a result of their c00peration in the student teaching program have been completed. Need for the Study. The value of full-time student teaching as one of the best pre-service experiences for prospective teachers cannot be overemphasized. However, one of the problems connected with this program is that the public schools, colleges, and universities are not fully informed as to the effects of having full-time student teachers upon the in- structional process in the public schools where these stu- dent teachers are teaching. Apparently the Opinion of many school administrators, teachers, board of education members, and parents is favor- able because more and more schools are becoming centers for student teaching. Therefore, it seems to the writer that information from local cooperating schools about the effects of having student teachers in their schools would be im- portant to school administrators. The description of practices, effects, problems, and their solutions should aid in the smoother introduction and operation of these addi- tional programs in the future. Statement of the Problem This study is an attempt to discover the effects upon the public schools of their cooperative relationship with Michigan State University in the full-time resident student ,W-a-‘ .. 5 teaching program. Specific areas investigated were: (1) the instructional process, (2) the work load increase upon administrators and teachers and (3) the analysis of the present operational procedures. This research purports to demonstrate the following hypotheses: 1. The relationship between the local public schools and the University in the full-time resident student teacher program has been beneficial to the local school system. a) The individualization of instruction of pupils in the cooperating schools has been improved. b v Services provided by the University to the local schools as a result of their coopera- tion in the program have benefitted the in- structional program of the local school systems. Present methods of payment by the University v c to the local schools for their participation in the cooperative program are satisfactory and have benefitted the instructional program of the local schools. 2. The work load of the teachers and administrators in the cooperating public schools has not increased materi- ally. 3. The present procedures of Operation of the pro- gram are satisfactory to the local school systems. Limitations of the Study In this study certain limitations are inherent in the investigation, the situation, and the method used. The following limitations are recognized: 1. The writer has been the superintendent of schools in one of the three school systems in the study for the entire period of time that full-time resident student teachers have been in the South- western Michigan Center for Full-Time Resident Student Teaching, which includes the communities of Buchanan, Dowagiac, and Niles, Michigan.6 It is possible that because of his close connection with the program his interpretation of data would be less objective than someone not con- nected with any of the school systems. Since this study involved three different school systems with varying philOSOphies, it is evident that there may be differing advantages and dis- advantages in the.three schools. For example, certain problems might occur in one of the schools which might not occur in other schools 6Throughout this study the Southwestern Michigan Center for Full-Time Resident Student Teaching will be re- ferred to as the Southwestern Michigan Center. 7 and certain effects might be observed in one school but not in another. 3. The study is a questionnaire and opinion- interview survey. In this type of investiga- tion certain limitations are inherent and it must be recognized that the findings of this study were based upon and stated within the limitations of the assumed validity of data ob- tained from the interview and questionnaire method. While the writer's close connection with the program is listed as a limitation, he believes that his contacts with student teachers, supervising teachers, pupils, parents, administrators, and the University makes him more aware of the effects that the full-time resident student teaching program has upon the local schools. Definition of Terms Full-time resident stuggpt teacher progrgmgand full-time resident student teaching These terms refer to the pre-service experiences of the student teacher in a school not under the direct control of the University and too far removed from the campus for the students to return each night. His experiences are those of a regular staff member in the school where the stu- dent is located. Insofar as possible, the student assumes the role of a regular staff member and member of the communi- ty. His role is more specifically described in Chapter II. 1.. NHEWMUIIIIT # 8 Instructional process Egg instructional program These terms refer to the effort of the school to aid its pupils in the learning process. They include method- ology, subject matter, activities, interpersonal relation— ships between pupils and teachers, materials used by teach- ers in teaching, and the methods used by the schools to improve the effectiveness of the teacher. Administrators In this study administrators are limited to those persons in the school systems who spend their entire time in the administration and supervision of the school. In this study the positions occupied by the administrators were those of superintendent of schools and principals. Cooperatigg schools A cooperating school as the term is used in this study means a public secondary and elementary school system which cOOperates with the teacher training institution in ' the full-time resident student teaching program. Supervising teacher In this study supervising teachers are those regular staff members who have superviSed one or more full-time resident student teacher. Non-supervising teacher In this study non-supervising teachers are regular staff members who have not supervised any full-time resident student teachers. CHAPTER II HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN CENTER FOR FULL-TIME RESIDENT STUDENT TEACHING The concept of full-time resident student teaching centers was a natural outgrowth of the experimentation in student teaching that had been carried out at Michigan State University. Traditional half-day programs of student teach- ing in towns and villages surrounding the East Lansing campus within easy commuting distance had been in Operation for many years. Even during this period, Michigan State University had been experimenting with full-time resident student teach- ing. Early Experiments in Off-Cagpus Student Teaching at Michigan State University One of the early experiments was the Barry County Program. This program operated during the 1937-1938 school year under the direction of Dr. Guy Hill. For the first time, student teachers from Michigan State University left the campus and went to live in the community where they were to do their student teaching. Dr. Hill would visit the center within the county one day each week, during which time he offered course work to the student teachers. In l9h6 a full-time resident student teaching program under the direction of Dr. Troy Stearns was started. Se- 10 lected elementary education majors went for the fall term only to Marshall, Michigan to do student teaching. This program required that both the student teachers and the di- rector live in Marshall for the full quarter. Each student had a half day of student teaching for the term in Marshall. In addition to the classroom duties he participated in related activities of the regular teacher such as: field trips, teachers' meetings, home visitations, and other community activities. Another important phase of this experience was the giving of volunteer services to the community. These ser- vices included: aiding community chest drives, teaching adults, working with Parent Teacher Associations, present- ing programs to local groups, and substituting for teachers in the local schools. After the experiment was discontinued in l95h, Dr. Stearns conducted a follow-up study of the participants in the program. He also interviewed fifteen elementary prin- cipals who had employed these students. The results of the study indicate that over eighty percent of the students in the program rated their experi- ence in the Marshall program as much better in effectiveness and carry over value than work done in other courses at the University. Thirty of the students were employed in the schools administered by principals interviewed in the studyI/fl The principals rated seventy percent of these students as I - w“ messes-er. - 11 more effective teachers than most teachers.1 It is probable that the success of this experimen- tal program had an influence on the establishment of the full-time resident centers in 1955-1956. Development of the Southwestern Michigan _§pter for -Tig§ Res gp_ Student Teaching It was during the 195h-1955 year that the first dis- cussions were held with the administrators and teachers of the Battle Creek, Grand Rapids, and Birminghan,Michigan school systems relative to establishing centers for full- time resident student teaching. Each of these public school systems was large enough to take sufficient student teachers to provide a full time position for a resident coordinator. At the time plans were being made for opening the centers in Battle Creek, Birmingham and Grand Rapids, dis- cussions were being held in Southwestern Michigan relative to opening a center for full-time resident student teaching there. One essential difference between the Southwestern Michigan Center and the other centers was that the South- western Michigan Center was to be a cooperative arrangement with three school systems and the University. Prior to the establishment of the center several meetings were held between representatives of the University lTroy L. Stearns, "A Study of the Effectiveness of Off- Campus Laboratory Experiences Offered Elementary Education Majors in Marshall, Michigan, 19h6-195h," A Report 39 Egg All Universit Research Committee (Michigan State University, 19 9 pp. 33-89. ' l2 and the three school systems. The people at these meet- ings were: Dr. W.V. Hicks, Director of Student Teaching; Dr. Lee W. Dean, Assistant Dean, College of Education from Michigan State University; and the three superinten- dents from the school systems of Buchanan, Dowagiac, and Niles. Many Of these meetings were held in the Southwestern area schools. The problems discussed included the follow- ing: 1. Integrating student teachers into the school program. 2. Identifying criteria for selection of super- vising teacher. 3. Providing housing for student teachers. h. Deciding the financial arrangements relative to the program. After considerable discussion on these problems the following agreements were reached. 1. Student teachers were to be integrated into the local staff gradually but were to have the status of regular staff members as far as pos- sible. This was to be particularly true in relation to the school policies. a) Student teachers would visit the local school the term preceding their actual student teach- ing to meet their supervising teachers, secure housing, and learn something about the com- i ' _-. E. l. '\ . . . 1 , . - mp ‘ - . : . r. - . . . . - - .. .. - . n- ' I . . .. I ‘ ' — ‘ . C . . . I u ' - I . . . . . O - _:‘ '.\' . n -'-5 ‘3- » i . _ . I ' . ‘x'; 4‘ ‘37 ‘ ‘ W a? _‘. ‘ . - . _u ‘- ‘ .5 .\ 7‘; 7,. ,“J ( . ? r “-L .c‘. I- ,L L V I ('I d www- =. . -. .- . 13 munity where they would be teaching. b Their induction to full-time teaching would v be gradual beginning with Observation and working up to full-time teaching as they be- came capable. The resident coordinator, the supervising teacher, and the administration would determine the amount of full-time teach- ing each student teacher was to do. Supervising teachers would be OOOPeratively se- lected by the resident coordinator and the local school administration. The criteria for selection was to be cooperatively worked out by each school system and the resident coordinator. One criteri- on was agreed upon and that was that the super- vising teacher should have at least two years experience. Housing for the student teachers was to be se- E cured for the first group by the local administra- tion. The resident coordinator with the help of the preceding term's student teachers and local school peOple would secure housing for later groups. The resident coordinator would be jointly chosen by the University and the local school administra- tion. For the first year the University would pay half of his salary and each school system would pay one-sixth of his salary. He would spend half 1h of his time supervising the student teaching program and half of his time in research work for the local school systems. 5. There was to be no payment for the first year by the University to the local schools. 6. Each local Board of Education would have to approve the program and enter into contractual agreements with the University before the pro- gram could begin. These contracts would be of one years duration and be renegotiated each year. The University agreed to provide help in the train- ing Of supervising teachers through workshops and courses and would assume the cost Of these undertakings. stould also help the local schools with materials from University sources and provide consultative help. All the student teachers who came to the South- western Michigan Center when it Opened in September Of 1955 were elementary education majors who had elected to take a term of full-time resident student teaching rather than the regular half-day sessions at schools near the campus. A resident coordinator had been cooperatively selected by the school systems and the University. As is usual with a new program, there were some un- anticipated problems, but on the whole the integration of the student teachers into the school staffs and the com- munities was accomplished smoothly. The orientation tech- nique of a visit the preceding term, which was previously 15 mentioned, proved very helpful and has been continued with each group of student teachers. The division and efficient use of the ccordinator's time was one of the problems that became evident during the first year's Operation. In fact, it was the problem that seemed to have no satisfactory solution even by the time the year ended. However, by the end of the year, the program had proved so successful that Michigan State University de- cided to require full-time resident student teaching of all elementary education majors and to allow secondary education majors to elect it in place of the regular half—day program. Since this option would increase the number of student teach- ers in the center, the resident coordinator was paid entirely by the University. During the two years since then the program has con- tinued to function in much the same manner. The signifi- cant changes were: (1) both elementary and secondary teach- ers were provided full-time resident student teaching in the center, (2) the resident coordinator spent full time super- vising the student teaching program, (3) beginning with the second year the University paid to each school system twenty- five dollars for every student teacher. This payment was to be used for the improvement of the school's instructional Program. Its use was not limited to the supervising teach- ers although it was agreed that they had first call upon these funds. I. 1.5 Description of the Operation of the Full-Time Resident Student Teaching Program in the Southwestern Michigan Center The history of the development of the full-time resident student teaching program in Southwestern Michigan has been traced, but the actual operation of the program remains to be described. Before the students actually come to the center for their full-time resident student teaching, there are three important step s taken. 1. The students, during the term immediately preced- ing their actual student teaching, indicate their preference of student teaching centers. 2. Personnel in the Student Teaching office assign each student teacher to one of the centers. Insofar as possible, the student is assigned to his first choice. 3. These assignments together with biographical material and student records for each of the stu- cent teachers are given to the resident coordina- tor. He consults the school administrators and cooperatively they tentatively assign the student teachers to supervising teachers in one of the three school systems. The supervising teachers haVe been consulted and have agreed to the assign- ment prior to final placement. After these steps have been completed, the University selects a date for the visitation of the next term's student % n 17'- teachers to the center. On the day of the visitation the student teacher spends some time with the administration, some time with his supervising teacher, and some time with the student teachers already in the local school. He takes a tour of the community, learns something about the com- munity and school, and secures housing for the coming term. When the student teachers arrive in the community for their term of full-time resident student teaching, they have a place to live, they know their supervising teacher, and they know where and when to report for their student teaching. In some cases the student teachers have taken back to the campus texts and other materials they will be working with. The purpose of these steps in orientation is to provide a smooth transition from campus classes to class- room teaching. To complete the analysis of the student teaching pro- gram in the Southwestern Michigan Center, it is felt that a description of the process the student teacher follows from his first day through the term would be valuable. While the duration of each step varies with school systems and with individual student teachers, the general process is as follows: 1. First are provided Opportunities for observation in the classroom.’ 2. Experiences in handling routine tasks such as the following are then provided: taking role, helping individual students, grading some ' j I 18 papers, studying the permanent records, and other similar tasks. 3. Actual student teaching generally begins with a single class or period and advances to full- time student teaching as rapidly as the student teacher demonstrates that he is ready to assume the responsibility. 4. After a period of at least three weeks of full- time student teaching, the student teacher begins to decrease the teaching load, and usually by the end of the term he is again teach- ing a single class or period. 5. After the three weeks of full-time student teache ing, most of the student teachers are encouraged to observe in closely related grades and subject- matter areas. In some cases they do some teach- ing in these areas. During all of this time the student teacher has been participating in many other activities related to the overall job of teaching. He has helped the supervising teacher with all of his related tasks which include such things as super- vising playground activities, attending P.T.A. meetings, participating in parental conferences, and many other normal activities of a regular staff member. Throughout the term he has had conferences with the coordinator and the super- vising teacher. He has participated in a weekly three hour seminar related to his student teaching experience which 19 has been devoted to discussion of and instruction in the teaching process. Particular emphasis has been given to the relationship of theory to practice. The student teach- er has prepared lesson plans and they have been analyzed by both the supervising teacher and the coordinator. He has also participated in community and civic activities. The term lasts from ten to twelve weeks. At the end of the term the resident coordinator and the supervis- ing teacher who have both observed and conferred with the student teacher jointly evaluate him. Summary The deVelopment of the Southwestern Michigan Center followed logically the early experiments in Barry County and in Marshall conducted by Michigan State University prior to 1954. During the l95h-1955 school year all of the plan- ning for the develOpment of centers for full-time resident student teaching was completed and centers were opened in the fall of 1955. During the first year the Southwestern Michigan Center had elementary student teachers only and a resident coordinator was jointly appointed by the local school systems and the University. His time was equally divided between supervising the student teaching program and doing research for the local school systems. Beginning with the second year the program expanded to include secondary student teachers and the resident co- ordinator now devoted all of his time to the supervision of the student teaching program. 20 ‘The student teacher is introduced to the local school by a pre-term visitation for a day during which he meets his supervising teacher, his classes, and secures housing. \ His integration into full-time student teaching begins with observation and he gradually increases his actual teaching from a single period to full—time teaching. After at least three weeks of full-time student teaching the teaching load is gradually reduced to a single period. Observation and, in some cases, teaching is done in closely related grades or subjects. . During this entire period the student teacher has participated in the normal extra-class functions of regu- lar staff members and in a weekly three hour seminar. Supervising teachers are cooperatively selected from regular staff members, who have agreed to accept student teachers, by the administration and the resident coordina- tor. The University pays to each school system twenty- five dollars per student teacher. This money is used for the improvement of the instructional program of the local school and is not paid directly to the supervising teacher. The evaluation of the student teacher is a cooperative pro- cedure by the supervising teacher and the resident coordina- tor. CHAPTER III A REVIEW OF THE PERTINENT LITERATURE The need for professional laboratory experiences for the teachers-in-training can be traced to the begin- nings of American teacher training. Since then there has been a constant movement to increase the amount and variety of laboratory experiences as a part of the teacher training program. Student teaching has been and still continues to be an important phase of teacher training. In the past, the concept of what constituted student teaching has been some- what limited. Schorling makes the following statement: The concept of student teaching is too limited. We need to think of it as living with pupils in a great variety of situations in which emphasis is on the effort to get a desirable interplay between in- dividuals and environment that contributes to nor- mal growth. Student teaching should be broadened to include experiences with tisks that carry the teacher beyond the classroom. He also states that pre-service experiences often failed to give pedagogical competence and that everything that a student teacher does should come to have meaning.2 lRaleigh Schorling, Student Teaching (New York: flcGraw Hill Book Company, 19 9 , P. x. 21bid., p.xi. 21 22 Dewey in speaking of experience states that each experience both takes something from those which have gone before and modifies in some way the quality of those which come after.3 Direct experience with the teaching process has always been a necessary part of the education of teach- ers. Historical accounts of student teaching point out that almost with the beginning of the first normal school, the campus or laboratory school appeared. This was a school located on the campus and operated by the normal college which provided a facility for the student to do practice teaching. The length of time for practice teach- ing has varied almost from the beginning of student teach- ing. Before 1920 much of the laboratory experiences for student teaching were gained through the campus school. The first use of off—campus facilities is not recorded, but one can surmise that off-campus student teaching began almost as soon as normal schools had more students than their model schools could handle. Some of the larger colleges and universities used off-campus schools as laboratory schools very early in the history of student teaching and, in fact, transported their students to and from the off-campus school each day. It is re- corded that in 1920 one-third of the normal schools in the country were using the public schools for student teaching 3John Dewey, Democrac and Education (New York: The MacMillan Company, 191 , p. l 9. 23' and that after 1928 many of the teacher training institu- tions started using the public schools together with, or in place of, the campus schools.“ The student teacher program continued to expand in numbers of student teachers and in length of time devoted to student teaching in both the campus and off-campus schools. In 1933 Foster pointed out that the number of campus schools was increasing, but that the public schools were still the most common places for student teachers to do their student teaching.5 In l9h5 Brink's study of stu- dent teaching brought out the fact that the public schools were still bearing the heaviest burden although the campus schools were not decreasing.6 Even though most colleges and universities had campus schools by 1948, they, along with those who did not have campus schools, had working arrangements with nearby public schools in which their stu- dents did practice teaching. Michigan State University was one of these institutions. Several influences have been at work to bring about uE.L. Welborn, "Cooperation with Local Schools in Student Teaching," Educational Administration and Supervi- sion, Vol. 6 (November, 1920), pp. REE-E70. SFrank K. Poster, ”The Training School in the Educa- tion of Teachers," Teacher Education Curricula, National Survey of Education of Teachers, Bulletin No. 10 (1933), PP o 367-)‘t01 0 6William G. Brink, "The Administration of Student Teaching in Universities Which Use the Public Schools," Eg- ucational Administration gag Supervision, Vol. uh (October, 1958), pp. 39u-u07. ¢—- 213 an increase in the amount and variety of experiences for student teachers. Stratemeyer states that the need for di- rect experiences to give meaning to ideas, and to develop understanding that goes beyond verbalization to the ability to implement ideas in action, suggests a professional pro— gram in which direct experience is an integral part of each of the four years of college.7 The same idea is expressed in School and Community Laboratory Experiences $3 Teacher 8 Education. Forward looking public school administrators all over the United States have also begun to demand better qualified beginning teachers. The American Association of School Administrators in l9h5 stated that there was a need for expanding the use of the public schools as laboratories for the pre-service training of teachers.9 A new note enters when the Association states that the school districts of America have a responsibility to provide this laboratory 3 service. : Wengart believes that the program in teachers' col- leges should permit acquaintance of student teachers with 7Florence B. Stratemeyer, "The Expanding Role of Direct Experience in Professional Education," Off-Campus Student Teaching, Thirtieth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching, (Lock Haven, Pa.: 1951), p. 10. 8John G. Flowers et al., School and Community Labora- tory Egperiences lg Teacher Education, American Association of Teachers Colleges, (19H8), p. 322. 9American Association of School Administrators, Paths 32 Better Schools, Twenty-third Yearbook, (Washington: The Association, 1951), p. 173. 25 all levels of public school education and that the obser- vation and contact with children should be an integral part of the professional education of the teacher.10 In 1926, The American Association of Teachers Colleges pro- posed that a minimum of ninety hours of student teaching per student teacher be required.11 This quantitive standard was modified in 1951 by The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education whose recOmmendations included: 1. Professional laboratory experiences as an integral part of the work of each year of col- 2. izggratory experience both before and after student teaching. 3. Student teaching on a full-time basis. A. Fifth year internship. 2 As the colleges and universities began to change from the traditional practice teaching and move toward the full-time student teaching the problems of finding facili- ties for student teaching became acute. Campus schools were no longer able to meet all the demands for laboratory experience. The easiest answer was to expand the use of the off-campus schools. As Swenson and Hammock found after analyzing the problem, 10Stanley A. Wengert, "Laboratory Experience and Student Teaching: Elementary School," Egg Education 2; Teach- ggg gg Viewed by Egg Profession, Official Group Reports of the Bowling Green Conference. 11American Association of Teachers Colleges, Standards for Accrediting Teachers Colle es, Yearbook, (Oreonta, New York: The Association, 192%), p. 11. 12American Association of Colleges for Teacher Edu- cation, Revised Standards ggg olicies £23 Accrediting Colleges £23 Teacher Education, Oreonta, New York; The Association, l9§15, .25. 26 "The public school is near, it can absorb relatively large numbers of college students, it is relatively inexpensive to colleges, and most important, perhaps, it is already built and staffed and immediately ready for use." Even though it appears that the expansion of the off- campus student teaching centers was due to the press of stu— dents and lack of facilities on the campus, another factor suggesting the need for increased use of the public schools has been the conviction held by many leaders in both the public schools and teacher education that the intending teachers need direct experience with children in both lab— oratory and public school situations},+ So it was both from necessity and choice that the teacher training institu- tions have turned to the public schools as laboratories for student teaching. This trend toward the use of the public schools as student teaching laboratories has continued and more and more public schools have become laboratories for student teaching. Jones, after a survey of five hundred and fifty- one teacher preparing institutions, indicates that the number of students having off-campus student teaching will 13Esther J. Swenson and Robert C. Hammock, "Off- Campus Laboratory Experiences, Their Growth, Importance and Present Role in Teacher Education," Off-ngpus Student Teaching, Thirtieth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching (Lock Haven, Pa.: 1951), P. 26. 1”Wayne R. Adams and Robert B. Toulouse, "State Pro- grams for Providing Good Laboratory Facilities in Teacher Education," Off-ngpus Student Teaching, Thirty-third Year- book of the Association for Student Teaching, (Lock Haven, Pa.: 195h), p. 62. 2? increase in the decade following 1958.15 VanAntwerp points out that at George Peabody College for Teachers both campus and off-campus plans have been used since l9h8, but that the off-campus plan has continued to expand. He also states that it is certainly generally accepted that a full day of student teaching on a quarter or half semester basis, as a minimum, is the most productive assignment.16' . Illinois State Normal University has for ten years had full-time student teaching throughout Illinois with students living in the communities in which they do their student teaching. This has been an elective for the stu- dents and forty to fifty percent of the teacher education majors have elected this type of student teaching.17 Morris in a survey of Nebraska off-campus situations concludes that student teaching should be done in one inten- sive period as a block of time rather than a single period plan.18 Wiggins also points out that at least one quarter 15Rodney M. Jones, "An Investigation of Practices of Teacher Preparing Institutions in Extending Recognition to Off-Campus Cooperating Teachers" (unpublished Ed.D. dis- sertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1958). 16C.B. VanAntwerp, "In Transition from On-Campus to Off-Campus Student Teaching," Curriculgg Trends 229 Teacher Education, Thirty-second Yearbook, The Association for Stu- dent Teaching, (Lock Haven, Pa.: 1953), pp. 33-34. 17Newsletter 2; the Council 23 Cooperation 12 Teacher Education. (January, 1957). 18Evert Paul Morris, "The Organization and Adminis- tration of Student Teaching, as Conducted in the Public Schools (Off-Campus) of Nebraska," (unpublished Ed.D. dis- sertation, University of Nebraska Teachers College, 1957). 28 of uninterrupted work in student teaching is needed.19 Lindsey in 1954 reported on a study made of seventy- six institutional evaluation reports. One of the conclu- sions resulting from this report was that, in general, students are spending more time in student teaching, both because of increased emphasis on full-time student teach- ing and because of the increase in the length of assignment of student teaching. Another conclusion from the same re- port states that there is a marked increase in the use of off-campus cooperating schools in all phases of the se- quence of professional laboratory experience.20 The literature reviewed thus far has established the fact that the change in student teaching is toward full-time student teaching. There is no indication that the need for the campus laboratory school is decreasing. On the contrary, the need for and functions of both the campus schools and cooperating public schools are increas- ing. The greater emphasis is being placed upon the use of g cooperating public schools as direct experience schools for full-time student teaching and for laboratory experi- ences in addition to student teaching. The rest of this chapter is devoted to a review of 198am P. Wiggins, ”Improving Off-Campus Teaching." Education, (June, 1953), pp. 622-629. 2OMargaret Lindsey, "Standard VI - Five Years After," Seventh Yearbook, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, (l95h), p. 124. 29 the more recent literature concerning the practices presently found in cooperating public schools. Most of the literature reports on the relationships between the teacher education institution and the local cooperating schools. One of the areas in the relationship between the teacher education institution and the local cooperating schools which has long been handled in various ways, has been the policy of payment to the local schools for their part of the student teaching program. Jones' survey reveals that 50.7% of the teacher train- ing institutions surveyed paid sums directly to the super- vising teachers, while 18.3% paid money to the local systems?1 Sand's survey of one hundred and twelve institutions for teacher training revealed that sixty~eight or 60.7% paid local schools for taking student teachers, and that of these sixty-eight institutions 52.8% paid the sums directly to the supervising teachers.22 A survey of the Big Ten Universi- ties made by Hicks in 1958 shows that five of the nine uni- versities replying, pay sums directly to the supervising teachers and five also paid the local schools in their in- 21Jones Op. Cit. 22John E. Sands, "Off-Campus Student Teaching Prac- tices in 112 Institutions," Education, Vol. 73 (June, 1953), pp. 636-6141;. _______ 30 service education program.23 Mbon states that in a high quality student teaching program in a public school, col- lege reinbursement is made directly to the public school for additional personnel, facilities, and materials so that the public school can cooperate in a high quality student teaching program.2u Engle and Sharpe in describing the problems relating to the cooperating schools and the sug- gested solutions to them, state that it would seem more consistent with the concept of joint responsibility and ef- fort, to earmark funds for the support of the off-campus program directly to the school corporation. They also state that teachers with special responsibilities should receive appropriate adjustments in teaching load, but no special monetary reward.25 Burnham also supports the concept that supervising teachers should receive adjustments in load. She points out that a reasonable load is necessary for a teacher to be . 26 a successful supervising teacher. ' 23William V. Hicks, "Information about Off-Campus Student Teaching Practices" (Michigan State University, Jan- uary, 1959, Mimeographed Bulletin). 2MA.C. Moon, "A High Quality Student Teaching Pro- gram" (Statements prepared for use in Regional and National TEPS Conferences, 1959). ZSShirley Engle and Donald M. Sharpe, "The Cooperat- ing School: Current Function in Teacher Education," Func- tions 2: Laboratory Schools ig Teacher Education, Thirty- fourth Yearbook, Association for Student Teaching, (Lock Haven, Pa.: 1955), p. 53. 26Myrtle c. Burnham, "The Cooperating School Staff Looks at the Program,” Off-Campus Student Teaching, Thirtieth Yearbook, Association for Student Teaching, (Lock Haven, Pa.: 1951), pp- 95-103. 3E While the prevailing practice is to pay sums direct— 1y to the cooperating teachers, there seems to be a feeling on the part of the leaders in the area that a better method of payment is the joint responsibility concept with the payment going to the schools not the individual teachers. Some references to the practices used to secure co- coperation and joint action and planning are found in recent literature. Chase suggests the need for cooperation in planning and evaluating and the constant need for keep- ing in touch through a resident coordinator.27 Burnett and Dickson urge the use of the workshop approach with the supervising teacher working with the college personnel in 28 Dixson in a com- order to secure closer cooperation. mittee report to the North Central Association states that in order to promote fuller and more realistic programs of student teaching a closer relationship between the teacher training institutions and the public schools is necessary.29 Dieckman reports that visitation before arrange- .ments is one of the ways that cooperation is secured by many of the teacher training institutions. The coopera- tive arrangements extend to the selection of supervising 27Daniel Chase "Student Teaching Programs Require Effective Cooperation," California Journal of Secondary Ed- ucation, (April, 1955), pp. 200- 201. 28Lewis W. Burnett and George E. Dickson, "Coopera- tive Improvement of Off- -Campus Student Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education, Vol.1, (December, 1950) pp. 287- -29 . 29Paul T. Dixson, (Chairman) "Some Guiding Prin- ciples for Student Teaching Programs," Committee Report North Central Association ggarterly, Vol. 32, (October, 1957) pp. 193- -196 32 teachers and the selection of student teachers who are to come to the local schools. She also points out that the cooperative arrangements should be of such a nature that they can be terminated at the end of a year if conditions are not satisfactory to either the college or to the off- campus cooperating school.30 School administrators have felt that one of the ad- vantages accruing to the local school systems through the cooperation with the teacher training institution in the student teaching program has been the advantage they re- ceived in the recruitment of teachers. This, if true, has been a distinct advantage recently because of the acute teacher shortage. Hicks in a study made in 1958 of the new teachers employed by the student teaching centers states that school systems c00perating in student teaching enjoy distinct advantage in recruitment over school sys- tems which have no student teaching affiliation. The study also shows that, on the average, one out of every . twelve student teachers return as a full staff member to the school where he did his student teaching.31 3OVerna Dieckman, "Developing Good Working Relation- ships with Off-Campus Cooperating Teachers," Facilities for Professional Laboratory Experiences in Teacher Education, (Thirty-third-Yearbook, Association for Student Teaching, (Lock Haven, Pa.: 1954), pp. 26-h5. 31William v. Hicks, "Where do Student Teaching Cen- ters Secure Teachers?" (Michigan State University, 1958, MimeOgraphed Bulletin). 33 Two studies have been reported that give some re- action of local people to the full-time resident student teaching program. Sharpe,in a study of five hundred stu- dents in western Indiana communities which had had student teachers from Indiana State University, used the question- naire and focused interview methods to secure reactions to student teachers from pupils in classes that had had stu- dent teachers. His results indicate that over fifty percent of the pupils expressed approval of the program.32 The general reactions favoring student teachers fell into six categories: (1) favorable attitudes but no reason for attitudes, (2) student teachers presented new ideas and new approaches, (3) pupils approved because they knew plan would help student teachers, (h) pupils like student teachers because they are young, (5) more individu— al help is possible because of student teachers, (6) classes became less formal because of student teachers.33 Unfavorable reactions fell into the following four 1 categories: (1) student teachers were inferior to regular teachers, (2) student teachers didn't make classes inter- esting, (3) class discipline deteriorated, (k) pupils found it difficult to adjust to more than one teacher.3u 32Donald M. Sharpe, "The Pupils Look at the Program," Off-Campus Student Teaching, Thirtieth Yearbook, Associa- {éon for Student Teaching, (Lock Haven, Pa.: 1951), pp. 104- 0 33Ibid., p. 106. 341b1d., p. 107. 3h Interviews with supervising teachers revealed that with few exceptions they felt that their pupils liked to have student teachers in their classes. In general the pupils' opinions about student teaching gained through the interviews are essentially the same as those expressed in 35 the questionnaires. Sharpe in his summary and conclusions states: Almost any point could be "proved" by the "right" selection of pupil reSponses. However, the following conclusions represent insofar as pos- sible the opinions of most pupils who have had student teachers: 1. Pupils enjoy having student teachers in their classes. They do not want them in every class nor do they want them throughout the whole year. Probably the most important reason for liking student teachers is the fact that having them constitutes a novel, and therefore an in- teresting experience. Other reasons include the recognition that two teachers are able to provide more help than one teacher alone, and the recog- nition that the program provides valuable exper- iences to future teachers. 2. Pupils feel that their learning does not suffer when student teachers are assigned to a class. Most of them feel that the total learning situation is improved. The fact that they feel as they do is a high compliment to the c00perat- ing teacher, who plays the crucial role. 3. Pupils reCOgnize that matters of group con- trol and discipline present more difficult problems to the student teacher than to the regular teacher. However, they do not feel that they have suffered because of the student teacher's inexperience. h. Pupils seem to share the opinion of those persons who have instituted off—campus student teaching programs that such a gooperative arrange- ment is a desirable practice.3 351bid., p. 118. 361bid., pp. 119-120. 35 A second report of the reaction of local people about the student teaching program is made by Mary Coleman, a former teacher, who reports on the reaction of citizens in Marshall, Michigan to the Michigan State University pro- gram which has been described in Chapter Two. Her report is based upon personal observations and conversations with people in the community. The more important attitudes she discovered through these approaches include: (1) Chil- dren received more individual attention in classes with student teachers, especially the slower ones. (2) Regular teachers seemed to welcome the student teachers into the schools. (3) Parents and other adults seemed delighted to have the student teachers in the community. The extra -curricu1ar activities of the student teachers were particu- larly evident and welcomed. (h) Parents had one observa- tion for improvement which was that the student teachers should bring even more new ideas to the class. (5) In general, citizens in Marshall believed that the full-time . student teaching program was good for both the school and the community.37 Both of these studies have been reported in some detail because of their close relationship to the writer's 37Mary S. Coleman, "The Community Looks at the Pro- gram," Off-Cgmpus Student Teaching. Thirtieth Yearbook. Association for Student Teaching, (LOOK Haven, Pa.: 1951) pp. 89-9h. 36 study. Sharpe‘s study provided valuable help in the de— velopment of the questionnaires which were used with pupils in this study. The pupils in the classroom and the parents in the community need to be fully informed concerning the student teaching program in the local schools. Adams and Dickey state that the student teacher can help to explain the pro- gram to the public and more particularly the parents because he is viewed by citizens as a part of the faculty and does play a rather important role in communicating information to the parents concerning the true aspects of the program.38 They also state that the major criticism of student teach- ing, which is raised by parents, centers about the occasion- al exploitation of pupils which can be overcome through effective orientation of both the supervising teachers and the student teachers.39 This review of literature has attempted to give 5 both historical and current references specifically about off-campus student teaching programs. Reports are being published constantly concerning practices and principles of off-campus student teaching. These indicate an intense interest,not only on the part of teacher education institu- tions but also by the public school people, in this aspect 38Harold P. Adams and Frank G. Dickey, Basic Princi- ples of Student Teaching, (New York: American Book Company, ): PP. 29' ”33¢ 39Ibid., p. 31. of teacher education. Summary Student teaching has been a part of the training of teachers since formalized programs for teacher education were established. There has been a gradual movement toward both increasing the length of time spent in student teach- ing and doing the student teaching in as realistic a situa- tion as possible. Both the campus and the off-campus schools have been used for many years. The trend has been toward increasing the use of the off-campus public schools because of the availability of these facilities and the conviction that intending teachers need direct experience with children in both laboratory and public school situa- tions. The most recent development in the student teaching program has been the increasing use of full-time resident student teaching centers, which permit the student to more closely approximate the actual teaching situation he will face upon graduation from college. ' Information is available which indicates that this type of program is better for the student teacher's pre- service program. Very little information relative to the effects of this program in the local schools is available. What information is available seems to indicate that, in general, student teaching has been accepted by the school people and that parents and citizens generally have looked with favor upon the off-campus approach to student teaching. CHAPTER IV METHODOLOGY Discussion with the Department of Teacher Educa- tion, members of the doctoral committee, and with public school administrators in the state led to the development of the idea that a descriptive study of the full-time resi- dent student teaching program established by Michigan State University would provide information about the effect of student teaching on the public schools. The Southwestern Michigan Center was selected because it was one of the first centers to be established, and because the effects upon three different school systems operating under the same agreement and with a single coordinator could be studied in some detail. In addition, the writer had been closely affiliated with this center's program since its inception. The study used a combination of the opinion- interview and the questionnaire technique for securing data. The literature concerning off-campus student teach- ing was studied for help in developing the two instruments. After an analysis of the materials found in the literature, it appeared that the interview technique should be used with the administrators and teachers, and the questionnaire technique with the pupils and parents. 38 39 Since the writer had a close relationship with all of the administrators in the three school systems, he con- ducted the interviews of the administrators. The adminis- _ trators provided the leadership in developing the program and in setting the pattern of student teaching coopera— tively with the University. It was felt that interviews 3 with these persons would yield more data regarding admin- istrative and supervisory problems and functions than would questionnaires.l Selection of Interviewers Discussion concerning the best techniques for secur- ing information from the teachers indicated that more ac- curate information could be secured if the writer did not conduct these interviews. The opinions of teachers would be less biased'if the interviews were conducted by one of their colleagues. It was also felt that teachers would discuss problems related to the program, particularly those of a critical nature, with one of their peers rather than with an administrator of the schools. In each of the schools the writer and the administrators cooperatively selected a teacher who, in their opinion, had good rapport with the members of the staff in that school system, was unbiased in his attitude toward the student teaching pro- gram, and had in the past shown interest in research. 1See Appendix A. no These people were contacted by their administrators and asked whether they would assist in this project and con- duct the interviews in their school systems. The three individuals were all fully certified teachers who had a minimum of a bachelors degree. Their experience ranged from three years to over fifteen years of teaching. All three had had full-time resident stu- dent teachers from Michigan State University. Two of the three had taught in other school systems. One of the interviewers had been a full-time student teacher. After the teachers had agreed to conduct the interé views, they met individually with the writer and discussed the process of interviewing. Each of them was given a copy of the schedules they were to use and together with the writer went over it in detail.2 Stress was put upon the necessity for objectivity on the part of the inter- viewer and upon the desirability of the interviewer probing for answers. The interviewers were asked to en- courage the teachers interviewed to talk freely, to ex- press attitudes, opinions, and to give suggestions about the full~time resident student teaching program in their ; schools. 28cc Appendix B. hi Selection of Teachers to the Interviewed Because the effect of student teaching on the total school system.was part of the desired information, it was necessary to secure opinions from a representative sans pling of all the teachers in each school system. Since the full-time resident student teaching program had been in operation for the past three years, only teachers with two or more years' experience in the local system would be interviewed. Teachers with less than two years' experi— ence in the local schools would probably have only casual knowledge of the student teaching program and would be unable to gauge accurately the effects that full-time resi- dent student teachers have on the local schools. The following process of selecting teachers to be interviewed was decided upon and carried out in each of the three school systems. 1. All of the teachers in each school system having more than two years‘ experience in the local schools were placed into one of two lists. They were placed in the elementary list if they taught in grades kindergarten through six; they were placed in the secondary list if they taught in grades seven through twelve. 2. Each of the above lists was divided into two categories. One category contained the names of all of the teachers who had been supervising teachers, and the second category contained the 3. #2 names of all teachers who had never been super- vising teachers. Each of the above categories was then divided into two groups; a group of teachers who had had from two to five years' experience in the local school system, and a group who had had more than five years' experience in the local school system. This produced the following categories of teachers: 1. 2. A group of elementary supervising teachers with two to five years' experience. A group of elementary non-supervising teachers with two to five years' experience. A group of elementary supervising teachers with over five years experience. A group of elementary non-supervising teachers with over five years' experience. A group of secondary supervising teachers with two to five years' experience. A group of secondary non-supervising teachers with two to five years' experience. A group of secondary supervising teachers with over five years' experience. A group of secondary non—supervising teachers with over five years' experience. The names of the teachers in each of the categories 1&3 were arranged alphabetically and then numbered consecu- tively. Numbers equal to the total in each category were placed in separate receptacles and a disinterested person was asked to draw from each receptacle one number in the case of Buchanan and Dowagiac and two numbers in the case of Niles, giving a total of four teachers in each cate- gory. Two numbers in each category were drawn at Niles because Niles had twice as many teachers as either Buchanan or Dowagiac. Thus a list of thirty-two teachers to be interviewed was obtained. Eight of the teachers were from Buchanan, eight from Dowagiac, and sixteen from Niles. This was a representative group comprised of an equal number of: l. Supervising and non-supervising teachers. 2. Elementary and secondary teachers. 3. Teachers with two to five years' experience and teachers with over five years' experience in the local school system. Selection of Pupils It was necessary to secure a broad representative sampling of all the pupils in each of the school systems. A number of factors were considered in determining the pupils to be given the questionnaires: the age and grade level of pupils, the number of student teachers pupils had had, and the socio-economic level of pupils. Of these factors, it was decided that the number of student teachers . u. h . Y ' ‘ ' . , L . n ‘ ‘ ’. . ' ’x - J _ . . , ‘ tn the pupils had had would have little significance in the desired results. Consequently, the two factors which determined the pupils to be interviewed were: (1) There must be a cross sectional grade level sampling which would give age sampling as well. (2) There must be a geographic sampling of each community so that a sampling of all socio-economic groups could be obtained. In order to meet the first requirement pupils from the sixth, ninth, and twelfth grades were given question- naires. The second requirement was met by giving question- naires to sixth grade pupils who had had student teachers. All three communities had neighborhood schools in the elementary grades and by giving questionnaires to the sixth grades in each neighborhood school a geographic and socio-economic sampling of each community was obtained. In grades nine and twelve all of the pupils attended one building. Since the class organization in these grades was by chance each class section contained pupils from all socio-economic levels; consequently one section of each of the ninth and twelfth grades was given questionnaires. Totally there were 160 ninth-and twelfth-grade pupils and 165 sixth-grade pupils who received questionnaires.3 3See Appendix C. 1&5 Since it was thought that children below the sixth grade would not be able to Judge the effects of the stu- dent teacher on the instructional program in their class- rooms no questionnaires were given below grade six. Through the use of this method a representative sample of all of the pupils in the school systems was ob- tained. Selection of Parents A broad representative sampling of the entire com- munity of parents was necessary. It was felt that the major need was to secure a socio-economic sampling rather than a percentage of the total population. To do this it was decided to send a questionnaire to the parents of each sixth grade child who had had a Michigan State student teacher in the past three years. In many cases these parents had children in other grades who had had student teachers so that many had more than one contact with stu- dent teachers. The fact that each school system used neighborhood elementary schools guaranteed a geographic and socio-economic sampling. A total of AG? questionnaires were mailed to parents and h8% were returned.LL Since the questionnaires to parents promised that no individual or community would be identified, it was not Ll*See Appendix D. 1+6 possible to send out follow—up questionnaires, or to de- termine the percentage of return by communities. Summary The research method used in this dissertation was a combination of interview and questionnaire. Administra— tors were interviewed by the writer and teachers were interviewed by one of their colleagues. Pupils and parents were given questionnaires. In establishing the criteria for the teachers to be interviewed the attempt was to select a sample of teach- ers that was representative of the entire faculties of all of the school systems. The same percentage of teachers in each school system was interviewed. An equal number of elementary and secondary teachers and an equal number of supervising and non-supervising teachers were included in the sample. Through this technique and through the use of an equal number of teachers with two to five years' experience and teachers with over five years' experience a cross section of the attitudes and opinions of the facul- ties was obtained. Selecting pupils and parents to be given question- naires was based on securing a geographic, socio-economic sampling of each community. To accomplish this pupils in grades six, nine, and twelve, and parents of sixth grade pupils who had had student teachers were given question- naires. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF THE DATA SECURED General Effects of thg Cooperative Relation- ship Between the Local Schools and the University in the Full-Time Resident Student TEacher Program The first hypothesis states that the relationship between the teacher education institution and the cooperat- ing schools in the full-time resident student teaching pro- gram resulted in a beneficial effect upon the work of the local school systems. In order to secure data relative to this hypothesis persons who have had some connection with the student teaching program were asked a series of ques- tions as to whether or not they believed the program had good, bad, or no effect upon the work of the public schools. Table 1 gives the opinions of parents, teachers, and school administrators in the three cooperating school systems in the Southwestern Michigan Center regarding the overall effects of the full-time resident student teach- ing program upon the cooperating schools. From Table 1 it can be determined that the parents and teachers both believed that the full-time resident student teaching program was essentially beneficial to the local schools. Even though the administrators were quite evenly divided in their opinions regarding the benefits of M7 h8 the full-time student teaching program, it is important to note that none of the administrators saw any bad ef- fects as a result of having full-time resident student teachers in the local schools. TABLE 1.-Opinions of parents, teachers, and administra- tors concerning the general effect of having full time resident student teachers upon the cooperating schools Effect Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Observed Parents Teachers Administrators (190) (32) (11) Good effect 60.0 53.1 55 Bad effect h.2 6.2 -- No effect 5.7 30.2 as Don't know 30.1 10.5 -- Chi Square 155.7%* 18.3** .05 %%Significant at the .01 level Parents were asked to write any comments relative to their general feeling, or to give any specific reactions to the full-time resident student teacher program. Of the 190 who returned questionnaires, eighty-five parents (h5%) did write comments about the program. Of these comments the following were mentioned by more than two parents. Twenty-two (15%) stated that because of the full-time stu- dent teaching program, more individual attention was re- #9 ceived by their children. Fifteen (7.9%) Stated that the new ideas and personalities with which the pupils came in contact were beneficial to the instruction of their children. Twelve (6.3%) of the parents stated that the full-time student teaching program would produce better prepared teachers and that this was a benefit to the schools of the state including their own local school sys- tems. This awareness on the part of parents of the value of full-time resident student teaching to the teacher- education program is important. Analysis of Benefits or Hindrances to Instruc- tion in the_ Cooperating Local_ Schools Tables 2 and 3 are a summary of the opinions and re- actions of pupils, parents, teachers, and administrators to specific benefits received by the cooperating schools as a result of their cooperating in the full-time resident stu- dent teaching program. From Table 2 it can be concluded that both parents and pupils believed the presence of a full-time resident student teacher in the classroom resulted in either more or at least the same amount of individual attention to pupils as in classes that did not have a student teacher. A smaller percentage of pupils than parents answered "don't know," and a significantly larger percentage of pupils than parents stated that the amount of individual attention was about the same as in classes without student ——————-- I." r 50 teachers. It is apparent from this that the pupils, because of their closer connection with the program, were more dis- criminating in their Judgments than were the parents. The most significant item in the parents‘ response was the fact that only u.3% of them believed that the full—time resident student teaching program resulted in a lesser amount of in- dividual attention to their children than was found in classes without student teachers. TABLE 2.-Amount of individual help given to pupils as a re- sult of the full-time resident student teaching program in the Southwestern Michigan Center, as observed by pupils and parents in the three communities of the center Amount of Percentage of Percentage of Individual Help Pupils Parents (3MB) (190) More 31.h 41.5 Same h9.2 15.8 \ Less 10.1 h.3 Don't know 9.9 38.h Chi Square 128.3** 62.0** *rSignificant at the .01 level In securing the same type of data from administra- tors and teachers, a slightly different approach was used. Because of their greater knowledge about the individualiza- 51 tion of instruction, the interviews were concerned with more specific items relating to individualization of in- struction. Table 1 indicates the overall attitude of the school people regarding the effects of the student teach- ing program upon the local schools. Table 3 presents the opinions of teachers and administrators in regard to the effects of full-time resident student teaching upon the in- structional program in the schools as a Whole. TABLE 3.-Opinions of teachers and administrators concerning the effects of full-time resident student teaching upon in- struction in schools as a whole Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Specific Items Supervising Non-supervising Administra- Teachers (1 ) Teachers (16) tors (11) Instruction has been: Benefitted 50.0 50.0 100 Harmed 6.2 12.5 —-- ‘ Neither benefitted nor harmed 31.3 18.7 --- Don' t know 12.5 18.8 --- \ Chi Square 7.5% 5.25 *Significant at the .05 level The interviewers were instructed to explain that if questions were asked concerning what was meant by "benefit- 52 ted" or "harmed," they were to explain that benefits might be interpreted as, more individualization of instruction, new and different materials, stimulation of teachers, new ideas for teaching; harmful effects such things as, less competent teaching, inadequate coverage of subject matter, student teacher taking too much time from regular teacher, and less individualization of instruction. There is little difference between the supervising and non-supervising teachers' opinions as to the effects of the presence of student teachers on the instruction in the local school. The significant factors from the table are as follows: 1. Half of the teachers believed that the student teaching program was beneficial to the improve- ments of instruction. 2. Less than ten percent saw harmful effects to the instructional program. J 3. All of the administrators believed that student teaching had benefitted the school system's instructional program. In Table 4 both groups of teachers indicate that they believe that the instruction has been benefitted in those classes having full—time resident student teachers. Non-supervising teachers, however, feel that the student teaching program has less beneficial effects than do the supervising teachers. The supervising teachers should be 53 in a position to be more informed but at the same time might be unable to look as objectively as the non—supervis- ing teachers. To gain more detailed information concerning this facet of the effects of the program, the interviewers probed into the specific items of instruction asking both teachers and administrators to list benefits and hindrances to instruction which were the result of the student teach- ing program in the schools. Table 5 presents the summary of this information. TABLE h.-Opinions of teachers regarding the specific ef- fects upon instruction in classes with full-time resident student teachers Percentage of Percentage of Specific Items Supervising Non-supervising Teachers (16) Teachers (16) Instruction has been Benefitted 56.2 u3.8 i Harmed 12.5 6.2 1 Neither benefitted nor harmed 31.3 50.0 Don't know ---- ---- Chi Square 11.22%.» 12.u2-X~::- **Significant at .01 level 51L TABLE 5.-Opinions of teachers and administrators concerning specific effects to instruction resulting from the local school's cooperating in the full-time resident student teaching program Percentage Percentage Percentage of Supervis- of Non- of Adminis- Specific Items ing Teachers Supervising trators (16) Teachers(l6) (11) Benefits to Instruction Stimulated teachers -- -- 100 More time for individual attention to pupils 62.u 62.h 27 By student teacher 56.2 50.0 27 By regular teacher 50.0 50.0 27 By grouping 37.h 18.6 18 New ideas for teaching h3.h 31.2 -- New materials for teaching 50.0 31.2 -- Other aids from student teachers 37.4 25.0 -- Hindrances to Instruction Supervising teacher spent too much time with student teacher 25.0 "" ‘- Reteaching after student teacher left the school 25.0 6.2 -~ Note: Since each respondent could give more than one re- sponse, percentages can total more than 100%. 55 In general, Table 5 indicates that more than half of the school people believed the instruction was improved because of the cooperation in the student teaching program. Again, this Table supports the belief that the individual- ization of instruction was improved through the use of the student teacher working with individual pupils, and also by having the student teacher teach the class while the regular teacher worked with individual pupils. This also tends to bear out the opinions of parents and pupils as pointed out in Table 2. It is interesting to notice that the percentage of teachers who observed evidence of individ- ualization of instruction was much greater than that of the administrators. I All administrators observed that the student teaching program acted as a stimulant for their teachers. This was not mentioned once by the teachers. The interviewer in probing this factor found that the administrators had seen evidence of a renewed enthusiasm on the part of many of their teachers who had come in contact with the student teachers. The fact that less than half of the teachers and none of the administrators observed any hindrances to instruction is important. Even those teachers who had no direct con- tact with the student teachers indicated that the only harmful effect observed was that some reteaching had to be done after the student teacher left the local schools. 56 When the interviewer encouraged teachers to enumr crate the specific new ideas and materials that had been brought to the teaching situation because of the student teachers, new ideas mentioned were techniques in special- ized areas such as physical education, science, and music. These new ideas were most often mentioned by elementary teachers, while the secondary teachers most often mentioned ideas of help in the after-school activities such as sports, music, and dramatics. In materials, audio-visual aids from the University were mentioned most. The student teachers were familiar with the audio—visual aids in the University library and had had good training in their usage. Consequently, this knowledge was used by the regular teachers. Two other aids were mentioned once each: supplementary aids for play- ground activities, and aids in recreational and after-school activities for pupils. _The evidence in Tables 2 through 5 indicates that most teachers, pupils, parents, and administrators believe that the individualization of instruction has been improved in the cooperating schools because of the full-time resi- dent student teaching program. In view of this evidence the writer believes that the hypothesis that the individu- alization of instruction of pupils in the cooperating schools has been improved, has been supported. 57 Analysis of the Services Provided to the Cooper- atigg Schools by the University School administrators have long attempted to improve the quality of the instructional program through in—service education programs in their schools. These programs have included the upgrading of staff members through continued education, the improvement of staff members' teaching through visitation, research on local curriculum problems, and other attempts to increase the effectiveness of the teachers. Hypothesis 1-b states that the services provided the local school systems by the teacher-education institu- tion have helped the in—service program and consequently have helped to improve the instructional program of the co- operating schools. The interviews of the administrators and teachers included items concerning the in-service educational acti- vities provided the schools by the University. The items in the interviews were concerned with practices and acti- vities commonly accepted as those contained in good in- ' service educational programs. Table 6 presents a list of the services provided by the University which the admin- istrators thought most valuable, and a ranking of these services as to their value by the administrators. From the analysis of Table 6 it can be concluded that the administrators believe courses and workshops for which the tuition and fees are paid have been most valuable to their in-service education program. The administrators 58 indicated the use of books from the University library as the most used service in their minds but one of the least valuable services rendered by the University. The writer is unable to account for this apparent inconsistency except to point out that possibly the administrators were cogni- zant of the teachers using the books but saw no improvement because of their usage of the books. TABLE 6.-In-service aids provided by Michigan State Univer- sity which administrators observed being used by teachers, and comparative ranking of each of these aids Percentage of Rank of Services Administrators each item (11) Professional books from University library 81 6th Consultants from University helping on local problems 63 hth Help from University on local . problems 36 5th Workshops for supervising teachers 63 2nd Courses offered locally 72 3rd Payment of tuition for credit courses from funds provided for being a cooperating school 72 let Contacts with the University 36 7th Note: Since each respondent could give more than one re- sponse, percentages can total more than 100%. , ‘ a . N l _ ,. _ . 59 Four of the eleven administrators mentioned that contacts by teachers with University personnel, both at the local schools and at the campus, created a closer tie with the University which provided a stimulation for the staff as a whole. There was also a feeling that this close rela- tionship tended to make the staff of the local schools more cognizant of the need for continued study. The teachers were asked similar questions about the services and also asked to rank them as to value to theme selves. Table 7 presents data relative to the percentage of teachers Who indicated that they used the various ser- vices from the campus. The most significant fact of Table 7 is that 75 percent of the non-supervising teachers and 37.5 percent of the supervising teachers used none of the services made available to the cooperating school. In the interviews it was revealed that the reason for this was that these teach- ers did not know what services were available to them. In 5 spite of this apparent lack of knowledge, over half of the supervising teachers and over one—third of the non-supervis- ing teachers used one or more of the services made possible because of the local school systems' cooperation in the student teaching program. IT———“ 60 TABLE 7.ePercentages of teachers making use of services from the University Percentage of Percentage of Services Supervising Non-supervis- Teachers (16) ing Teacgirs l Professional books from the University library 12.5 12.5 Consultants from the University helping on local problems 12.5 ---- Courses offered locally on local problems 50.0 25.0 Films from the University 12.5 —--- Conferences, both on the campus and locally 6.2 —--- Used no services 37.5 75-0 Note: Since teachers often mentioned more than one ser- vice they had used, the totals can be more than 100%. In evaluating these services the teachers were asked to rate each as being of no value, some value, or much I value. Table 8 gives the number of times each of the ser- vices was listed in each of the categories. Since only fourteen teachers responded that they had used any ser- vices, only this number rated the services. Table 8 tends to support the conclusions that were drawn from Table 6. Both teachers and administrators listed the local courses as being most valuable. Apparent- 61 ly the teachers, taking the courses offered by the Univer- sity on the local campus, considered them worthwhile. It is interesting to note that the conferences were not rated nearly so highly by teachers as by the administrators. Rating by supervising and non-supervising teachers were not listed separately as there was little variation in the ratings. TABLE 8.-Rating of each of the services by teachers who used them. (Number of teachers - 1h.) Services No value Some value Much value Professional books from University library -- 3 1 Consultants from University helping on local problems -- -— 2 Courses offered locally on local problems -- 6 6 Films from University library -- -- 2 Conferences both at Univer— sity and locally -- -~ 1 In addition to the services made available to the local schools certain activities, normally considered part of the in-service education program, were aided because of the cooperation between the local schools and the University in the full-time resident student teaching program. t. .. n o . , f. 62 TABLE 9.-Percentage of teachers indicating more time avail- able for in-service education activities because of the stu- dent teaching program being in local schools Percentage of Percentage of More Time Supervising Non-supervis- for In-service Activities Teachers (16) ing T?agpers 1 Yes 75 81.2 No 25 12.5 Don't know —- 6.3 Chi Square L1,.Oi.L 6.2-r: *Significant at .05 level When the fact that more than three-fourths of both supervising and non-supervising teachers feel that they have more time for in-service activities is added to the data found in Tables 6 through 8 it seems to the writer that one can conclude that the student teaching program has made an important contribution to the improvement of the in-service program of the local school system. To further delineate these activities, questions were asked the teach- ers regarding the activities in which they had more time to participate. Table 10 gives these results. It should be pointed out that the teachers in Table 10 could, and many did, indicate that they participated in more than one of the activities. \ 63 TABLE 10.—In-service activities that teachers indicated they had more time to participate in because of the full- time resident student teaching program Percentage of Percentage of Activities Supervising Non-supervis- Teachers (16) ing Teaghers l Research 25 l2.h Visitation 56.2 25 Testing, planning, evaluating and conferences 25 50 Leisure time 6.2 18.6 None --- 6.2 Note: Since each respondent could indicate participation in more than one activity, percentages can total more than 100%. The fact that non-supervising teachers observed that there was more time for teachers to be involved in in— service activities seems to be the most important item in this table. More supervising teachers spent time in visit- ation than did the non-supervising teachers because the student teachers in their classrooms made this possible. However, the non-supervising teacher also had a greater op- portunity for visitation because of the presence of student teachers in local schools. The only explanation for this fact that the writer can find is that some of the student 61.; teachers did teaching for non-supervising teachers as part of their related teaching as mentioned in Chapter 2, and this permitted visitation by non-supervising teachers which they felt they would otherwise not have been able to do. The research activities were mainly concerned with curriculum revision and committee work. It appeared through the interviews that having student teachers made it possible for this activity to be conducted on school time and there- fore more teachers were able to participate in research ac- tivities. The planning and evaluation and conferences were basically those concerned with students and parents. It is important to note that non-supervising teachers were more aware of the increased time available for these activities than were the supervising teachers. In all probability this realization was due to the fact that supervising teach- ers took the additional available time to participate in these activities more as a matter of course than did non- supervising teachers. The use of these services and the increased in- service activities can be assumed to have had a beneficial effect upon the instructional process. In order to discover what services teachers desired, they were asked to list services the University could pro- vide that would be most helpful. Table 11 presents data regarding services desired by teachers. 65 TABLE ll.-Desirab1e additional services which teachers in- dicated the teacher education institution could provide the local schools Percentage Percentage of Supervi- of Non- Additional Services sing Teach- Supervising ers(l6) Teachers (16) Have student teachers better prepared in subject matter -- 18.7 Make available from the Univer- sity a lending library of instruc- tional materials 12.h 25.0 Give better information to stu- dent teachers regarding student teaching 18.6 -- Make available more specialized services in counselling for students 18.6 -- Permit the use of University clinics by teachers and pupils 6.2 -- No response hh.2 56.3 One can conclude from the large percentage who gave no response to this question that there was a lack of know- ledge of services available. This was further substantiated by comments from three teachers who said they would like to have more information on Services available to the local schools. This lack of knowledge about available services was probably due to a lack of publicizing the services available on the part of the administrators. It is also probable that the non-supervising teachers were not cogni- ‘66 zant of the fact that these services were available to all teachers. One of the teachers suggested that speakers and other types of programs for the public would be valu- able services that the University could provide. One ad- ditional item relative to the pre-service training of stu- dent teachers was mentioned by a teacher who stated that the pre—orientation program for the student teachers should be improved, and that if this could be done it would be a great service to the supervising teacher. Administrators were also asked to list additional services which they felt the University could provide which would be helpful to the local schools. Since no con- sistent pattern developed, no table can be presented. Three of the administrators (22%) stated that they could think of no additional service the University could provide. However, there were several services mentioned by individual administrators which should be reported here. 1. The University should provide better orientation services for supervising teachers through such activities as a) Greater use of University staff members. b) Workshops for supervising teachers before they become supervising teachers. c) Meetings between supervising teacher and Uni- versity staff members in resident center. 2. More careful placing of student teachers in centers. 67 3. Provide results of current educational research to local schools. . h. Follow—up of student teacher after placement in regular position for evaluation of the full- time resident student teaching program. The administration and teaching staff both agreed that the services did aid the in-service educational pro- grams in the local schools and that because of this improve- ment in the in-service activities the instructional process had been improved. In view of these facts presented in Tables 6 through 11, the writer believes that the hypothesis that services provided by the University to the local schools as a result of their cooperation in the program have benefitted the instructional program of the local school systems, has been supported. énglysis of the Effectiveness of Pre- sent Methods‘of Payments by Uni- versity to Local Schools The various programs for student teaching in off- campus public schools use different methods of payment for the public school's part of the program. In Chapters III andIN’some analysis of the two major methods of payment is given, Briefly reviewed, the two methods involve payment to the schools for the services rendered or payment to the supervising teacher. In the case of the cooperative agree- ment with the Southwestern Michigan Center and Michigan 68 State University, the payment was made to the school. The payment was a fixed amount per student teacher, and the use of this money was cooperatively agreed upon be- tween the local schools and the University. Administrators were asked to suggest changes in the method of payment and to indicate how they used this pay- ment at present. Table 12 presents the data obtained. TABLE 12.-Present usage of payments to cooperating schools and suggested changes in payment methods as reported by administrators Specific Items Percentage of Administrators (11) Present usage of payments: For supervising teachers only 63 For in-service education of all staff 36 Changes suggested in payment method: None 91 Greater payment 9 Comments made by the administrators relative to the use of the payment to the schools reveal that actually most of the funds were expended for the benefit of the supervi- sing teacher in such things as visitation, college courses, and educational workshops. Usage for the in-service educa- tion of all of the staff included purchase of publications for the entire staff, and released time for staff members 69 to work on curriculum development committees. The amount and method of payment to the local schools met with the almost universal approval of the administrators. A come ment relatiVe to the payment policy was expressed by one administrator who was emphatic in his opinion that the supervising teachers should not be paid extra for his work. However, it should also be pointed out that one of the supervising teachers was just as emphatic in his be- ~- lief that the supervising teachers should receive direct payment for supervising the work of the student teacher. In general it can be said that the method of pay- ment was satisfactory to the local school systems. The administrators stated almost universally that whatever method of payment was used, the local school should have as much freedom as possible in determining the use of the money so that it could be used in the best interests of the local school. From the evidence found in Table 12 the writer believes that the hypothesis that the present methods of payment by the University to the local schools for their participation in the cooperative program are satisfactory, can be said to have been supported. Tables 1 through 12 have presented data about the various aSpects of the effects of the cooperative relation- ship upon the instructional program in the local school systems. The first major hypothesis was: The relationship between the local public schools and the University in the full-time resident student teaching program has been bene- [—— 7O ficial to the local schools. From the evidence discovered and presented in Tables 1 through 12 the writer believes that this hypothesis can be said to have been supported. Analysis of Work Load Increase to Adminis- trators and Teachers Caused by Having Full-Time Resident Student Teach- W Whenever a school system increases its services, additional work from school people is uSually required. The schools in the Southwestern Michigan Center added full- time resident student teaching to their regular school ser- vices in 1955. Tables 13 to 16 present data from adminis- trators and teachers relative to the amount of work load increase caused by adding the full—time resident student teaching program to their schools' services. Table 13 points out that the supervising teacher's work load increased more than that of the administrators or non-supervising teachers. It is also true that the supervising teacher had more time away from class than did the non-supervising teacher. None of the non-supervising teachers indicated that their work load had increased as much as one hour per student teacher. Table 16 is inserted to show what, if any, relation- ship exists between the number of extra hours of time re- quired and the number of hours away from class as a result of having full-time resident student teachers in the local school systems. 71 TABLE 13.-Amount of work load increase caused by the full- time resident student teaching, as observed by teachers and administrators in the Southwestern Michigan Center Percentage Percentage Percentage of Admin- of Supervi- of Non- sP9311710 Items istrators sing Teachr Supervising (ll) ers(l6) Teachers(l6) Was there an increase in your work load? Yes k5 87.5 6.2 No 55 12.5 93.8 How many hours work per student teacher per term did your work load increase? None 63 18.7 100 1-20 27 6.2 -— 21-u0 9 31.2 -— h1-60 -- 31.2 -- 61-100 —- 12.u —- How many hours away from class per term because of student teachers? _ None -- 25 87.5 1-20 -- 50 12.5 21-uo -— 6.2 -- k1-60 -- --- -- 61-100 -- 18.8 -- l- I u .. . I I .. n e , . . ~. 1 a ,- ~ _. 72 TABLE lh.-Percentage of teachers and administrators report- ing specific tasks resulting from the student teaching pro— gram which increased their work load. Percentage Percentage Percentage Specific Tasks of Admin- of Supervis- of Non- istrators ing Teach- Supervising (11) ers(16) Teachers(l6) Reports to the University -- 55.8 -- Finding housing for stu- dent teachers 9.l -- Counselling student teachers 36.k 75 Doing work for other teachers -- 12.h Personal problems of student teachers 18.2 37.2 Conferences with co— ordinator 27.3 -- Pre-orientation of student teachers Selection of supervising teachers 27.3 -- Miscellaneousa -- 37.7 -' aMiscellaneous items mentioned once: observation of student teacher, community survey information for student teacher, giving voice lessons to student teacher, entertain- ing student teachers, getting class back to normal. Note: Since each respondent could give more than one re- sponse, percentages can total more than 100%. e ‘1 JEIVIPH». , Ii “ _ . . . . , .. - I. i _. r. s . e v I — r. ~ -. — u n t _ _ l _ I I w u e o o s _ _ _ _ . M ,o _ ~ I . . . . . i _ . . . _ s _ l v . _ . . _ . . ._ _ _ _ m _ a . _ _ . . _ - — 73 TABLE 15.-Ranking of specific tasks on a basis of extra time required, by supervising teachers and administrators Percentage of Percentage of Specific Tasks Administpators Supervising 11 Teachers (16) Reports to the University -- 2nd Counselling student teachers lst 1st Conferences with coordinator 3rd ~- Pre-orientation of student teachers 2nd ~- Selection of supervising teachers 3rd -— Miscellaneous 3rd Note: Respondents did not rank all tasks listed in Table 1h. Table 16 points out that those teachers who indi- cate having student teachers requires the most extra hours work, also indicate they have the fewest hours away from class. Other than this, there seems to be no defin- ite pattern of relationship. Supervising teachers worked an average of 56 hours extra per student teacher, and had an average of 16 hours away from class per student teacher. It is interesting to note that 12.5 percent of the non-supervising teachers stated that they had from one to twenty hours away from class because of the student teachers being in the local schools. It is probable that this was made possible through the use of student teachers as substitutes for non-supervising teachers. TABLE 16.-Comparison of extra hours work and hours away 7h from class by individual supervising teachers Extra Hours Work per Hours Away from Teacher Student Teacher Class per Student Teacher 1 None 1~20 2 None 100 3 None 1-20 h l—20 1-20 5 21-h0 61—100 6 21-h0 1-20 7 21-h0 1—20 8 21-h0 None 9 21-h0 61-100 10 hl-6O 21-h0 ll h1-60 1-20 12 hl-60 1-20 13 hl—6O 1—20 1h h1—60 1-20 15 60-100 None 16 61-100 None 75 Even though 6.2 percent of the non-supervising teachers stated that their work load increased, none of these teachers felt that the amount of work load increase had been as great as one hour per term. Administrators averaged less than ten extra hours work per term with only four of the administrators stating that there were any extra hours of work involved. In response to whether or not one person had been placed in charge of the program in each of the school systems, five administrators said "yes," ' and one "did not know." In further conversa- five "no,' tions concerning the supervision and administration of the program, it was learned that each of the schools apparent- ly had one administrator who did the major portion of the administration. It was these administrators who indicated that the increase in work load was significant. The person in charge of the student teaching pro— gram in each school was not the superintendent. In two of the schools it was the director of elementary education, and in the third school as assistant superintendent. Evi- dently the superintendents realized that the direct ad- ministration of this program should be the responsibility of an administrator closer to the pupils and teachers than they. The task listed as causing the most work by both the administrators and teachers was that of counselling the student teacher. This is a continuing process, and 76 the assumption is that this will be a continuing function requiring extra work on the part of public school people. The results of these tables seam to indicate that the work load of the local school people was not increased greatly except in a few individual cases. Part of the time spent by teachers in the in-service activities mentioned in Tables 9 and 10 and part of the time away from classes mentioned in Table 13 were due to the fact that student teachers were used to some extent in all of the school systems in the Southwestern Michigan Center as substitute teachers. This use of student teach- ers has been a controversial issue in the Center and in other centers for student teaching throughout the state. This matter was discussed in the precontractual meet- ings between the school systems and the University and cer- tain agreements were reached. 1. The local school administration would exercise common sense in the use of the student teachers as substitutes. 2. The student teachers would not be used as sub- stitutes in any case if it appeared that the pupils would be harmed because of their substi- tuting for teachers. To discover reactions of school people to this use of student teachers in the Center for the past three years, both teachers and administrators were queried in the inter- views about the use of student teachers as substitutes. 77 TABLE l7.-Information on the use of student teachers as substitutes given by teachers and administrators in the Southwestern Michigan Center Percentage Percentage Percentage Specific Items of Admin- of Supervis- of Non- istrators ing Teach- Supervising (11) ers (l6) Teachers(lé) Should student teachers be used as substitutes? Yes —- 62.5 62.5 No -- 37.5 37.5 Under what circumstances should student teachers be used as substitutes? Rarely h5.0 -- -- For supervising teachers only 54.0 -- 6.2 In closely related areas or grades 36.0 37-5 37.5 Supervising teacher does substituting while student teacher 5h.0 18.7 6.2 remains in supervising teacher's class Same as any regular substitute -- -- 6.2 For a short time only -- 12.5 12.5 No opinion -~ 31.3 31-3 Note: Since each reSpondent could give more than one re- sponse, percentages can total more than 100%. - -. '. l " . .. ~— I e I 4 v 78 Each of the local school systems had its own policies re- garding this question, but in general the policies were similar and followed the two points agreed upon at the precontractual meetings. Table 17 presents a summary of the information obtained from the teachers and administra- tors relative to the use of student teachers as substi- tutes. The majority of the teachers interviewed agreed that the use of student teachers as substitutes was not harmful to the pupils. One comment made to the interview- er was,"There is no more loss of instruction than with a ' Both the administrators and teachers regular substitute.’ agreed that this usage of student teachers should be for emergencies only. From the data found in Tables 13 through 17 the writer believes that the hypothesis that the work load of teachers and administrators in the cooperating schools has not increased materially, has been supported. An Analy§is of the Present Operational Procedures of the Cooperative Relationship One of the problems that has been prevalent through- out the history of off-campus student teaching has been that of the selection of supervising teachers. The teacher education institutions have a responsibility to assure their student teachers of adequate SUpervision while the local school systems have the problems of morale and pro- 7h"??? 79 tection of interests of the pupils in the schools. The method of selecting supervising teachers used by the school systems in the Southwestern Michigan Center has been ex- plained in Chapter IV. It was the purpose of part of the interviews to secure opinions relative to this method from both the administrators and teachers. Tables 18 and 19 present Opinions concerning the effectiveness of the selection method used. TABLE 18.-Present methods of appointing supervising teach- ers and the resultant problems observed by administrators in the Southwestern Michigan Center Percentage of Specific Items Administrators(ll) Method of selection used: Appointment of teachers from group indicating willingness 100 to accept student teacher Problems created: Morale problem 9 None 91 It is important to note that only one administrator mentioned any problem of morale because of the present method of selecting supervising teachers. This problem was one which involved resentment on the part of a teacher not selected as a supervising teacher. 80 TABLE 19.-Teachers' reaction regarding whether the process used to select supervising teachers (1) protects the ability of the supervising teacher to work with the student teacher, (2) effects the morale of the staff, (3) assures adequate learning for children Percentage of Percentage of Specific Items Supervising Non—supervisin Teachers (1 ) Teachers (16% Are these three interests being protected? Yes 75 6205 No 25 12.5 Don't know -- 25.0 Which of these three are problems? Ability of supervising teacher to work with stu- dent teacher 12.5 6.2 Adverse effect upon teacher morale 6.2 -- Assurance of adequate learning 6.2 6.2 Changes suggested None 62.5 67-7 Supervising teacher should have five or more years' experience 25.0 18.7 Supervising teachers should have a degree -- 6.2 These tables indicate that generally the school peOple felt that the selection process used by the local ‘\‘1 ‘J‘llvfiI-ll .T .i he I ) n, .. . .. , ~ I r, .V. i.‘ q n . _ .1. 81 school administration was protecting both the interests of the children and the staff members. The fact that less than twenty-five percent of the teachers interviewed sug- gested any changes at all tends to support the basic premise taken earlier that the present agreement between the local schools and the University is one which is conducive to good morale and improved instruction. All problems enumerated and the changes suggested by the teachers are ones which can easily be effected if it is discovered that these problems are real and the changes needed. The change suggesting that the supervising teachers have five or more years' experience is based on an isolated instance. In talking with the administrators the writer discovered that it is only rarely that a teacher with less than five years' experience is asked to be a supervising teacher. Most of the teachers interviewed were in favor of the policy of appointing as supervising teaChers only those who had previously indicated a willingness to accept student teachers. Two comments made by teachers relative to the selection method were: "Strong teachers only should be used;" "Pair personalities of the student and supervis- ing teacher more closely." Three of the teachers indi- cated that they believed that there should be some addi- tional compensation for the supervising teacher, but only one of them indicated that this should be a direct payment to the supervising teachers. The sixteen supervising teachers were asked why 82 they had taken a student teacher. Fourteen (87.5%) in- dicated that they had taken a student teacher because they had been asked to. Only one indicated that he would not take another student teacher. Five (38%) also indi- cated that they took student teachers because they felt they had an obligation to teacher education. The local school systems and the University coopera- tively worked out a framework within which the implementa- tion of policies was left to the local school systems. The selection of supervising teachers, the use of the payment to the local schools, and the use of student teachers as substitutes have been discussed. In addition to these, the schools had policies governing the number of student teach- ers a supervising teacher should have per year; the required amount of time for supervision, and the length of time full- time student teaching should be done. Administrators in general believed that the super- vising teacher should, insofar as possible, have but one student teacher a year. Most of the teachers agreed. The exception to this suggested policy was that a particularly strong teacher might take more than one per year. Two of the problems that supervising teachers often brought to the administrators and the resident coorinator were those of the required amount of supervision and the minimum amount of full-time student teaching. The Univer- sity recommended at least two weeks full—time student teach— ing, and this was the minimum time in use in almost all the 83 schools. The administrators indicated that if the stu- dent teacher was well qualified this minimum was increased to three weeks. TABLE 20.-Present policies used and changes suggested by Administrators Percentage of Specific Items Administrators (11) Present policy One student teacher per year 63 Two student teachers per year 37 More than two student teachers per year -- Three weeks full-time student teaching as minimum 91 Other minimum 9 No definite policy as to required amount of classroom supervision by supervising teachers 5h-5 Definite policy as to required amount of classroom supervision by supervising teachers 45-5 Suggested changes in policies Permit only one student teacher per super- vising teacher per year 9 Supervising teacher must be in classroom until full load is assumed by student teacher and then never leave student teacher 100% alone 36 No suggestion 55 .... 7-.....d.... ... 81; Slightly over half the administrators indicated that they had no definite policy regarding the amount of required supervision of student teachers. Those who had a definite policy stated it in terms of not leaving the student teacher unsupervised in the classroom for the en- tire full-time teaching experience. One can conclude that the policies regarding the relationships between supervising teachers and student teachers are not uniform. It also appears that in general the policies agreed upon are satisfactory and are working effectively. The only wide divergence of opinion was in the required amount of supervision, and it developed that this was actually a local and personal problem which each school was attempting to solve. From this evidence the writer believes that the hypothesis that the present procedures of operation of the program are satisfactory to the local school systems, is supported. During discussions preceding the establishment of the Southwestern Michigan Center, one of the fears of the public school peeple was parental objection to the pro- gram. Administrators and teachers were asked a series of questions regarding parental comment during the past three years about the student teaching program in their schools. Table 21 presents this information in summary form. I u . ""l- :": u l . . . .- '-'._. -. - {I .. ._ .. g-..,._.-...,_ . .. ' .- '-. _.. . __ . ‘ ' .r -.\- II: - - hlt' . . . u. l . _, -. . . . n . 4, y ‘ I I \ 7 u . 35 TABLE 21.-Percentage of teachers and administrators re- porting particular kinds of parental comment Percentage Percentage Percentage Specific Items of Supervis- of Non- of Admin- ing Teachers Supervising istrators (l6) Teachers(l6) (11) Amount of parental comment ' None -- -- h5.h Some -- -- h5.h Much -- -- 9.2 Nature of complaints Lack of competent instruction 6.2 6.2 36 Too much teaching done by student teachers 6.2 6.2 —~ Discipline poor -— -' 9 Community activity of student teachers -— -~ 9 Nature of good aspects Liked two instructors -- -- hS Liked added individual attention 18.? 6.2 36 Liked new ideas and materials 6.2 -— -- Stimulated by young teachers 12.5 ~- 36 Liked the student teacher 6.2 18.7 —- \ ‘ \ (u imi!LJ‘ :1 )Vx\.m1 y ,L . ‘ n . n c a _ . . o . a I , _ . x A. .- . c I s u 5 u _ n . . . . m b 1 I ‘ 86 Table 21 indicates that over half of the administra- tors received some parental comment. However, it should be stated that these comments were few in number and a large percentage were complimentary. The teachers re- ceived only occasional comments and the majority of these were also complimentary. One can conclude from the evidence presented here and in Table 1 that those parents having knowledge of the student teaching program were predominantly in favor of it. Even though the local schools made efforts to publicize the full-time resident student teaching pro- gram, many parents had formed no conclusive attitudes toward the program. Pupils were also asked a series of questions rela- tive to the effectiveness of the student teachers. They were asked to rate the student teachers in selected cate— gories which pupils normally associate with effective teaching. Table 22 gives the compilation of these opin- ions. The pupils tend to evaluate the student teachers, on the whole, as being good teachers. There was no attempt to ask the pupils to compare the student teacher with the regular teacher, but rather to rate the student teachers on a five point scale. In regard to discipline, the pupils as well as the parents, rated the student teachers lowest. It is interesting to note in relation to discipline, v. .. i {Julie 7. :_ liar. 87. that 93.7 percent of the supervising and 75 percent of the non-supervising teachers indicated that having student teachers did not increase the discipline problems in the schools. Discipline problems increased or created by having student teachers mentioned by the teachers were: (1)"Play- ground problems due to inadequate supervision," (2)"Nothing serious," (3)"Youngsters got out of hand," (h)"Younsters take advantage of student teachers. However this helps stu- dent teachers to learn how to cepe with situations which will be faced later." The writer believes that one can conclude from this information and from that found in Table 22 that having student teachers did not materially aggravate the disci- pline problems in the local cooperating schools. TABLE 22.-General impressions of 345 pupils in the South- western Michigan Center concerning the effectiveness of full- time resident student teachers Items Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor Kept class in order 16.2% 50 % 31.6% 6.6% .S% Helped pupils to learn 32.7% 42 % 2h % 1.8% -- Made classes interest- ing 36.8% 36 93 2h % 34% .276 Made subjects inter- esting 32.7% 3h.2% 24.3% 2.5% .8% Taught no % 33.1% 24.7% 2.5% 2% Chi Square for entire table l6l.h3%% **Significant at .01 level 88 Teachers were asked to evaluate the idea of having a resident coordinator from the University. 80.6 percent of the supervising teachers and 75 percent of the non- supervising teachers indicated that having a resident co- ordinator was an aid to the program. None of the teachers indicated that the idea of having a resident coordinator was a hindrance to the success of the program. From the data presented in Tables 18 through 22 the writer believes that the hypothesis that the present operational procedures of the program are satisfactory to the local school systems, has been supported. Summary In general the analysis of the data indicates that the full-time resident student teaching program in the Southwestern Michigan Center has tended to help improve the instructional program of the local schools. Parents, pupils, teachers, and administrators generally believed that the ef- fect upon the instructional program was beneficial. The agreements made between the University and the local schools have been satisfactory to both. The services provided by the University to the local schools have aided in the improvement of instruction through the improvement of the local schools' in-service education programs. The use of student teachers as substitute teachers was the one area where there was a wide divergence between some of the teachers and the administrators. In all other areas there :m—fl 89 were only minor differences of opinion. In all three communities the reaction of parents was favorable and of the comments made by parents to the teachers and administrators the favorable comments far out- ranked the unfavorable ones. The problems which were preva- lent were basically those relating to discipline and ade- quacy of subject matter coverage on the part of the student teacher. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this chapter is to present conclu- sions which seem warranted as a result of this study, re- commendations for teacher education institutions and local school systems which will aid in the promoting of a closer and more effective relationship in the cooperative program for full-time resident student teaching, and recommendations for further study. This study was undertaken to discover the effects upon the local school systems of their cooperation with the University in the full-time resident student teaching pro- gram. The Southwestern Michigan Center was studied because it had been a cooperating center since the inception of the program, it permitted the studying of three different school systems which were considered as a single center and had a single resident coordinator, and because of the writer's close affiliation with the program in the center which would aid in the interpretation of the data secured. The study made use of the questionnaire and interview approach. Four groups of people were surveyed to secure information. Pupils in the local school systems and parents 90 ‘ Q, 11.: 1:\ y n gl we: Brillknga . < u on . .. G . .. .L A . . (x. ,s l . .. . , . I . ’1 v: , A I ‘ .. V . y . H A ‘I. r vl ~ . . J 1 _ .. .. y . . ., . A t v: r. umJ .. y. C. t a . v L .I, I .y s n n I 91 in the local communities were given questionnaires. Ad- ministrators and teachers in the local school systems were interviewed. ' The major areas of investigation were: 1) The effects of having full-time resident student teachers upon the actual instructional process. 2 v Theeffects of the cooperative relationship upon the general improvement of instruction. 3) The amount of work load increase to public school people caused by the local school system's co- operating in this program. A) An analysis of the present operational procedures. Conclusions The writer would like to present the following con- clusions: l) A cooperative arrangement between the institu- tions for teacher education and the local school systems for student teaching can be beneficial to the local school systems. The study indicates that having full-time resident student teachers in the local school systems aided the indi- vidualization of instruction. It was also found that more time was available for helping individual pupils, additional instructional aids were received, and student teachers brought new ideas to the local school system. The study also revealed that the cooperative rela- 92 tionship improved the in—service education programs of the local schools. Since school administrators feel that the major purpose of in-service education programs is to improve teacher effectiveness, it can be concluded that the cooperative relationship through its improvement of the in-service education program has improved instruc- tion. An additional factor which contributes to the imprOVement of instruction was the contacts local staff members had with the University which made them more aware of the professional responsibilities they had and also in- creased their feeling of prestige. Although this factor is difficult to evaluate objectively, its value must not be underestimated as an improvement factor. 2) The work load of both teachers and administra- tors was not materially increased. The study shows that the average number of extra hours spent by supervising teachers in work with an individual stu- dent teacher was fifty-six. It also shows that the average number of hours that the teacher could spend away from class per student teacher was sixteen. An additional factor, most difficult to determine objectively, but certainly prevalent in most student teach- ing situations, is the work assumed by the student teacher which otherwise would have been assumed by the supervising teacher. Classified in this category would be such activi- 93 ties as these: preparation of teaching materials; locat- ing and bringing to class teaching resources; guiding many kinds of routine activities such as supervising pu- pils in halls, playgrounds, cafeterias, and study halls; directing afterschool and extra-curricular activities; evaluating pupils' work, and the like. In appraising the "extra-time" factor properly, these activities of the stu- dent teacher must also be considered as a factor in favor of the program. The administrators averaged less than ten hours of extra work per term which, according to their testimony, was insignificant. 3) Parents, generally, approved the schools' cc- operating with teacher education institutions in the full-time resident student teaching program. Even though the survey of parents produced only a h8 percent return, the writer believes that the returns indicate parents approved the program. The fact that parents' comments to teachers about the program was gen- erally favorable tends to support this conclusion. Coleman's survey in Marshall, Michigan also tends to sup-_ port this conclusion.1 h) Pupils' reactions to the full-time resident student teaching program are generally favor- able. 1 Coleman, 92° Cit. 91+ This study shows that pupils in the Center generally approved having student teachers in the schools. Sharpe‘s study in Western Indiana tends to support this conclusion.2 Recommendations A study of this type reveals certain recommendations which could make for improvement in this type of program. The recommendations presented are related to the present program and to programs which might be established in the future. The following recommendations are based directly upon the study. 1) It is recommended that the local administration and the teacher education institution use all possible means to inform teachers of the services available and to encourage their use. The study brought out the fact that both supervising and non-supervising teachers had too little knowledge of the services provided by the University to the cooperating school systems. 2) It is recommended that the teacher education in- stitution continue to study its pre—orientation program which would include such items as: visit- ation of student teachers to the local schools, workshops for supervising teachers, and evalua- tion of pre-student teaching and professional ESharpe, 92. it. .. .i,.|.pthrlt “AG-2e _ .__._ .. —_7r,—‘: 4___..—— 95 courses the students take on the campus. It was brought out in the study that the only COD! sistent problem raised by the supervising teachers were those concerned with the preparation and orientation of the student teachers. 3) It is recommended that the supervising teachers should, in all cases, be persons who have a de- sire to take part in the program. The policy used for selecting supervising teachers should be one which encourages teachers to volunteer for the task, but under no circumstances should this policy create a situation in which the supervising teacher feels any com- pulsion to become a supervising teacher. This recommenda- tion is based upon the replies from teachers concerning their satisfaction with the selection process, and the fact that no teachers indicated any important change in the se- lection method as being necessary. The following recommendations are partly from the study and partly from the author's thinking. A) It is recommended that supervising teachers have but one student teacher per year. A policy of this nature will make the supervision of student teachers less of a routine task and tend to create a better situation for the student teaching experi- ence. It will also protect the interest of children in the local school systems. 5) It is recommended that the teacher education 96‘ institution and the cooperating school systems should constantly strive to achieve greater effectiveness in the evaluation aspects for the program. This makes imperative the use of the resident coor- dinator who must keep in constant touch with both the teach- er education institution and the local people. His position should be such that he has adequate time to supervise and counsel with student teachers, to work with supervising teachers, and to keep the administration informed regarding the progress of the program. 6) It isrecommended that any payment made by the teacher education institution to the local school systems for their part in the cooperative program for student teaching be made directly to the 10— cal school systems and not to the supervising teachers. The study indicated that all of the administrators believed that this policy was a valuable one to the success of the program. Although the teachers were not queried di— rectly regarding their reaction to this policy, their gener- al approval of the present policies used in the center could be taken as support of this principle. 7) It is further recommended that whatever payment is ‘ made to the local school systems be used for the improvement of the in-service education programs in the local school systems. Further, that the 97 school systems and the teacher education insti- tution cooperatively determine the general principles for the use of the payment, but inso- far as possible, the local school systems be free to determine the specific uses of the money re- ceived in payment for their cooperative effort in the program. The study indicates that both teachers and adminis- trators believed that their in-service education programs were improved through the use of the funds paid to them by the University. It would appear that the benefits of this policy far outweigh the benefits to individual teachers who might receive payments. Recommendations for Furthgr Study The writer would like to suggest the following areas which lend themselves to further study. 1) A follow—up study of teachers from full-time resi- dent centers for the purpose of measuring their success in teaching as compared with the success of teachers who have come through the more tradi- tional program. 2) A study of what changes have taken place in the local school systems because of their having co- operated in the full-time resident student teach- ing program. 3) A comparative study of the effectiveness of stu- dent teaching programs which place student teach- 98 ers with the same supervising teachers for the full year with programs which limit the number of student teachers a supervising teacher may have to one per year. This study could well consider the effect upon the local school systems as well as the effectiveness of the student teaching pro- gram. h) A study to determine what should be the required supervisory policies to protect the interest of the children and to assure practical experience of the quality needed to insure a good student teaching program. 5) A study of the resident coordinator's position which would attempt to determine the value of this position to both the teacher education insti- tution and the local cooperating school systems. 6 V A study concerning the various methods of payment to local school systems for their part in the co- operative program with emphasis on the effects of the various plans upon the student teaching pro- gram's effectiveness. sauefi A in“ in“ BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Harold P., and Dickey, Frank G. Basic Principles 9; Student Teachin . New York: American Book Company, 1955. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Revised Standards and Policies for Accrediting Colleges for Teacher Education. Oreonta, New'York: The Association, 195 . American Association of School Administrators. Paths to Better Schools. Twenty-third Yearbook, Washingtcn, D.C.: The Association, 1951. American Association of Teachers Colleges. Standards for Accrediting Teachers Colleges. Twenty-fourth'Year- book, Oreonta, New York: The Association, 1948. American Association of Teachers Colleges. School and Come munity Laboratory Experiences. Forty—fourth Year- book, Oreonta, New York: The Association, l9h8. Association for Student Teaching. Off-Campus Student Teaching. Thirtieth Yearbook, Lock Haven, Pa.: The Association, 1951. Association for Student Teaching. Curriculum Trends in Teacher Education. Thirty-second Yearbook, Lock Haven, Pa.: The Association, 1953. Association for Student Teaching. Facilities for Profes- sional Laboratory Experiences in Teacher Education. Thirtyethird Yearbook, Lock Haven, Pa.: The Associ- ation, l95h. Association for Student Teaching. Functions of Laboratory Schools in Teacher Education. Thirty-fourth Year- book, Lock Haven, Pa.: The Association, 1955. Brink, William G. "The Administration of Student Teaching in Universities Which Use the Public Schools," Educational Administration and Supervision, October, 1945. pp. 39£F#02- Burnett, Lewis W., and Dickson, George E. "Cooperative Improvement of Off-Campus Student Teaching," Journal 2: Teacher Education, December, 1950, pp. 287-290. 99 is. i 3: .1 t 100 Chase, Daniel. "Student Teaching Programs Require Effec- tive Cooperation," California JOurnal 2; Secondary Education, April, 195;. PP. 205-251. Clem, Paul N. "A Study of the Michigan State University Full-Time Resident Student Teaching Program," Doggoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 19 . Dewey, John. Democracy and Education. New York: The ~ MacMillan Company, 1915. Dixson, Paul T. "Some Guiding Principles for Student Teaching Programs," North Central Association Quarterly, October, 1957, pp. 193-196. Foster, Frank K. "The Training School in the Education of Teachers," Teacher Education Curricula, National Eurvey of the Education of Teachers, 1933, pp. 367- 01. Harry, Shizuko N. "Some Trends in Teacher Education," Eg- ucational Research Bulletin, Columbus, Ohio: Col- lege of Education, The Ohio State University, September 10, 1958, pp. 158-160. Hicks, William V. "Information About Off-Campus Student Teaching Programs in Big Ten Universities," East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Bul- letin, 1959. (Mimeographed.) Hicks, William V. "Where Do Student Teaching Centers Se— cure Teachers?" East Lansing, iichigan: College of Education, Michigan State University, Bulletin, 1958. (Mimeographed.) Hicks, William v., and Walker, Clare 0. Full-Time Student Teaching. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 1957. Jones, Rodney M. "An Investigation of Practices of Teacher Preparing Institutions in Extending Recognition to Off-Campus Cooperating Teachers," Doctoral Disserta- tion, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1958. Lawson, Douglas E. "Implications of a Survey of Teacher Training Practices in Illinois," Educational Admin- istration 32g Supervision, October, 1939, pp. 523- :31. Moon, A.C. "A High Quality Student Teaching Program, ” Cedar Falls, Iowa: Iowa State Teachers College, Bul- letin, 1959. (Mimeographed.) 101 Morris, Evart Paul. "The Organization and Administra- tion of Student Teachi as Conducted in the Pub- lic Schools (Off-Campus of Nebraska," Doctoral Dissertation, Teachers College, University of Nebraska, 1957. Newsletter 9: the Council on Cooperation in Teacher Educa- tion, Normal, 111.: Illinois State Normal University, January, 1957. Rucker, Roy W. "Trends in Student Teaching, 1932- 1952, " Journal of Teacher Education, December, 1953, PP. 260- 263.— Sands, thn E. "Off—Campus Student Teaching Practices in 112 Institutions," Education, June, 1953, pp. 636- Schorling, Raleigh. Student Teaching. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 19h9. Stearns, Troy L. "A Study of the Effectiveness of Off-Campus Laboratory Experiences Offered Elementary Education Majors in Marshall, Michigan, 19h6-l95h," A Report to the A11.University Research Committee, East Lan- sing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1956. Welborn, E. L. "Cooperation with Local Schools in Student Teaching," Educational Administration and Supervi- sion, November, 1920, pp. hkS-k70. Nengert, Stanley A. "Laboratory Experiences and Student Teaching: Elementary Schools," The Education of Teachers as Viewed _1_ the Profes31on ,BowIing Green, ‘ Ohio: Official Group Reports, Bowling Green Confer- ence. Wiggins, Sam P. "Improving Off- -Campus Student Teaching, Education, June, 1953, pp. 622- 629. .u ::h} .fflftifierlvli APPENDIX A 102 .(hml In 103 ADMINiSTRaTOR'S QUESTIONgalEE A. Questions relatiVe to the administrator and school. 1. How many of the past three years have you been an admin- istrator in your present school? 2. Have you held any other position in this school during the past three years? Yes No If yes 3. What position did you hold? B. The following questions are concerned with the work load change caused by your school cooperating with Michigan State Uni- versity in the full—time resident student teaching program. 1. Has the fact that your school has been a cooperating school with Michigan State University in the full-time resident student teaching program increased your work load? Yes No If the answer is yes 2. about how many additional hours per term has your work load increased? 3. What items have you done which caused this extra work? a. Additional reports were required b. Finding housing for student teachers c. Counselling student teachers d. Selection of supervising teachers e. Personal problems of student teachers (A check mark indicates the response was volunnrily given; an x indicates that the reply was elicited by the interviewer. 3. -. L- -—- “-5—... . ... . . . .a' L ~_| .- " ' ‘ " ' . \. ¢ .\ -' .n-.-.- ‘. I" _ .A-c-——b5u~ . . .. ...... _ . . . ,, . -... ,.. - _. ”I .. I .. ... ' ., H \ - . .1...nl‘ ,. .,,....-—1.... . -_. .. . l - ' . .4 .- . _ . ‘ " » ' ' .: .. . .l ' ‘ l ‘ n . , . ' g . . . ' ' ‘ . ‘ t \- 1 ' .‘ ._.- -. . _ . .- ~ . ., ~ _ .~ . . I . n. I n . . Ml ‘ \' " ' c .. »-. ~ - ."vu- " v -- v1 w ' . ., he... "3“...“ . 'u‘ x| . ‘ Y; ‘ H. . . . ‘ 4‘ . _ ‘ l“: I I V l . .u—D. .,-{ .".': ' . l'.’ . '1 . . I ,‘ . l . . ., .. ’I' . . . . . .. . . r 3 , . .‘ I . . . |._ I. . .. I. -" l. 10L; . .‘2_ f. Conferences with Coordinator_hw g. Pre-orientation of the student teachers. h. i. J- i 4. Which of the items you have mentioned in the preceding ques- tions caused you the most extra work? a. b. C. d. e. f. g. h. i. J. The problem of selecting supervising teachers is.a difficult one. There are many approaches to this and other policy problems. Of the factors influencing policy decisions three of the most important are (l) The ability of the superV131ng teacher to work with the student teacher. (2) The effect upon the morale of the staff of singling out teachers and (3) The protection of the chil- dren to assure adequate learning. 1. What method is used in your school for determining who shall be supervising teachers? (More than one answer may be given.) a. Volunteers l ' . I . '- I .- n . ‘ , .. .. no..- .. .. -. . . ....... .. .. . .. .. . . .. .- ... . ..... -.. . . .... .. .. . . . .. .......... -- . ..- .-,..». '.__. .. -. . ‘ I' v I ' s . ‘ ' . - ‘ . .i - .. _ . ‘ ~ ‘- , 11' . . l , q , ‘ . . ' “'.‘I n .‘ 'i . . , . § . ' ‘. . . V ‘ . :}'- 1,: -. - v .- ... ....... u . . .. -..-- -.- .. | . I I . w .. __ . ‘ l- . 5. I ‘_I _r .- ‘ . . b. appointment by 1; Superintendent 2. Principal 3. Resident coordinator h. Combination of volunteering and appointment 5. Committee appointment c. Other method l.‘ 2. 2. Has the fact that your school cooperates with Michigan State University in the full time resident student teaching pro- gram caused problems of staff morale? Yes No If answer is yes 3. What have been some of these problems? a. b. 4. Under what conditions do you use student teachers as substitutes? a. Very rarely b. For supervising teacher only c. For teachers in closely related areas ‘ v I .H ' ‘ '.‘ ~ I.- ...e. .. ‘ ”WI I“ ..,_ .. . .. r-..... ' . I . - . . _ .. , i .."“4.., .. N . p! . | 1 "c . - 7.. .. . . I. -4- d. Supervising teacher substitutes, while student teacher teaches supervising teacher's class. _- e. The same as any regular substitute f. Other conditions 1. 2. 3. 5. What has been your policy as to the number of full-time student teachers that any one supervising teacher may have in one year? 6 Would you change this if you could? Yes No If answer is yes 7. How? 8. What use has been made of the payment to your school by Michigan State University for the student teaching program? (More than one answer may be given.) a. Used for supervising teacher's benefit only b. Used for in-service education of all teachers c. Other usages l I ... , _ _ . - ' a . .. h. ' ‘ ' ' . -. . . ’ I. -..‘. .- .- ' . . _. . __ “0.... ...... »... , . ....,. .,. _._l .. .......... ‘ ‘ ..,... .. . . -- .-.. . - a...“ - A ’ -- . _ ......" . . ... . .,,. ._ ... .. ...- 33“.. 1.. ,. ..... .. I} ' " .1. ‘ .. _' .‘I _. ""' -~ .‘... . . ' " . . ’ - '~ .. - ‘. . , - .. , 1'.‘- 1, , .. '. "-' ".' '7 .7‘ . u "' .y. Y - _ m“ . ~ . .._. ., "a-~.\rr..‘ .. - V- . .. ..... ._“" ”A r . . H, d. . ‘ ‘ ‘m ‘ -..-, ~ ' ""~. 1 ‘. ). 107 .5- 9. Do you have an over-all administrator for the student teaching program on your staff? Yes No A If answer is yes 10. What position on your staff does this person hold? 11. Does your school have a policy, other than that estab- lished by the University, regarding the length of time the student teacher must do full—time teaching? Yes No If answer is yes a. What is the minimum length of time? b. What is the maximum length of time? 12. Does your school have a policy regarding the required amount of time the supervising teacher must observe the student teacher? Yes No If answer is yes a. What is the minimum time the supervising teacher must observe? 13. What changes would you suggest in the present arrangement of financing the cooperating program? a. None b. Payment should be greater c. Payment should be less d. There should be less restriction placed upon the -. . .'.I'.. , I .'. . ...- '- I. .. I I l . ‘; . I I...’ -- ‘ I . . . ‘ . ......._.-.- ..... - ._. . .. . "m "‘"W- u........,.," '-" ' ‘ .-.a :' .; I i I l : -.. - 5 . _ .. . . u L. ' ' .. J .. . ' .-, .. _. f" I . “J ‘I '- . . .- . ' . _ . | I. II - . l . n I .‘ I . .‘ ' . l| ,- ~ .. . . l- . ., 1 . ‘ih . ~ I I . s. -. .‘l x. ._ . . . . _. ”I. H ' . . ~ . _ - ‘ a-..“ ' ' ,= ..\;::nh,.; ,. _ 5‘ .. '2 I; . ' I , ' V I I‘ n' .I II -1./x. . X . a . ,. . ‘ <4" [I ._ .~ ‘ . ., .. , ..' .57“ '1‘ . , ”7. I . "" - . .«I ' ‘w In... 1 I , I ,‘ ‘- I a . ‘ . :- 3H1“ .. _ . l. ‘ , H h ' . I I . . ., -. . -. .. . _' > ..._ h ,L' '1 I“ 'x x ; l .. ‘1. . I I .| -. I I 1‘,» A. u I ‘ . ‘ n ' ‘4 " v 2, ~ '\ \ . ,. . .‘ I; \I. . . - . . .. . , . ' .. . Menu: |' I’ - ".I . ..‘.I ' 1. -..- ~.__ \ \ .. .-' H .'. l ' . ‘§.' I . I ‘ ’2 . ' ‘l' A 0‘" . .'.'1- H o . use of these funds -gg e. The payment should be made to the teacher f- Other changes 1r 2. 3. hp lb- ”hat services that your school has received as a result of your being a cooperating school with Michigan State University in the full-time resident student teaching program do you think have been most beneficial to your in-service program? a. Professional books for the staff made available through the Michigan State University library b. Consultants from the University for local problems c. The University's help on local research problems d. Workshops for supervising teachers e. Courses offered by the University locally upon problems of the local school f. Payment of tuition for credit courses from funds received for being a cooperating school g- Other services. 1. 2. 3. ‘ ...............- . tfii‘flufil :' as”: '34) way \ . 'V‘ _. w | 1:. ._ aru- «“.u-.-..........--... :2} «I 'u. :1- .- . .. .-.. - um-.. .........-...........-. ............ ....... .r .. .‘a . .... . -............ .-......... .. . -... -.... ,. . I----.—uvnd~“v—~¢h—-~A - vn‘nu; - ..... -. ~ u'I‘-. any-yummy - . -""¢'T'L ‘4 T 1...! - ..~..; ‘ t.— I ~- J“ " ‘ l .' I. . . - . u I. ~. . ‘ I I. i l‘ .v I ‘ I. . , - 13‘. .- .~. '. . -.Ixh!'.‘. ..-. "“ -........... ...............-.. ......... ....... _-,'. ”It.“ . ',‘..‘ .n. . . .. . i I "‘n “A." I I 5' I l: 1!} i I [J- ’ " Ar. . ' I I I n .u . u. u ‘ " . - I‘ I“ . l‘ I. ' ' - . .n '1 ,...«~.-. "" ‘ -. ~ I . I . .. A... .x.'_- .. .:z....- .4- ~"" ' - .r I " .‘l' . l I . I . .'|. i ‘ ‘ ' I l I: .. r . , i . . . . .. ‘ ‘ r . I -' ' . I . . , , . . i.. , u .. ,.- U ' .1. . I. -. . - .. -.......,. .. . 4 .- I - ' " ’ ‘ . H_ .' . II. ' .‘. , r ' - - . . ' , "‘ ‘ ' "' ' ~... .. .. . ..~ .- - uu- - - -’ ' . '_' . . ‘ . un ‘ -.- ‘ ~ " I. . .......... . ...... H . .. .. ..-... . .......... . . ‘ up. .-~-l ‘I— C-ll- . Am. "I u .r. - ”I! ‘ ' I - ........ .... -... ..........-.. .....-. .m- ~ — A.~r.. ‘ I -‘.-I-Ih AACI n ~I—fiu...~-‘.. -. nun-u I U I . ~ . .- .. .... .. ... .-..........-.... a... I‘. s I s-c-..-.--. I‘N-I‘ n. ...--— In. J .;n ............ .. “-4-.. ... ,. ........-.... 109 4‘7- __ _MVWWBMmEm¢; ‘ “w~i .~ H 15. How would you rank these in order of importance? 2.... ..a....:iu:‘_':*ir ' lst 5th h IL ‘ |f€1ft 2nd 6th .i! . “in“... ...~.-....... 3rd 7th .-.. ............- . .w ...... .. " ' hth ~« ~~~ww~~ “ 16. What services not now provided by the University would -.«.. n ~»‘“ be desirable? :qmmrl * a. ‘ k r. k! b o J ' - c . taught; gist-.12 :3 d . e. mqgfl" 17. Has being a cooperating school with Michigan State urn.tzn3 u University in the full-time resident student teaching program been beneficial or harmful to instruction? Beneficial Harmful 18. In what way has the instruction been benefitted? a. Stimulated staff members b. Permitted more time for individual attention to ' pupils What are some examples of this? 1. Supervising teacher works with individual pupil 2. Student teacher works with individual pupil ~w“““""” _ 3. The class is divided into smaller groups . A. f. .H .. an. i " I. ‘. -.' Ann-Asa»- ."-I.—"-‘I5 ’- . . . . . - .._ :. '. . ... . . . .. .... or . . .-‘ . ,I _ .1. . . . n .. . . “c- ' . .1] ”a... .... .. - 9...... .. I-I 0‘ ' ‘ ' .r ' '-~.: - .-1 : r- , u " -. - ‘ l I. I. N I.--.I' IJ'.“ 12"." II-' ¢.:-‘ '1 I . . .. .. .l u' I." 'I-vl‘" "- ' v -_ I - - .-. ~ ‘\ ,. . .. _ ____ N- 5‘ I . «I' - .—' -‘ udIII f -‘. ,. ,, a . _ . .... .. “.._ -.-. ._ .. _' . .. ... ...... .. . .. ...”. . _ ‘ . .. . ,,... ......H-.. .. -.--'.".""‘ ...... . .,. . .. . .. _ .1...‘ ".1‘ ‘ . ' . ‘ ‘ . . . . . . ' ‘ . . i - ‘ v . \ . . . _ ' ~. _.. ’ ., :1 ' "». . . r ~ I ‘ ‘ | I . ~ _ ‘ t . . . v,-~,l. ' .-..' . . 110 h. 6. 0. Provided a source of teachers for regular staff appointments d. Other benefits 19. In what way has instruction been harmed? d. 20. What other advantages to your school as a result of your being a cooperating school with Michigan State University in the full-time resident student teaching program, have you observed? 21. How much parental comment relative to the student teacher program has there been in your school district? Some Much None If answer is some or much 22. What have been the comments? II- ...... . . ....em . . a... I. .L-‘l‘l .... ......._. 4. I a... I. .. .I. I-. -)I- ..-I... ......I. -._... -r I.” .._ _~. _—.'.:_.‘._'—.. up... .... . .. .-.. . w... ...~ - ~I. .-.-m-- T" .'I - ...-I .... . - .I . “...”... .... . -. - .... -... . """ ’ ‘V -v' can: I. III- I‘ .-. .. ..i... _ .. .-. .. . . ...... .. .....I ..>-. ' .. L ' ' -.... 2......“ , . f ....- ...... . . ...... .._” ‘ A . . - .I., . , ...... . --.... .._-..‘. .... , - .- . .. .... .. . , . .r- ; _ . . - 7.]. _:f _,_I J I .' ‘l .- _ "J .. .1 ’ ._ .3 . .' ; - ' - - ..1. .‘. I _ ' _" " ‘-" . . .. .....- . .. ....-. .. .... . . .. . . ..-.....,.,, _. . .. ... . : ' ~ . «uh-...... ......u... . ' I .'.-.... ‘er‘. --- . d‘. . ~ ‘ . " >1 '.. ' _ ~l‘ .. . . . . ' 5 ......“ ... ...... .- .. I .....‘Juhwflb _ . ..- ~v....... ...- .6...“ ..- v .. . ..— ...... .» I ‘Iwu , ' ' - .---.—........ _ .'. , - ' ' . I I I .,...--.....-. ..._.... ... ...»... . -~-‘__ -' ‘ ‘ "- ..r- .g' ', - . . A. ~ _ . . . : - :- - - w‘, : 23.1..» ;. c ' ~ ; ,- . ~ . |{' . - - - . A ~ ,. . .. 4.1— ~-'. . I. ' ' ‘1 -.'. - . . l . l . ' ‘v . . .' . ...” . , - .I-.. .. ' .. ' .-. . ~- -. . ~ '. .. 1' ‘ ‘ “I ’3 '. y .. '. ”H’a '; .. , . .‘m . .. . . . . , . - . - . .4 I '. '- ‘ -.‘ . ' . I l . . a . “I , - . .- - ‘ . L -.: ._ - . ‘. - Iv -.-. . . ‘-~ . - ' .‘ . . , . -l .‘.; ‘ . - .'. .. .I a .'. .' . “.‘.... 1- 1,» I ' I IV . . ' "". _ .. . . .'.. Xn‘ _ ‘ . i I . ,1 . . ..~~ a , ‘ . , ‘ . -- ‘ ... >_ . ’ ,_ ‘ _~ 4 . ' ' . . .. , {I ‘ ‘ V. x . :. ..r _ ._ _ . I! ..., ... - .‘ .1, ‘ I ‘. ' |. . ' H ' ‘ a.-. bun”... . .... .. ‘ . ... . . . . ,_ _' ._'_ ~- . I 5 .."u . . ' 1‘ ‘ ._ .. . ‘ ; . . g . , '!.- .<~ - . “. ' . . . ..r r I .d ‘ ~ I . "“ ~ ‘ I .. . ..‘ .~ . . . -.; -...'-£ . . .».1 r~ - " "I *O- «cu-I;- .‘.. _. O a. Liked having two teachers in the room b. Liked the additional individualized instruction c. Liked the stimulation provided by the young teacher d. Fear of children not receiving competent instruc- tion VWd e. Fear of poor evaluation of pupil's work “ . f. Too great an amount of instruction from student p A teacher g. ___ *"' i. m "*"-*www- 23. Have you had difficulty in explaining the program to any of the following? 5 a. Faculty? Yes No '”§7“£"irv ' b. Board of Education? Yes No c. Parents? Yes No d. Citizens in general? Yes No e. Pupils? Yes No 2b. are there any other problems that have arisen because of your school’s being a cooperating school with Michigan State University in the full-time resident student teaching program? .../V". Yes __~___~_ No 112 -10- ' If answer is yes please list these problems. a. b. f. 25. Over-all, is it worth while to be a cooperating school with Michigan State University in the full-time resident student teaching program? Yes No 26. Why? as I look over the answers to these questions is this a pretty fair evaluation of your opinion as to the advantages and disadvantages of the program? Yes No APPENDIX B 113 l ...». \.w\\(.:..w»v 11h QULSTIONNaIRL Foa Tincasas Information required before the interview takes place. Grade level elementary Secondary Supervising teacher Yes No Read all directions and explanatory material to person being interviewed. The following questions are concerned with the work load change caused by your school's being a cooperating school with Michigan State University in the full-time resident student teaching program. 1. Has the fact that your school has been a cooperating school in the Michigan State University full-time, resident, student teaching program increased the hours that you normally work? Yes No If the answer is yes a. How many hours per student teacher, per term on the average, has your work load increased? _g_ 2. What specific tasks have you performed that required you to work these extra hours? a. additional reports were required b. Finding housing for student teachers Ah c. Counselling student teachersw d. Doing work of other teachers e. Other items causing extra work 1. 2. 3. ‘ (A check mark indicates that the response was voluntarily given. an x indrates that the reply was elicited by the interviewer.) -2- . 1'ould ' asa§§§%§:%fih§%€fififimfifi per student teacher? items required a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. A. Has having student teachers in your school given you any time away from classes you would not otherwise have had? Yes No If answer is yes a. How many hours per term or per student teacher away from classes have you had? One of the areas in question for any school that has stu- dent teachers is the effect that having student teachers has upon the instructional program of the public school. The following questions are aimed at discovering informa- tion concerning the effect, as you see it, of your school's cooperating with Michigan State University in the full- time resident student teaching program. 1. Has the individuiization of instruction been benefited or hindered in your class because of your school‘s cooperating with Michigan State University in the full-time resident student teacher program? Benefited Hindered _ Neither benefited or hindered 2. ‘What about the individualization of instruction in the school as a whole? Benefited Hindered Neither benefited or hindered 3. In what ways has the individualization of instruction been benefited by cooperating in the full~time resident student teacher program? a. It has made possible more time for work with individual pupils. By the supervising teacher By the student teacher b. It has made possible the dividing of the class into more groups than would be possible without a student teacher. f. In what ways was the individualization of instruction hindered? g. The supervision of the student teacher took so much of the supervising teacher's time that there was less time for individual work. r‘. ., . I . '- . . I -.~ . '.'n ‘\ y In. . . .. Is.- .... . ... ...-I. .’.‘3 flow—.nn.”—' . 1_ .w....m _ .. .. . . ._ .- , .. . '.l I . . . . l _ - . _ I I - . . L ‘ - HQ {'5 .‘ LO ‘iuQLSQJ '3 .. ... ...”...II‘I-n a"... .«' ud? 155d ~h- h. Reteaching after student teacher. i. Planning with student teacher took so much time as to hinder supervising teacher's time for individual help. j. k. l. A. Were any new ideas for instruction received from the student teacher? Yes No If answer is yes 5. What are some examples of these new ideas? a. b. C. d. 6. Did the student teachers bring any new or different instruc- tional materials? Yes No If anwer is yes 7. What are some examples of these materials? a. b. 8. are there other examples of aid provided by the student teacher? ‘Yes No I1 I.. . . I . I . n.- J .. .. ..I .. .... ... 1. ..._ . . ._ ... . I“ I I r . . . . . . ._ . u “ ... .. .. .. .. .... I I . n. . .n .. .. ... . I . 118 -5- What are some of these aids? ' a. b. c. d. 9. Did having student teachers in your school make it possible for any regular staff members to have more time for activities than normal? Yes No If answer is yes 10. What were some of these activities? a. Research b. Visitations c. d. e. The problem of selecting supervising teachers is a diffi- cult one. There are many approaches to this selection. In all cases there are some important factors to consider. Of these factors three appear to be of most importance. They are (l) the ability of the supervising teacher to work with student teachers; (2) the affect upon the morale of the staff of singling out teachers for supervision; (3) the protection of children to assure adequate learning. 11. Do you think these interests are being protected in the present selection method? Yes No If answer is no a. Which of these three is an unsolved problem? 12. What changes would you suggest in the selection method? a. None b. ' l w ' V II'”. .‘ ' 1.", r4 ; ..4 . ..- .. . ' .. .-'_ . i ' ... .- , ._ r - ”(.‘J‘ " .._ , . n.‘ . . _ ...?” ‘. ..' I ‘ -- *' “' _ .. a.rr...’-.....__...~.,p- . ...-... . ' .‘.; ‘ .I . , I u . . -':':--' I! '1' .4'|..,'. ;. . In...) -- ' .'.' .. ' .. .- .. ...... . ..... . . _‘ ~ , - .' _," ' r'..‘ t - O -........ ...... . Q ,. ,. - . .... .5... . .‘. ..A.. ......AM .‘....M-w—H. ... . ‘ i .- , . . r if. ' " "1' I 2 " .ry ; - n - .‘ , - _ »_.__, _ .._ ..._.- -"«' .‘.-1 new. .1 313.1,: [in _-.3 5x» ,-,\é ,, ...v. . . ‘ . . . . A. . ' ‘ ' ' ~ I . .-. - .. . ‘~ ., .. . [-13 .1, .. ‘; ;.~ LUV , ‘. . P‘ , .4; 1h. 119 Student teachers are used as substitute teachers sometimes by schools; There are many and varied views as to the rightness of this practice. Do you think that student teachers should be used as substi- teachers? Yes No If answer is yes Under what arrangements should student teachers be used as substitute teachers? a. Substitute of supervising teacher only. b. student teacher remains in supervising teacher's room while supervising teacher substitutes for other teacher. substitute. 15. 0. student teacher used in closely related area as a d. Other arrangement 9. Michigan State University, because it is cooperating in the full-time resident student teaching program: has made available to the local school certain serV1ces. What services have you made use of a. None b. Professional books from the University library 0. Consultants from the University d. Courses offered by the University on the local campus ’4' .4 n --- _, _ ..—~— . ‘1 . . , u‘ . - J . ' I . . .| ‘- ‘. l . ' .,-. . I . .. , \.h' H » :~ '. \'.' ' ‘ I ‘ l' -- '1‘. -7- e. Other services you have used 1. 2. 3. 16. Which of these services do you think has contributed to your professional improvement? b. None Some Much c. Noneg_ Some Much d. None Some Much e. None Some Much f. None Some Much 17. What services not now provided by the University do you feel that the University could provide that would be helpful to you? a. b. 18. Has the fact that your school has been a cooperating school in the full-time resident student teaching program helped your school secure teachers as replacements and additions to your teaching staff? Yes NO_______ Don't know 19. Have parents complained to you about the student teaching program? Yes No If answer is yes ..3- 20. What has been the nature of these complaints? a. A lack of competent instruction in those classes that have student teachers. b. Complaints on the evaluation of students by student teachers. c. Concern with the amount of teaching done by the student teachers. d. Other complaints 1. 2. 3. 21. Have parents commented to you concerning some good aspects of the student teaching program? Yes No If answer is yes 22. What are some of the good aspects? a. b. c. d. 23. Do you think that a supervising teacher has too much time away from class when he has a student teacher? les No 2h. How would you evaluate the idea of having a resident co- ordinator from Michigan State University for the student teachers? *1 .x \. 1, 1. .L N... .J. i'}. vJ 122 -9- g It is ah aid to the program M. _ J;t hinders the success of the program 0'93 1 I c- He interferes with the instruction of children 25. Has having student teachers in yaur school created more discipline problems than before the student teacher program was in your school ? Yes No If answer is yes 26. What are some of these problems?’ 27. What is your general opinion of the effect of the full time student teacher program upon the instruction of children in your school? a- Good b~ No Effect for good or harm c~ narmfuli effect If the teacher has had one or more student teachers ask 28 Why did you take a student teacher? a- I was asked to b— I felt a professional obligation to the teacher educa- tion program 0. d... In ..I‘l ... ... \ll ||||. i . (I . r . I n . ...... .. . . .. . . ..r .. . 2w ... . . . .y . M w. m . .. .... . _. _ . n . . . ...“ ..... .. .. _ . .. . . n .. w . u . u .. ... . .k. I r a. APPENDIX C 123 1le- QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PUPILS WHO HAVE HAD STUDENT TEACHERS Your class has been selected as one from which we would like to secure information about the student teacher program in which your school and Michigan State University have been cooperating. 1. Would you think back for a minute and recall the student teachers you have had in the past three years. How many student teachers can you recall? None One Two Three More than three Do you have a student teacher now? Yes _gNo What is your general impression about the ability of student teachers to: 'Very ‘Good Average Poor Very Good Poor a. Keep the classes in order b. Help pupils to learn_fi 0. Make classes interesting d. Make subjects interesting ‘. e. Teach_ i [ How many instances can you recall when the student teacher inter- fered with your learning? Many Some Few None When you have a student teacher in your class, is your general impression that pupils get: a. More individual attention b. About the same amount of individual attention c. Less individual attention d. Don't know What suggestion would you have for improving the program? What general comments about student teachers do you have? APPENDIX D 125 126 Dear As a parent of children in school you are no doubt interested in their education and interested in securing the best possible instruction for them. It is hoped that the result of this study can be used to gain better instruction for all children. For the past three years Michigan State University and three schools; Buchanan, Dowagiac and Niles, have been cooperating in a full-time resident student teacher program. Senior stu- dents from Michigan State University have been doing student teaching and living in the communities for periods of one term. Both Michigan State University and the schools involved are interested in discovering what effect this student teaching program has upon the instruction of children in the public schools involved. We believe that as parents of children who have had student teachers, your knowledge of, and opinions about the student teacher program will be valuable. Would you take a few minutes to answer the enclosed question- naire and return it to me by in the enclosed stamped envelope? Your replies will be used along with replies to the same questionnaire from the other two communities. Please feel free to add any comments relative to the student teaching program. We are interested in securing your frank opinion. Please do not sign your name or identify your school in any way. This study has the approval of the school authorities and of Michigan State University and both are cooperating with me. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated. Yours truly, Carl W. Brautigam. 127 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARENTS OF PUPILS «no HAVE HaD STUDENT TEACHERS. 1. When did you first learn that your school was cooperating with Michigan State University in the full-time resident student teacher program? a. When it was published in the paper b. When the children told me about it c. At a school meeting d.‘ At a pupil teacher parent conference Didn't know the school had full—time student teachers 2. If you knew about the program before now, what was your re- action when you first heard about the program? a. Tended to approve b. Tended to disapprove 0. Had no opinion about the program 3. What is your reaction now? a. Tend to approve b. Tend to disapprove c. Have no opinion about the program A. as explained in the introductory letter, this questionnaire is being sent to parents of children who have had student teachers in the past three years. How do you feel about the instruction that your child has received during the time he had a student teacher? a. The instruction has been benefited b. His instruction has been harmed . . _ -. ,; .. .1 ‘ .IV ' V..-‘ I‘ . . . . n4...) ;:.' V1...\.,H::,~.‘Q‘—~"“" . , - I ‘ ' J i . _. ' .-: i - ‘ , ,.I_' . . a ‘ I I I. ’ '. l I I. .. -J . -. \3 '1'1» '. l» .‘ «.- 'l“:r"r3:"2‘|y , - |. . .ltl , 51.1 “...-1‘} h 1" ML K \ 1’ 13a, 1’ ’_ -. I - , - :r _ .I - . . |'r, [iQ-l-J’u P. H. 5‘ VII d1j-l '. .rx. ' L ' “I“.Ww '- u . F“ “ 128 .2- c. His instruction has been neither benefitedzpr harmed d. I don't know 5. If you feel that you can, would you please list any advan- tages or disadvantages that you feel have come to your school because of its cooperating with Michigan State University in the fulletime resident student teaching program. 6. In general, do you think that having resident student teach- ers in your school is a. Good b. Bad 0. Has no effect upon the school d. Don't know .. ”...-I.”- -.'J‘ I ... - u ‘- .c \.- . \ -o. a. .- a , n .t 12' O F -. \II '5 - ‘ .I ‘l' .‘ .'..L " I tI-’ .-_-.D' lama USE em ,wafifimh 1355 can U '1 ' MIC ; \fiumyfiujlfllmy[Willi |GA V T 4 \Wfllusiiw RRRRR 6