A STUDY OF EXPECTATIONSHELD BY-INTERN TEACHERS; ‘ ‘ WITH SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS , FOR INTERN CONSULTANT ROLE 5’ Thesis for the Degree of Ph‘; D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ' GERALD LL INMAN 1970 ’ -If—v _‘_.._. LIBRARY Michigan State " ‘ I" University J, w: m, .rv-v W This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF EXPECTATIONS HELD BY INTERN TEACHERS WITH SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR INTERN CONSULTANT ROLE presented by Gerald D. Inman has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctoral degree in Philosoghy Major Drnfessm' Date My 2 0 O~169 \ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.‘I\\\\\\I I 3 1293 10032 8552 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF EXPECTATIONS HELD BY.INTERN TEACHERS WITH SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR INTERN CONSULTANT ROLE By Gerald D. Inman The purpose of this study was to explore the rela- tionship between beginning teacher personal characteris- tics and preference for supervisory behavior. Specifi- cally the investigation was designed to explore the fol- lowing major questions. (1) Is there a relationship be- tween intern teachers with varied personal characteris- tics and their eXpressed preference for selected super- visory EEEKE? And, (2) Is there a relationship between intern teachers with varied personal characteristics and their expressed preference for selected supervisory method of operation? Supervisory tasks were defined as those behaviors which the supervisor may exhibit while working directly with the beginning teacher to improve the quality of instruction afforded the children (i.e., management tech- niques, planning for learning experiences). Method of Gerald D. Inman Operation were those processes or methods employed by the supervisor to assist the beginning teacher with problem situations. One hundred eighty-five Elementary Intern Program students attending Michigan State University were subjects in the study. While teaching full—time under contract to a school district, interns were supervised on a l - 6 basis by qualified Intern Consultants. The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI), the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, and Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) were administered prior to student teaching and intern- ship as measures of attitude toward children, open-closed mindedness; and personal need pattern, respectively. The Intern Consultant Inventory (ICI), Parts A and B, was administered during the eighth month of the internship year as a measure of expressed preference for intern consultant tasks (Part A) and Method of Operation (Part B). Intern sex was an additional variable studied. Eight null hypotheses were tested using these variables. The following conclusions were supported: 1. Intern expressed preference for selected super— visory tasks as measured by the ICI and sex were related. Females tended generally to have a greater preference for supervisory tasks than males. Gerald D. Inman No relationship was found between intern ex- pressed preference for selected supervisory tasks as measured by the ICI and open-closed mindedness as measured by the Rokeach Dogmatism $03.13- There was a relationship between intern atti- tude toward children as measured by the MTAI and expressed preference for selected super- visory tasks as measured by the ICI. Interns with more positive attitudes toward children tended to indicate a greater preference for supervisory tasks than did interns with less positive attitudes. There was no relationship found between intern preference for selected supervisory method of Operation as measured by the ICI and need pat— tern as measured by the EPPS. No relationship was found between intern ex- pressed preference for selected supervisory method of operation and sex. This study found no relationship between intern expressed preference for selected supervisory method of operation and his open-closed minded- ness as measured by the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. 7. Gerald D. Inman A relationship was found between intern ex- pressed preference for selected supervisory method of operation as measured by the ICI and his attitude toward children as measured by the MTAI. Interns with a more positive attitude toward children preferred supervisory approach to problem situations which were practical, indirect, and allowed the intern to initiate action. No relationship was found between intern ex- pressed preference for selected supervisory method of operation as measured by the ICI and need pattern as measured by the EPPS. A STUDY OF EXPECTATIONS HELD BY INTERN TEACHERS WITH SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR INTERN CONSULTANT ROLE By Gerald D. Inman A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Elementary Education 1970 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS During the course of the doctoral program, counsel has been extended from many sources for which I am deeply grateful. May I acknowledge the support and guidance of Dr. W. Robert Housten, Chairman of my Guidance Committee, whose professional knowledge and insightful evaluations of my work contributed greatly to the completion of this study. I am indebted to Dr. N. Vernon Hicks and Dr. Glenn Berkheimer for their guidance and support during my grad- uate study. A special note of appreciation is extended to Dr. Robert R. Schmatz who was responsible for my en— trance into a doctoral program and served as a source of encouragement throughout. I am particularly appreciative of my wife Carlene for her love, patience, and sustained encouragement over the several years of the program. To my sons Thomas, Steven, and Gavin, who will come to understand this edu— cational endeavor, I extend a special thanks for their patience and underStanding. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . Chapter I. NATURE OF THE INVESTIGATION. II. III. Introduction. . . . . . Significance of the Study Statement of the Problem. Beginning Teacher Personal Characteristics. . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . Research Hypotheses . . Statistical Hypotheses . Summary of Procedures. . . . . Plan of Presentation . . . . . PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . The Elementary Intern Program . . Selection of the Study Population. Description of the Study Population Instrumentation. . . . . . . Data Collection Process Statistical Analysis ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . Hypothesis I. . . . . . . . Hypothesis II . . . Hypothesis III . . Hypothesis IV . . . Hypothesis V. . . . Hypothesis VI . . . . Hypothesis VII . . . . . . . Hypothesis VIII. . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . iii Page ii mn»+4 H 22 2A 25 29 3O 30 3A 35 Al 56 59 7O 7O 73 75 77 79 82 BA 85 Chapter IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . Summary . .' . . . . Limitations of the Study. . . Conclusions . . . . Implications for Teacher Education Implications for Further Research. APPENDICES. . . . . . I. INTERN CONSULTANT INVENTORY AND SUPPORTIVE DATA. . . . II. ROKEACH DOGMATISM SCALE--SHORT FORM . . III. THE MANIFEST NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OF THE FIFTEEN EDWARDS PERSONAL PREFERENCES SCHEDULE VARIABLES. . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . iv Page 88 88 92 9A 96 102 105 106 131 135 139 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 A summary of the Michigan State Univer- sity Elementary Intern Program. . .2 Age distribution of the intern population, 1969 o o o o o o o o o o o o .3 Distribution of intern population by grade point average at entrance to the Elementary Intern Program, 1967 . .4 Distribution of intern population by colleges attended . . . . . . . .5 Distribution of intern population by annual family income . . . . . .6 Distributions of interns by pre-college community type . . . . . . . . .7 Marital status distribution of students entering and near exit of the Elementary Intern Program, 1969 .8 Distribution of children for married intern teachers entering the Elementary Intern Program, 1967 . . . . . .9 The organization and presentation of preference and frequency scales under the behavioral description of consultant tasks within a category on Part A of the Intern Consultant Inventory. . . . . .10 A conceptual scheme representing the data collected by the Intern Consultant Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . .11- A listing of Elementary Intern Program off-campus centers cooperating in this study, and their approximate distances from the Michigan State University campus. . . . . . . . Page 31 37 37 38 38 39 A0 A1 4A “5 57 Table 2.12 2.13 A summary of hypotheses testing procedures . . . A conceptual scheme of canonical corre- lation procedure . . . . . . . . A conceptual scheme of step-wise regression to analyze the contribution of each independent variable in the analysis of Hypotheses IV and VIII . . . . Scaled continuum on ICI Part A intern preference for supervisory tasks . Mean scores and standard deviations of males and females on Part A (supervisory tasks) of the Intern Consultant Inventory. . . . . . . . . . A multiple correlation with intern sex as the dependent variable and six cate- gories of supervisory tasks as the dependent variables . . . . . . . Mean scores of intern open—closed mindedness . . . . . . . . . . A multiple correlation with intern open- closed mindedness as the dependent variable and six categories of super- visory tasks the independent variables . Mean score and standard deviation of intern attitude toward children . . . A multiple correlation with intern attitude toward children as the dependent variable and six categories of supervisory tasks the independent variables . . . . Intern scores on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule . . . . . Canonical correlation analysis of intern preference for supervisory tasks and measured need pattern. . . . vi Page 60 6A 65 61 72 72 74- 7A 75 76 78 79 Table 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.1M A.1 Mean scores and standard.deviations of males and females on.Part B (super- visory method of operation) of the Intern Consultant Inventory. multiple correlation with intern sex as the dependent variable and three cate- gories of consultant method of operation as the independent variables . . . . multiple correlation with intern open- closed mindedness as the dependent variable and three categories of consultant method of operation the independent variables. . . . . . multiple correlation with intern attitude toward children as the dependent variable and three categories of consultant method of operation as the independent variables. . . . . . . . . . . canonical correlation analysis of intern preference for supervisory method of operation and measured need pattern Summary of intern preference for supervisory tasks by sex. . . . . . vii Page 80 81 82 83 84 97 CHAPTER I NATURE OF THE INVESTIGATION Introduction The initial years in teaching influence the teacher throughout his career. The adjustments he makes, the way in which he goes about teaching, and the priorities he gives have a marked effect upon the ultimate teaching style developed. During this critical period the neophyte teacher faces many problems. Segar explained that "the new teacher is usually ignorant of so many things that are important in teaching that he tends to be overwhelmed by the number of things to be learned all at once when he begins to teach."1 Recognition of the problems faced by the beginning teacher was also given by D. D. Darland and Roy Edelfelt when they stated that: Induction to teaching must be dealt with as a per- tinent stage in career development. A new teacher should not be left to the isolation of his own lG. Bradley Segar, Jr., "Team Supervision," in Partnership in Teacher Education, ed. by E. Brooks Smith, et a1. (Washington, D. C.: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1968), p. 251. classroom to succeed or fail depending on his ability, ingenuity, and resilience."2 Further, they stressed the need for close guidance during this period as they noted that the new teacher "should be treated for what he is——a beginner-—and given the time and assistance he needs to develop his own teach— ° ,. II 3 ing style. To provide such assistance, many school districts ' and "consul— staff ”helping teachers," "tenure coaches,' tants." Services offered are varied, and depend to a great extent on the individual style and strengths of the consultant rather than the needs of the beginning teacher. With varied backgrounds and personal characteristics, individual beginning teachers quite likely require dif- ferent consultant services and different methods of Operation by consultants. The present study was designed to test this premise. Do beginning teachers have a particular preference for supervisory behavior and is this preference based on their personal characteristics? The major assumptions upon which this question rests are: (1) that the begin- ning teacher has a set of unique personal characteristics, and (2) that these characteristics may influence his pref- erence for supervisory behavior. ') . “National Commission of Teacher Education and Pro- fessional Standards, The Real World of the Beginning Teacher (Washington, D. C.: National Education Associa- tion, 1965), p. 7. 3 Ibid. The population studied were interns engaged in full time first—year teaching. Each intern was guided by a consultant who, in turn, worked with five or six interns. Although this study is directly related to internship, the discussion which follows has been drawn from litera- ture related to beginning teachers and student teaching. The underlying assumption is that each neophyte, to vary— ing extents, works with a supervisor and faces common teaching problems. Extrapolation of findings beyond the population studied depends upon the nature and amount of supervision, and the commonality of problems faced. Significance of the Study Contemporary writers such as Harris,“ Curtin,5 7 and Heald and Moore,8 suggest that the Wiles,6 Crosby, fundamental role of supervision is to bring about im- proved instruction. This definition coincides with the Dictionary of Education which defines supervision as the l lBen Harris, Sppervisory Behavior in Education . (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963). [- )James Curtin, Supervision in Today's Elementapy School (New York: Macmillan Co., 196A). 6Kimball Wiles, Supervision for Better Schools Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice—Hall, 1967). 7Muriel Crosby, Supervision as Cooperative Action (New York: Appleton—Century—Crofts, Inc., 1957). 9 “James E. Heald and Samuel Moore II, The Teacher and’Administrative Relations in School Systems (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1968). "efforts designated toward providing leadership to teachers and other educational workers in the improvement of in- struction."9 The improvement of instruction is the common purpose of supervisory behavior as it relates to student teaching, internship, and beginning teaching. "Broadly speaking," stated Olson, "supervision is undertaken for the purpose of helping the student teacher and classroom teacher grow professionally as much and as rapidly as possible in the time available."10 Following a study of supervision and in—service training of new teachers, Bond and Smith concluded, "the introduction of beginning elementary school teachers to their new profession is a very haphazard affair at best."11 Jerome S. Bruner concurred with Bond and Smith's conclu- sion in a symposium on teacher education. The need for quality supervision was paramount in the conference recom- mendations which included the following: 9Carter V. Good, ed., Dictionary of Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 19u5). 10Hans C. Olson, "Innovation in Supervision Today," in Partnership in Teacher Education, ed. by E. Brooks Smith, et a1. (Washington, D. C.: The American Associa- tion of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1968). 11George W. Bond and George J. Smith, "First Year of Teaching," The National Elementapy Principal, XLVIII (September, 1967), 55—57. School systems should take a hard look at the kind of supervision which they have in their schools and the role of the supervisor should be re-examined, especially as it relates to the new teacher.12 Emphasis has been placed on individualizing super— visory practices to effectively improve instruction. 13 Combs, reflecting on individualization and personaliza- tion in teacher education, forcefully reminded educators of the importance of the person in the educational en— counter. Chaltas et al. wrote that the process of super- vision must: Allow for individualization of instruction so that each intern can continue the process of identifica- tion with the profession in ways peculiar to him, including attention to cognitive and affective learnings, through the process of inquiry. Allow for individualization of teaching style con- sonant with the intern's personal and professional frame of reference.1 Further emphasis by the Association for Student Teaching has been placed on the quality of supervisory behavior and the individualization of beginning teacher q . 1‘Jerome S. Bruner, A Symposium.on the Training of Teachers for Elementary School, IDEA Occasional Paper (Dayton, Ohio: Kettering Foundation, 1968). 13Arthur W. Combs, The Professional Education of Teachers (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1965). 1“John G. Chaltas, Jannene M. Kain, and Horton C. Southworth, "The Supervision of Intern Teachers," Intern- ships in Teacher Education, Forty-seventh Yearbook, The Association for Student Teaching (Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1968). h r l) and supervision. Entire chapters in the Forty-fifth Forty—sixth16 yearbooks of the Association focus on skills needed by supervisors and unique characteristics of beginning teachers. The chapter in the Forty—fifth yearbookl7 particu- larly emphasized competencies of supervising teachers. Competencies were grouped into five categories related to: (l) classroom procedures and techniques, (2) working relationships, (3) transition from inactive to active participation, (A) personal traits, and (5) professional and school responsibilities. Discussion concerning the identified competencies stressed the importance of leading each student teacher through the process of teaching within his own personality structure. "Individualization of Teacher Preparation," a chapter in the Forty-sixth Yearbook of the Association, reported survey results which identified concerns of student teachers. A study of concerns and personal char- acteristics of student teachers resulted in recommendations 15Karl D. Edwards, "Competencies of the Supervising Teacher," Professional Growth Inservice of the Supervising Teacher, Forty-fifth Yearbook (Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1966), pp. 15-A3. l6Francis F. Fuller, Geneva Hanna Pilgrim, and Elma M. Freland, "Intensive Individualization of Teacher Prepara- tion," Mental Health and Teacher Education, Forty-sixth Yearbook (Washington, D. C.: National Education Associa- tion, 1967), pp. 151-87. l7Edwards, op. cit. \l for adapting teacher preparation programs to the indi- vidual needs of student teacher. Olson was concerned with the need to adapt super- visory behavior to the individual personal character- istics of the trainee. Supervisors must work with the situation they find themselves, and no two situations are alike. The factors that must be taken into account are ex- pectations, perceptions, abilities, skill , under- standing, facilities, support, and time.1 Human eXpresses similar concern when he stated that: "Supervisors of student teaching must understand concepts of learning and development unique to the age group to which most college students belong."19 Following the evaluation of a program for preparing educational supervisors at Berea College and the Univer- sith of Kentucky, Ogletree2O reported that changes in teacher behavior were most closely related to interper- sonal warmth of relationship between supervisor and teacher trainee. He further concluded that professional coopera- tion between supervisor and trainee was based on need 18Olson, op. cit., p. 231. 19Edward L. Ruman, "In-service Education of Super— vising Teachers and College Supervisors," in Partnership in Teacher Education, ed. by E. Brooks Smith (Washington, D. C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1966), p. 270. 20James R. Ogletree, et al., "Preparing Educational Supervisors," Educational Leadership, XX (December, 1962), 163-66. identification and the prescription of experiences to meet the needs. Prudence Dyer, recognizing individual character- istics of the teacher trainee, expressed similar concern about the nature of supervision. Following a study of teacher internship programs these questions related to ’ supervisory practices were raised: How will assignments be made? Will his intern be prepared in competencies com- parable or complimentary to the supervisor's qualifications? Will there be an attempt to consider his temper- ament and that of the intern for optimum compati- bility?2l Reacting to the questions raised by Dyer, Erickson stated that "putting the right instructor with the right student may be more than a matter of faith in fellow- 22 man and trust in luck." Following a study of super- visory behavior with student teachers and beginning teach- ers, Erickson concluded that: To a slight extent, supportive behavior produced ’ more desired behavior than did critical behavior. However, the effectiveness of the style seemed to be related to the personality of the subject: some subjects grew under rigorogs criticism, some wilted under generous support.2 21Prudence Dyer, "Teacher Internship Programs in NCA Institutions," North Central Association Quarterly, XLIII (Fall, 1968), 232. 22John E. Erickson, "On the Development of School Supervisory Personnel: A Case in Point," The Journal of Teacher Education, XX (Spring, 1969), 69. 23Ibid., 68. Within the literature related to supervising be- ginning teachers clear recognition is given to: (l) the problems the beginner must face, (2) the concern for the quality of supervision afforded the beginning teacher, (3) the need to individualize supervisory practices, and (A) the unique personal characteristics of the beginning teacher. Little research, however, has been undertaken to relate supervisory behavior with beginning teacher personal characteristics. Statement of the Problem Based on literature related to individual differ- ences among beginning teachers and behaviors of super- visors, clearly there is a need to systematically study beginning teacher personal characteristics as they may relate to their preference for supervisory behaviors. Stated as a cuestion, the posed issue was: Is there a relationshippbetween beginning teacher personal charac- teristics and theirppreference for selected supervisory behaviors? The specific personal characteristics included were: (1) sex, (2) open-closed mindedness, (3) attitude toward children, and (A) need pattern. The rationale for this inclusion is found in the following sections. Beginning Teacher Personal Characteristics To identify personal characteristics of beginning teachers which may be related to preference for super- visory behavior a search of the related literature was 10 made. The result of this search is reported in the following pages. Research related to teacher personal character- istics has been descriptive, related to teacher effec- tiveness, or teacher selection (see Gagegu and Ebe125). Of particular importance to individualization of super- visory practices as they relate to personal character- istics of beginning teachers are personal needs. Studies which have attempted to identify needs of beginning teachers have often used the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS). The EPPS was designed to assess the relative strengths of fifteen manifest needs selected from Murray's26 need system. They are: (1) achievement, (2) deference, (3) order, (A) exhibition, (5) autonomy, (6) affiliation, (7) intraception, (8) succorance, (9) dominance, (10) abasement, (ll) nurtur— ance, (12) change, (13) endurance, (1A) heterosexuality, and (15) aggression. Examination of the research using the EPPS reveals that most studies compared needs for two or more teacher classifications. Jackson and Cuba compared the needs of 2“N. L. Gage, ed., The Handbook of Research on Teachin (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963), pp. 506-76 25Robert Ebel, ed., Encyclopedia of Educational Research (New York: MacmilIan Co., 19693. 26H. A. Murray, Explorations in Personality (New York: Oxford Press, 1938). 11 elementary (male, female) teachers and secondary (male, female) teachers with the norms reported in the manual.27 Deference and heterosexuality were significant between all four teacher groups and their respective population norms. Elementary females scored significantly higher on order and endurance needs and lower on exhibition than the norm group. Comparisons were also made between EPPS need scores of experienced and inexperienced teachers by Hamachek and Mori.28 Their study revealed that female neophyte teachers scored significantly higher than veterans on heterosexuality, exhibition, and change; they were lower on endurance, order, and deference. Goldman and Heald29 discovered that experience in teaching was accompanied by increases in order and dominance needs and a decrease in the need for abasement. Comparisons using student teachers on the EPPS were 30 made by Scandrette. His comparison of elementary and 27Phillip W. Jackson and Egon G. Cuba, "The Need Structure of In-service Teachers: An Occupational Analy- sis," The School Review, LXV, No. 2 (1957), 176-92. 28Don E. Hamachek and Tokako Mori, "Need Structure, Personal Adjustment, and Academic Self-concept of Begin- ning Education Student," Journal of Educational Research, LVIII (December, 196“), 158-62. 29Harvey Goldman and James E. Heald, "Teacher Need Patterns and the Administrator," Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, LV (May, 1962), 93-10“. 3OOnas Scandrette, "Differential Need Patterns of Women Elementary and Secondary Level Student Teachers," Journal of Educational Research, LV (May, 1962), 376-79. 12 secondary level student teachers revealed that secondary student teachers scored significantly higher in autonomy, dominance, and aggression need areas and elementary stu— 31 dent teachers high in affiliation. Southworth using a similar sample found greater needs for abasement, af~ filiation, succorance, and nurturance in early elementary preference students and greater needs for achievement, aggression, and exhibition in later elementary prefer- ence students when the two groups were compared. Corman and Olmsted.compared Michigan State Univer- sity interns with students enrolled in the regular on- campus teacher education program on the EPPS. They re— 'ported differences on only three dimensions: hetero- sexuality, endurance, and order scales. These differ- ences were explained, "by the presence of a greater num— ber of older women among the STEP (Student Teacher Edu- cation Progrann students."32 33 More recently Conley compared need patterns of females who chose internship and those who selected 31Horton C. Southworth, "A Study of Certain Person— ality and Value Differences in Teacher Education Majors Preferring Early and Later Elementary Teaching Levels" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Michigan State Univer— sity, 1962). 32Bernard R. Corman and Ann C. Olmsted, The Intern— ship in the Preparation of Elementary School Teachers (East Lansing, Mich.: Bureau Education Research, MiEhigan State University, 1964), p. 98. 33James L. Conley, "A Study of Selected Biographical Data, Personality Characteristics and Attitudes of Eleman- tary Intern Program Students at M.S.U." (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968). 13 student teaching at Michigan State University. He found that females who chose internship indicated higher needs than females in the student teaching program for the areas of deference, autonomy, abasement, and endurance, but lower needs of succorance and heterosexuality as measured by the EPPS. Of the research reported there is clear indication that various categories of teachers differ significantly in need patterns. Elementary teachers scored signifi- cantly higher in six different need categories than the groups with which they were compared. Need patterns dif- fered significantly for male and female teachers and experienced and inexperienced teachers. Differences were also reported between student teachers and interns by two different researchers for five need categories. The difference in need patterns reported herein parallel the findings reported by Hogan. He stated that, "teachers as a group do have measurable occupational dis- tinctions in terms of manifest needs and behavior pat- "3A He found that among the major variables of terns. significance were: age and experience, marriage, early experience with teaching, and academic success. 3L'Earl Eugene Hogan, "A Study of Differences in the Perception of Elementary Teacher Personality Struc- ture" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963), p. 22. 1“ No research has been reported relating intern teachers' need patterns with supervisory behavior. It seems reasonable to assume, however, that intern teachers may prefer specific supervisory behaviors because of their individual need pattern. Another important personality characteristic of beginning teachers which is related to supervisory be- havior is openness to change. By previous definition the purpose of supervision is to improve instruction. The underlying assumption on which this definition rests is that the supervisor will bring about desirable be- havior change in the teacher with whom he works. This leads to a second assumption that the trainee is "open" to change. This personality dimension refers to the relative "openness or closedness" of a person's belief system. In Rokeach's terms a system was open to the extent that the person could receive, evaluate, and act on relevant information from the outside on its own intrinsic merits, unencumbered by irrelevant factors in the situation arising from within the person or from outside.35 In a study of student teachers who were below aver- age in Openness before and after student teaching, Chester 35Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1960), p. 395. 15 3h II‘I'TIvzce reported that no positive change in openness occurred. He did find, however, a negative effect on the openness Of student teachers placed with supervising teachers who were also below average in openness. A follow—up study conducted by Bills gp_gl.37 involved student teachers from six different colleges. The major conclusion drawn from this study was that signi- ficant negative change occurred in the openness Of student teachers involved in the study. A second major conclu- sion was that negative change in openness Of student teachers was related to openness of their supervising teachers. A third conclusion was that negative change in Openness was greatest for more open students and occurred in relationship with more Open supervising teachers. 38 conducted a study of student teacher Johnson dogmatism as a direct follow-up Of those studies conducted by Freeze and Bills et a1. Johnson hypothesized that: (1) students who scored lower on the pre—test of dogmatism 36Chester R. Freeze, "A Study of Openness as a Factor in Change of Student Teachers" (unpublished doctoral dis- sertation, University Of Alabama, 1963). 37Robert E. Bills, Virginia M. Macagoni, and Richard J. Elliott, Student Teacher Personalipy Change as a Func- tion of the Personalities of Sppervising and COOperating (Teachers, Final Report on Project S-O20, U. S. Office of Education (Tuscaloosa, Ala.: University Of Alabama, August, 196“). 38James A. Johnson, "Change in Student Teacher Dog— matism," The Journal Of Educational Research, LXVV (January, 1969), 22A-26. 16 than their supervising teacher would show a gain in dog- matism on a post—test, and (2) that those who scored higher than supervising teachers on a pre—test would show a decline in dogmatism. His hypotheses were supported by the data, leading to the conclusion that the degree of Open-closed mindedness Of student teachers may be a function of dogmatism of their supervising teachers. The studies conducted by Freeze, Bills g£_§1., and Johnson report that the supervising teacher has an effect upon the belief system of the student teacher. This sug- gests that the student teacher may have a preference for supervisory behavior, and further that specific focused supervisory behaviors may be more effective. Other studies related to open-closed mindedness have described veteran teachers, compared college students with experienced teachers, compared prospective teachers with experienced teachers, religious preference, and other demographic data. NO research relating open-cloSed mindedness of be- ginning teachers to supervisory behavior has been re— ported. In the absence of such research a study of Open- closed mindedness Of beginning teachers in relation tO supervisory behavior may be an important contribution to the literature. In studies Of teacher's personality and character- istics, sex is a variable which is Often considered. 17 39 reviewed over 150 articles related Getzels and Jackson to teacher attitudes, values and interests, adjustment, needs, preference, and personality factors. Sex was a variable of interest in over half of the studies re- ported. Studies previously reported related to teacher need patterns as measured by the EPPS have also considered sex as a variable. Differences in need patterns between males and females were reported in those studies where sex was investigated. Differences in emotional maturity between male and female teachers at both the elementary and secondary levels was reported by Ryansu0 in his Teacher Characteristics Study. He also found that at the elementary level, men and women teachers differed in four of the personal-social characteristics measured by Ryan's Teacher Characteristics Schedule.)-'1 The above does not represent an exhaustive review of the literature related to personal characteristics Of male and female teachers. The studies reported, however, are considered representative Of differences which may exist between male and female elementary teachers. They 39J. W. Getzels and P. W. Jackson, "Teacher's Per— sonality and Characteristics," in Handbook Of Research on Teaching, ed. by N. L. Gage (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963). uoDavid G. Ryans, Characteristics Of Teachers (Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1960). ullbid., p. 388. 18 suggest that a study relating supervisory behaviors to personal characteristics should consider sex as a variable Of interest. Among the teacher personality dimensions that may be related to preference for supervisory behaviors which have been reviewed thus far are open—closed mindedness, measured need pattern, and sex. A fourth personality characteristic which may also relate to beginning teacher preference for supervisory behaviors is attitude toward children. Teachers' attitudes toward children as measured by the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventopy (MTAI) are . . . those attitudes of a teacher which predict how well he will get along with pupils in inter- personal relationships, and indirectly how Sfitis- fied he will be with teaching as a vocation. 2 A study by Leeds“3 seemed to demonstrate that teacher-pupil relations in the classroom were associated lfiith the kinds of teacher attitude measured by the MTAI. kaing a random sample of 100 teachers, Leeds correlated txuaeher-pupil rapport ratings of teachers by principals, by ILeeds himself on the Baxter's Rating Scale of the teaxiher's Personal Effectiveness, and by pupils on a 50-i:tem "My Teacher" questionnaire with teacher scores u2Walter w. Cook and Carroll H. Leeds and Robert 0311413, The Minnesota Attitude Inventory: Manual (New YOIWC: Psychological Corporation, 1951), p- 3- u3Getzels and Jackson, Op. cit., pp. 512-15. 19 on the MTAI. A multiple correlation of .595 between the Inventory and the ratings was Obtained, significant be- yond the .01 level. An examination of the literature related to teacher attitude reveals that the MTAI has been used in relation tO numerous selected teacher characteristics. The MTAI has distinguished between sex, teaching level, years of teaching experience, nature of subject matter taught, and age.uu No research has been reported which relates teacher attitude toward children with preference for supervisory behavior. However, the characteristics associated with teachers who rank high and those who rank low on the MTAI seem to indicate that such a relationship may exist. A teacher ranking high on the MTAI scale is charac- terized by being able to maintain a state of harmonious. relations with his pupils. Situations requiring disci- plinary action should rarely occur. Inadequacies and shortcomings in both teacher and pupils should be admitted frankly as something to be overcome, not ridiculed. Abil— ities and strengths should be recognized and used to the utmost for the benefit of the group. At the other extreme of the scale is the teacher who attempts to dominate the classroom. He may be MC. H. Leeds, "A Scale for Measuring Teacher-Pupil Attitudes and Teacher-Pupil Rapport," Psychological Monograph, LXIV, No. 6 (1950). 20 successful and rule with an iron hand, creating an atmo— sphere Of tension, fear and submission; or he may be un- successful and become nervous, fearful and distraught in a classroom characterized by frustration, restlessness, in-attention, lack of respect, and numerous disciplinary problems. In either case both teacher and pupils dis- like school work; there is a feeling Of mutual distrust and hostility. The differences between teachers at the extreme ends of the scale cannot be completely explained in terms of attitude toward children, toward teaching, toward the school, etc. The differences are the result Of numerous factors, including academic and social intelligence, general knowledge and abilities, social skills, person— ality traits, values, and teaching techniques. However, it can be assumed that the attitudes of a teacher are the result Of the interaction of this multitude Of fac- tors, and therefore may aid in predicting the type Of social atmosphere a teacher will maintain in the class- room. A logical assumption which follows is that teacher attitude may influence the kind Of problems a beginning teacher may experience, and therefore, determine his preference for supervisory behavior. Although there is no research evidence that indicates a relationship be- tween teacher attitude and preference for supervisory 21 behavior, such a study may contribute to knowledge of beginning teachers. Definition of Terms Elementary Intern Program (E.I.P.) is a four calen- dar year undergraduate teacher education program that pre- pares elementary and special education teachers using internship as the culminating practical experience of- fered by the College of Education at Michigan State Uni- versity. Intern teacher is contracted and paid by a local board of education and assigned a regular teaching posi- tion (kindergarten through eighth grade) for a school year, supervised by an intern consultant, and is a stu- dent enrolled at Michigan State University. lntern Consultant is assigned to supervise intern teachers on a full-time basis and regularly visits the intern's classroom. He offers support, guidance, instruc- tion, demonstrates lessons, teaching ideas, provides materials, and other assistance to the employed intern teacher. Consultants are employed by the local school district through cooperative agreement with Michigan State University College of Education. Expressed Preference is choosing or selecting from alternatives on a basis of an individual's unique system of priorities. 22 Selected intern consultant tasks (Part A of the Intern Consultant Inventory) are those behaviors which the intern may exhibit while working directly to improve the quality of instruction afforded the children in the intern teachers' classroom. Specifically they include, Classroom Management Techniques, Conditions of Learning, Planning Learning Experiences, Evaluation of Learning Experiences, Analyzing Teaching Behavior, and Supportive Consultant Behavior. Method of Operation (Part B of the Intern Consul- tant Inventory) the procedures, processes, or methods employed by the consultant to assist the intern with a problem situation. Specifically they are: (a) approach to, (b) degree of active participation in, and (c) degree of directiveness of assistance to the intern in a problem situation. Research Hypotheses The purpose of this study was to investigate two major questions: I. Is there a relationship between intern teachers with varied personal characteristics and their expressed preference for selected supervisory tasks? II. Is there a relationship between intern teachers with varied personal characteristics and their expressed preference for selected supervisory method of operation? 23 To test specific dimensions of question I above, the following questions were explored: (1) Is there a relationship between intern expressed preference for selected supervisory ta§k§_and sex? (2) Is there a rela— tionship between intern expressed preference for selected supervisory tasks and open-closed mindedness? (3) Is there a relationship between intern expressed preference for selected supervisory tasks and intern need pattern? (u) Is there a relationship between intern expressed preference for supervisory tasks and attitude toward children? To test specific dimensions of question II above, the following questions were explored: (1) Is there a relationship between intern expressed preference for selected supervisory method of gperation and sex? (2) Is there a relationship between intern expressed prefer- ence for selected supervisory method of operation and open-closed mindedness? (3) Is there a relationship be- tween intern expressed preference for selected super- visory method of operation and intern need pattern? (U) Is there a relationship between intern expressed preference for selected supervisory method of operation and attitude toward children? 2“ Statistical Hypotheses Specifically, this study was designed to test eight null,hypotheses, each previous questions. Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis I II III IV VI VII VIII of which is a restatement of the There is no relationship between intern expressed preference for selected supervisory tasks and sex. There is no relationship between intern expressed preference for selected supervisory tasks and his measured open-closed mindedness. There is no relationship between intern expressed preference for selected supervisory tasks and his measured attitude toward children. There is no relationship between intern expressed preference for selected supervisory tasks and his measured need pattern. There is no relationship between intern expressed preference for selected supervisory method of operation and sex. There is no relationship between intern expressed preference for selected supervisory method of operation and his measured open— closed mindedness. There is no relationship between intern expressed preference for selected supervisory method of pperation and his measured atti- tude toward children. There is no relationship between intern expressed preference for selected supervisory method of operation and his measured need pattern. 25 Summapy of Procedures Population The population included 185 of 191 E.I.P interns at Michigan State University who: (1) completed the ele- mentary methods block at their respective E.I.P Teacher Education Centers, (2) completed student teaching, (3) were in their final term of internship during Spring, 1969, (A) were supervised by an intern consultant and, (5) on whom complete sets of data were collected. A complete description of the study population is made in Chapter II. Data Collection Data on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, and the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory were collected during the E.I.P stu- dents first week at the center, September, 1967 or Jan— uary, 1968. All students completed these instruments prior to any professional educational experiences, in- cluding student teaching and internship. The Intern Consultant Inventory (ICI), Parts A and B, were administered to all interns in the study population as a measure of expressed preference for intern consultant ta§k§_(Part A) and methodof operation (Part B). The subjects indicated their individual per- ceptions by responding to scaled continua on the Intern Consultant Inventory and placing their responses on machine-scoreable answer sheets. The ICI was administered 26 during the month of May, 1969, at the conclusion of a full—year of supervised internship. Instrumentation The Intern Consultant Inventory was constructed to elicit subjects' perceptions of (l) preference for and frequency of selected intern consultant pasksg and (2) preference for the perceived actual intern consultant method of operation. Only the preference scale was used in this study. The instrument consisted of two distinct parts, each of which had several sub—categories. Part A was designed to present a consultant behavior followed by two continua, one for preference and one for frequency. Subjects re- sponded on machine scoreable answer sheets indicating their perceptions of preference and frequency of occur- rence for the specific consultant behavior. Six consul- tant tasks were represented by four consultant behavioral descriptions. The sub-categories of consultant tasks were: (1) Classroom Management Techniques, (2) Conditions of Learning, (3) Planning for Learning Experiences, (A) Evaluation of Learning, (5) Analyzing Teaching Behavior, and (6) Supportive Consultant Behavior. Part B presented five problem situations typically encountered by first year teachers. Each situation was followed by six con- tinua: three for preference and three for perceived actual intern consultant method of operation. The 27 sub-categories of consultant method of operation were: (1) Theoretical-Practical, (2) Intern-Intern Consultant Actuator, and Directive-Non-Directive. Intern teachers' responses to the preference scale for Parts A and B were used in this study. The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale was designed to measure the relative "openness" or "closedness" of a person's belief systems. The short form of the Rokeach Scale used in this study took ten minutes to complete. The subjects indicated disagreement or agreement with each item on a scale ranging from -3 to +3 with the zero point excluded to force responses toward agreement or disagreement. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) is a standardized instrument to access the relative strengths of fifteen manifest needs which together form a need pro- file. Individuals respond to the EPPS by indicating which of two statements is more characteristic of himself. Pro- files of the fifteen need scores are plotted and the rela— tive strengths of each can be examined. The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory developed at the University of Minnesota was designed to measure teachers' attitudes toward children. The instrument con— tains 150 items to which the subject responds by indi- cating his choice of five possible alternatives ranging from strong agreement to strong disagreement. "Right and wron8"answers are keyed and weighed based on the results of the validation procedure. Possible total scores range 28 from «150 to +150 with higher scores indicating more favorable attitudes toward children and school work. Analysis Procedures The multi-factorial nature of the instrumentation used in this study required two procedures for the analy- sis of the data: (1) multiple regression analysis, and (2) canonical correlation. A multiple regression analysis was performed to determine the strength of the relationship for six of the hypotheses. For hypotheses I, II, and III, sex, open-closed mindedness, and attitude toward children, were predicted from the six categories of intern prefer- ence for consultant tasks. For hypotheses V, VI, and VII, sex, open-closed mindedness, and attitude toward children were predicted from the three categories of intern preference for intern consultant method of operation. A multiple regression equation was computed for each hypothesis. For each of the hypotheses above, an F test was applied to test the statistical significance of the rela- tionship between the dependent and independent variables. A canonical correlation analysis was performed for testing hypotheses IV and VIII. For hypothesis IV, measured need pattern (15 manifest needs of the EPPS) was predicted from six sub-categories of intern preference for intern consultant tasks. For hypothesis VIII, 29 measured need pattern was predicted from the three cate- gories of intern preference for intern consultant method of Operation. For hypotheses IV and VIII a chi-square test was applied to test the statistical significance of the re- lationship between the dependent and independent variables. The level of rejection or failure to reject the null hypotheses of no relationship was the .05 level of con— fidence. Plan of Presentation In Chapter II the research design is outlined, the instruments of the study delineated, the population de- scribed, and methods of research discussed. The analysis of data is detailed in Chapter III, while the final chap- ter includes the summary of findings, conclusions, impli- cations for teacher education, and further research. CHAPTER II PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY Introduction The primary purpose of this chapter is to describe the research design of the study. The chapter is orga- nized into six sections: (1) description of the Elemen— tary Intern Program, (2) selection of the study popula- tion, (3) a description of the study sample, (A) instru— mentation, (5) data collection process, and (6) the sta- tistical analysis. The Elementary Intern Program The Elementary Intern Program (E.I.P.)1 was a four calendar year elementary teacher preparation program sponsored by Michigan State University in cooperation with community colleges and public schools. Upon comple- tion of four years of study including the equivalent of three five—week summer terms, the successful teacher can- didate was awarded a Michigan Elementary Provisional Teaching Certificate by the State Board of Education and a baccalaureate degree from Michigan State University. 1See Table 2.1 for essential characteristics of the program. 30 31 Acomo m»ficogo Ego» mmv mgocfiE 039 Am»Hoogo Ego» omV ngoE oco A.em .mscg mafiav m»fiomgo sgmg om» cofismoggfipgoo cmwAEOHz >»ngo>fic: o»m»m gmmficofiz oogwoa .m .< "goa»oHano goo: A.om .mzcg mSHQV mBHammo owa mma mmH Ema mad moH om m: m>HB»ofioom . cgo»anogg .»m Hmfioom s Hoocom Amsg< .sszsm .wpg< .wcma Amuse Ampga oocm»mfimmo amgoofiqv .»QoogH ..Hom .c»mz ngonfiqv Hogonfiqv >QDEm »co»H:m mgocfiE a .Hoocom .mcfipmom CH mgogHE w mgogHE a mo H»oon Hmsofi>HUgH go mnoc»os .mo>»»oofim .mo>H»oon momgsoo ofimwm onmo¢o< Ego» Ego» Ego» Ego» Ego» mgwow EszBoqq< goo» Hoozom xooz m xooz 0H goo: 0H xooz oH xooz OH anoomo< 039 mzHB mowoaaoo m»oag»mfio Hoogom . gon»o.go mmHQDEm mgfi»ogodooo mqumo mHoogom mog< go»coo mHm mquoo mquoo .sz .owoaaoo no G» mEoogmmmHo am: a go»coo gHm msaEmouggo 3m: 3m: >»Hg:EEoo .mosm gmpcmo ggm mcfipmgoaooo one .Eogmogm ggo»gH mgm»coEon >»ngo>fig: o»o»m gwwfigoflz on» go mngESm H»oogHQ|goz no>H»oogHQ Ho» :oHumgHoH» ugmg o>Huo< Ana HMOH»omgm IHMUH»ogoo£B Amv mgHogo»m ugougSmHE mg0mmoH HmsoH>HngH HmaHogHga mcoH»oogHU »Qoocoo oocoHom moo ngHoon ngccmHQ ego gOH» omHog00 Ugo gmoHo w wchomo» Hoocom on» mcngo ego >»H:nggHo Ico»og oHHgo Q»H3 >»H:nggHQ >»H30HggHQ mCOmon mgHowg wchgMoq ngmocmmHQ m a m . m H mEouH mgoH»m:»Hw EoHnogg Am »gmgv :oH»mgooo go muog»oz »:w»H:mgoo :go»gH no»ooHom gog oogogogogm :go»cH : so»H m Eo»H m Eo»H H Eo»H goH>mgom moogngogxm moscHggooE goH>wcom mgHgomoE ngggooH go mgHggmoq wcHggmoq »:oEommgmz o>H»m»goadsm ngNszc¢ goH»m:Hm>m mchcmHm go mgoH»HUcoo Eoogmono w m 4 m m H zgowo»mo H< »gmmv wmeB »:m»H:mgoo ggo»gH Uo»ooHom gog oocogogogm ggo»:H .hgo»go>gH »:m»H:w:oo ggo»gH on» an co»ooHH00 m»mu on» ng»gowongg oEogom Hm:»Qoogoo o: oom .moHangm> mv A>H o: oom .moHomHgm> mHV goH»mgomo go ooc»oz ggo»»mg pooz pogSmmoz 20H»mHoggoo Hmngogmo HH> H> om oom .moHomHgm> my coH»mgomm go pog»oz congHgo pgmzoe ops»H»»< :onmogmom oHQH»Hsz HH> A> om oow .moHangm> mv goH»mgoQO go poc»os mmocpochz pomoHoIgoao conmogwom quH»H:z H> o>H»oogHngozno>H»oogHQ go»o:»o< »gm»H3m:oo :go»cH|cgo»cH HooH»omgmuHmoH»ogoogE goH»mgoQo go pog»oz xow conmogmom oHQH»H:z > :onmogwm< a>»HHm:xomogo»o: ..coH»Qoomg»cH .oocogSUCm .coHsngHgge .mmcseo .>Eoco»s< .oocmg:»g:z .coHsgsgexm .pcosomsse .goego .oogmgHEoo .oogogogoo AH o: oom .moHongo> 0V oogmgooosm .»goEo>oH:o< mxwme mmme>gommm ggo»»od poo: pogSmmoz 20H»mHoggoo HMOHgogoo >H AH ox oom .moHongm> mv mxmoe mgomH>gomdm congHgo pgo3oe op:»H»»< gonmogmom oHQH»H:z HHH AH om oom .moHomHgo> wv mxmme mgomH>gomsm mmogoochz pomoHoncodo gonmogwom oHQH»H:z HH goH>mgom »cm»H3mgoo o>H»goad3m goH>mgom mgHgomoE mgHmszc< ngggmoH go COH»osHm>m moogngonm mchgmoq gog ngcgmHm mcHggmoH go mgoH»Ho:oo mosnggooe »goEommng EoogmmmHo mxmme mgomH>gomsm xom gonwogmom oHQH»Hsz H moHpngm> »gopgodoUgH moHomHgm> »copcodoo mHmszg< mHmon»0Q>m .mogsoooogd mgH»mo» monoc»OQ>c go zngEzmul.mH.m mqmmnmn omnomcwww nonmesm o unovHoB mencmnwon. mowmon firm Hmnnmn on man: woman swear em woos coon omnwabnm on mucnmwmmw. on "so suntan «soon wwww H: nrm mvmom nson nonnmmcownm sen: woos mayonnwon mom own: usavmnma mnoHo» mx>zwfim >mmcao en en nan vomwunwom om «rm unsoow wows. won mum mxvonwooownm awmmwncwn% Ha annosawom no nun swoon om noH wwbnaHn>h muv tron noumcwnbnn vowm a 0 U m cocwo woe cannon» Hosea no oxmswuo Hosea no mammomn canonwwwnm onconnwoohw vanHocHnn unoooacnom nroonw vomono nonqumnn even: rnmmcso mu on.»unons «on Hoop nrmn won one snow no memmDOmHnm n ccvww.m Homnnnsm mummwncwnw. woc_€»mr no awmmsono nro vcva.m mwmmnocwnw H: mnwnraonwo mun chn mvmnwmwo Hammonm ou.arwor swap unnonmnron nsm vccwH.m Honnsnom_€owwoowm. Hm HmHm wwowfimz.ooncwwmun mo. mw. m». mu. m#. mm. mo€_€ocwa wocn nonmswnmon sewn wamww dosndmw > ammomeHn>H m mwanHnbh tron noomcwnnbn uoso aocwm won pnomonw Hanan no oxoanno coaonwwwum oncownwonnw nroonw cmmono coomHaonwum «vanwmwn nonwoa. mo¢_£ocwn wocn nonucHnabn soon Hnwoww voya oo2mcra>za m Hosea no mammomn cannwocwwn vnoooacnom sneer rm tocua we: cannon» noomcwnmun noxom sooommmnw nonwon. mo€_€o¢Ha wocn nooncwnonn scan Hewopa vorm UmeoH Hanan: nnxom nooomunnw nonwos. m HZUHwMOH gran noomcwnwsn corm aocwm woo cannon» ooamcHnmbn vnmmonncmmm wnmnmnm on «connmno mnocmu noHHm Manama. m acnwnm memocmmwon. wsnons wnonnwmwom cuoomacnomw nonmcwnmnn warm ncomnwoom. arena an m HcHH Ha nun swamps 0m nwm mmnmnnooa. .--.-.,.-.-—’_ .-.—.—- >mmcao mm m: Hunous won moms mesonrnom Hm anonm Gen: nro cmownm 0m wocn Hammoom acnnom nrm moroow now. HM HmHm UWOUUWKVOCOCNwMU” mo. mu. mm. mm. mo. ow. no: toswa wocn nonmCHnoSn Bean Hnwmww vmro ammowmaHo>H moan Hsnmnn noumcpnmsn mmnomm_£wnr nrwm mnbpwmwm. w a U m Uw>nHHo>h tron noumcwnmSn umrw zocHa woo unmmmnw Hosea no oxeannm cnmonwwwom oacnmnHoSbH nrmonw vmmonm nonmwmmnwnm mvmowmwo mnnnon. w n U m Hosea no acmmmmn Umnnnocwmn UHonmacnmm swear sm w n U m 002mcfia>za Hzamwz tron nonmcHnoSn dorn w n U m zocwa «on Unommnw noomcHnmSn nmwmm sonmmmmnw Hononn nmwmm smnmmmmnw nonwou. nonwos. mos taupe wean nonmcHnmnn acmn waoww coro U 0 U m UmenH HZUmeoa swan noomcwnnnn vorm w a U m flocHn V0: UHmmon noomcwnoon Unmannwcomw Homwmnm on mvnowmwo mnowmw anHm Honmnn. Ucnwpm mwmncmmwon. Manon: Hnosnwmwom Unonoacnmmm nonmcwnobn pawn ncmmnwoom. mHHC>HHOZ wocw rmmcso nrnn woo our Vocn Banana nonmcwnmwn rm m . ammowmaHo>H ww>naHn>H mo. gran nonmcwnmnn rmro m aocwm woe Unmmmnw Hosea no oxnanso cnronwwwnm Hanan no mammomn oncownnonbw nroonw romonm cmHnHocHwn Unoooacnmm nonmwaonwnm «voowmwo nonnou. arnnr rm m GUZMCHH>ZH Hzamwz up. tron nonmcwnoun rorm m docwm Von Unmmonw nonmcwnnsn nmxmm noncommnw Honour nmwom smoommmnw bonnoa. nonwos. NN. mos €OCHQ wocn nonncwnmnn scan Hewmww roro m Umeoa HZUmenH aw. gran noomcHnnnn roro m tocwm woc Unmmonw nonmcwnmnn vnomonwrmmw Hpmnmnm o: mvmowmwo mnmcmw nmwwm Banana. Ucnwnm awmocmmwon. wonmns Hemanwmwom uncooacnmmw oosmcHnmsn norm acmmnworm. nmbnmsnnoo 0m mncmmnnm. mHHc>HHOZ wHmmcso nrmn annrnn wocn Manon: nomnrwum mwncmnnon nrmnm Hm son m annnno: on :mmn: vownow nopmnmm no nro mo€m ammommaHn>h moan UnnroHUmH Bananmnum nrmn nrm wanna mrocHa non rm Hmnmwmma. armnm Hm or flocwm woo unmmmnw Hanan no oxmsnnm coaonwwnsm macnmnnosmw nrmonw romonm oosmnmonnum unannmwo monnon. moaiaocwm wocn nonucwnmnn scan Hnwopw rmrn m Hosea no mammmmn wounnnchn Uncommcnmm arnor rmza tron nonmcHnmbn rorm aocwa won Unommnw nonmcHnmun nmwom nonmmmmnw monnon. mos Sonya wocn nonmcwnmbn Benn Hnwow% rorm HZHMNZ m Hanan: nmwmm nonommmnw mnnnou. m Umeoa zrmn noomcHnmun rmro tocwa won UHmmmnw nonmcpnosn unomonnrmmw Hnmnmnm or mvonwmen mnmwmw anHm Hunmnn. HZUmeoa m Unansm mnmncmmnou. npnono Humannmnom vnooomcnomw normcHnmfln swam nsmmnnonm. APPENDIX I-B INTERN CON§ULTANTINVENTORY, CATEGORY DEFINITIONS AND ITEM NUMBERS Supervisory Assisting Tasks (Part A) Six basic categories were formed each related di- rectly to intern classroom teaching behavior. The intern consultant provided assistance to the intern with each of the categories of teaching behavior. 1. Management techniques, Items 6, 8, 22, 48 a. Physical environment of the classroom b. Routine household chores c. The keeping of records Conditions of Learning, Items l2, 18, 24, 34 a. Recognize individual differences among children b. Organizing for child centered instruction Péanngng for Learning Experiences, Items 4, 14, l , 3 a. Setting of objectives b. Choice of methods 0. Selection of content Evaluation of Learning, Items 2, 26, 40, 46 a. Diagnosing pupil's learning difficulty b. Interpreting test data 123 124 5. Analyzing Teaching Behavior, Items 10, 32, 42, 44 a. Writing critiques on the intern's teaching b. Conferencing with the intern 6. Supportive Consultant Behavior, Items 20, 28, 30, 36 a. Building the intern's self concept b. Maintaining a non—threatening relationship Supervisory Method of Operation (Part B) The three basic categories of supervisory method of operation are procedures, processes, or methods employed to assist the intern with a problem situation. 1. Theoretical-Practical orientation, Items 51, 57, 63, 69, 75. A tendency to examine underlying educational theory before considering specific action. 2, Intern-Intern Consultant Actuator, Items 53, 59, 65, 71. Refer to the degree of supervisory in— volvement in a problem situation. Take the offen- sive in situations or beginning action to solve a problem opposed to the intern initiating action. 3. Directive-Non-Directiveness, Items 55, 61, 67. 73, 74. Prescribing, insisting on specific steps to take, or titling exactly what to do opposed to offering suggestions which allow the intern to determine specific steps. APPENDIX I—C FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES FOR EACH ITEM ON INTERN CONSULTANT INVENTORY Supervisory Tasks Management Techniques Definitely not Very highly preferred behavior preferred behavior A B C D E ICI Item I III I ' ' 6 13 24 63 49 36 8 9 17 39 59 61 22 12 31 7O 38 34 48 15 17 55 “9 “9 Conditions of Learning Definitely not Very highly preferred behavior preferred behavior A B C D E ICI Item ' ‘ 12 6 7 48 57 67 18 2 4 28 48 103 24 4 13 47 58 63 34 6 9 42 59 69 Planning for Learning Experiences Definitely not Very highly preferred behavior preferred behavior A B C D E ICI Item 4 5 19 66 51 44 14 O 3 15 48 119 16‘ O 2 2O 39 124 38 7 19 54 47 58 125 126 Evaluation of Learning Definitely not preferred behavior Very highly preferred behavior A B C D E ICI Item T 4T 2 6 14 69 43 53 26 7 10 43 52 73 4O 4 ll 34 64 72 46 2 3 28 57 95 Analyzing Teaching Behavior Definitely not Very highly preferred behavior, preferred behavior A B C D E ICI Item fi' ' ' 10 21 17 35 54 58 32 6 9 37 57 76 42 49 4O 54 34 8 44 30 25 36 33 61 Supportiye Consultant Behavior Definitely not Very highly preffered behavior preferred behavior A B C D E ICI Item 20 4 8 29 43 101 28 3 12 34 48 88 3o 2 7 29 51 96 36 3 2 ll 45 124 Supervisory Method of Operation Theoretical-Practical Definitely not Very highly preferred behavior preferred behavior A B C D E 101 Item I 51 l 8 31 75 70 57 l 6 44 7O 64 63 6 ll 40 64 64 69 4 l2 49 59 61 75 17 24 55 39 50 Active Participation Definitely not Very highly preferred behavior preferred behavior A B C D E ICI Item T V 53 4 17 59 48 57 59 4 12 52 61 56 65 8 19 53 61 44 71 3 10 49 63 6O 77 10 3O 64 36 45 Directive-Non-Directiveness Definitely not Very highly preferred behavior preferred behavior A B C D E ICI Item 55 10 9 59 47 6O 61 6 12 54 63 50 67 6 12 46 7O 51 73 4 12 48 67 54 79 11 28 6O 48 38 128 oo.H 3N om. oo.H MN mm. mm. 004 mm no. mN. SH. oc.H HN HN. :N. no. mH. 0.H ON mm. mm. mN. mo. ms. oo.H mH mN. NH. mN. NH. am. N. oo.H NH mH. ON. mo. No. 0H. mH. NH. oo.H NH 3:. mm. mN. NH. mN. we. HN. No. oo.H 0H :N. :N. mN. so. NH. Hz. NN. $0.- Nm. oo.H mH NN. mN. MH. 0N. sN. 3m. AN. AH. NN. ON. OQ.H :H mH. Nm. HH. No. 4N. SN. ON. so. am. Hm. em. oo.H . MH ON. 2N. NH. NH. ms. mH. am. MN. HN. mm. NH. mH. oo.H NH Na. om. om. 3N» mo. Hm. so. 0H. om. mm. ON. 2H. 0H. oo.H HH Nm. mN. 3N. OH. wH. om. 3H. NH. Ne. ms. HH. 0H. AN. ms. oo.H OH mH. mN. mH. wH. N2. gm. mN. so. Hm. 3N. NH. NN. mm. N. NN. oo.H m mm. 0:. ON. ON. AN. Na. om. NH. as. ms. 3N. Hm. Hm. mm. Nm. mm. co.H N ON. Hm. mm. mH. NN. ON. Nm. :N. mm. mm. mH. AH. am. HN. Nm. mN. mm. oo.H N as. NN. NN. NN. ON. NN. NN. 0H. ms. N. 0N. mo. NN. N3. ms. NN. 0:. mm. oo.H 0 NH. NN. am. Ho.- HH. NH. 2H. 00. HN. SN.. NH. MH. ON. mN. NH. om. SN. ms. mN. oo.H m :H. om. .NH. mH. mm. mm. Hm. CH. Nm. 3m. 2H. CH. mm. so. HN. Nm. 0N. mm. 2N. mH. oo.H 3 NH. Hm. Hm. NN. 3N. NN. mN. NN. ON. mN. ON. MN. NN. NH. 2N. 0N. MN. N3. mN. mm. on. oo.H m mH. mm. NH. mH. HH. HN. mo. No. sm. NH. AH. mm. wH. mN. NH. 0N. MN. No. HH. mo. .mH. NH. oo.H N NH. 3H. AH. 3H. mN. 0H. mm. 0H. MN. MN.. No. NH. em. mH. Hm. H:. OH. om. NH. HN. om. om. NN. oo.H H :N mN NN HN ON mH NH NH 0H mH :H MH NH HH OH m m N m m a m N H 6 mxm