“tug; ’ ‘5‘") 4"." I U .... 'VY . L‘J" '. - . . , . Q I 1 l .I' . JI .‘II‘LA'. ;.V"’\-a'.I.‘\.'$ I 'W'I’i‘vl' WI' ' "x I . . 33:13“ F'Q {31- In" . .3 . .I- ‘&l .‘ U "w 1": I .. . II I _... . . » a... “yea-II: 4.2.- 2%,, ‘ ' 4.. ‘ .'. . .. '..I‘.‘I:- m‘JL .\. 'J'fit' .MI‘IEA‘.".‘."'.'W flag“. V -~ . 1': 'T>.’ .- l‘ - .. I . IIIY . .I ”'5? . v‘ (“9'1“ “:1: .- J “'I' “III. .1 I III . I I 5 '.‘ ".,~ I I '.I.'I. m U“‘I'~.'I ‘3i%.§$ . I II .I :_ I. a . II .‘I‘I II 0 I J'n‘k'v‘v: IIIII. . . I . .: aJIQOJ-SJ I ‘ 0 ‘ I ' . ' ' .‘ -. I I‘ J I " I ‘ . .. l 0:} J I l‘ | 't - q - q‘ "I v . ' 0..“ .' ’I I. J‘" ‘ 2 " I" I' ' ‘1’: \‘I l NV)- ‘ Ii“ " "L“... .Ri\:|...: I .‘ .. . . ,III J"”" |< IIII.I\.IHII..('I,IIII. ""I‘ H ‘IIII‘II"‘I‘I\:l_II~6 fifi I-‘IM‘ I .. ”4;; ..‘('I‘ .' . .'. ‘ ' ' II .‘U ‘ '. I‘ .I‘ "' J | ‘; I ‘IJIOq vv I. . II”..I.:51.;-.-.;._. I» .‘"‘ I" a I“, guy-(‘5... ua'gtf‘r‘yHI ‘ 'ag.‘ ‘ IhiI 31-. . t -‘5’CV._ ‘. @x‘I ‘I w.'t -\ ’Q‘: _ ‘4'.( .. :,I:I:\I;II II.'.I.. 'II II I II )0" 'II‘I‘II: . ;I" :‘ ‘2 . W711". ’.‘ in.» , I. - ’II‘;- ..- .3" x44: -~ . - ‘ “3.1a... .331“ Qse In. .L I'. d-Jk IIJI'wfl :‘J‘fi‘é‘; 1’" ‘4 fl "" ’J -d"""'i1'rr' ”745th I; I'I’ I h. . 'I ‘ujvJIItc‘A AI?“ . ... . H.) .‘ . 26.3.”. n 554%: .. "i .V"‘\- "%|\I . $92.“ E~II "“h'WJJ' I,‘.' {I II;- a I. . . Ito 'II.‘ RAJ—1" .IH TI ”Jul W‘I~ ‘ lk\-\ :bsc . PLIIIJ‘3IJF11‘T'IV. ”Ft“ ' ‘l'i a“... “if “I. IV ‘III "I y'x-I\\: Ml.“ II..I-u '0 ‘ Q I \s I .. . I. .I.‘ ‘,'_ "‘x‘I'I""CI II II‘JII I: .. _. . i=3.“ “ viii-“’1" $33. -‘\‘. 2: "5'32 ‘1‘ w‘fi'JI'II‘ "'..'.'I¢. cunt” '. ,J‘:“J'.I I'M .III. ”II:II |I I'Ju” qu-II. ‘I‘l I " ‘l «NI; .II‘I"I “ ' "1., . 9.9“)" w “3'33; 1 .IIIIIL ... IV'II‘IEJ; . J-‘MJI I..,,~.I/'A$:‘"I ”THIN" II\:‘ IVII‘IIEIII. I\:IIIIII . I ”:4 "III .'.‘,.'.‘I‘. .‘ . I‘ "- .. .' '. ‘ II ‘IJ; I‘l1| ' '1‘.“ ‘r I .‘ |.I,“I) ‘I II I u IJ"-" 'IJ"| .:J"2'..: . MN"; IIIIIIIIIII'.‘.. I -....IIII-III \IzII‘ I . llll I "'H'|:“r‘.“ II” .‘f I' I II II " I'I -:.:I..JII\\III. I' IIIII ' .’ J ‘ ‘I ‘ .I‘I “' \IuII “ .. "|.“. -' 'l ‘. I‘ “IL...""' I I H .I J, (‘II Y‘I I'I'I“ :39 IIIII'I III". 3.051“. I I ‘ ‘I‘I '.w "“‘.‘.I,‘«;,";.‘ .. . . IIIIuI ‘ .I‘ . I. ‘.' ‘ . I'.‘ . . III MI '55.?“ _ mJ'Mw‘Ii-fix‘I I\.'.I.I‘II.NI “IIIII I '\. .- s ,h‘ I < .I. I.‘.-..\Io.~ . I I b’lt‘fi :1. " :JaIIII' III.'.I.< .I‘. '. ““..IL‘ . .. ~ I} - J‘U‘I' .J‘ "("‘u '3: 9‘9"." 3“}. :‘Jfil . ‘ , I II .‘ It" I ‘I JI'IJ.‘ IJI “6‘. M...‘ ‘I . . 1w , . .- “L. . . MMI?‘ - J. ‘-I ' '. H. I.“ "r‘ , . I ' JV " J "I. r: ' ‘ . . . '. llu._,'\ 'I'.l| a .I . I I'""'." II .' l‘ I \‘H'W v. «I ILI-I .I N 3‘ 9%, .III I ‘ . .' . I. .q | II.I _\ r. "1 I "1“.“w:,"I‘.4i{".‘e>3-1;:"K " ' >4 5 I '3‘ ”J N‘ n. , I II I 44:139.) JI‘I'J‘I‘JIJ‘IJ 'WJJJPH} 'J‘IIJ‘ ‘JJJ‘J I1 l . b I. AI'I .wJJI‘ "I'III; . U I . “ I: ' . . . ' 1 , '.' l’. . .-: .. I”. ,4 M f . {HI I', III I'III ‘I. I‘M ,.' II:;IIII f II I . :‘.¢I -II ‘IJII LIJ r; I," Q I ' Il ' ‘I‘I‘J “ , ‘4‘ .IJ . .J , ' . .1. I , T‘ZIJ’JI 1' III "J.”I I'I’Ii . ‘. IuI (IIJ‘ HM I. n I.I...I‘ IIII 'JIIIII '9 III T‘IIIIITIJIJJIJ "I‘lflln up IIIJ 'I‘I'IIL (II1IIII;:.I:HI L'I";§§J"~'-I 21%;?“ . JJu'IJ' ' | ‘V‘ . ' It I." L“) ‘1‘. a} II I". mg: .. I u»; -. t... .‘~Il{."':?';J'L ""'JlJ"JJJJiJ'.‘IJIf;Jt'Z .12.? J III“; W I; :31." Jf‘ 1,13“ «w!» - II}! J" I JJJI JJ lJLu‘IL.) I . ‘ ‘ ‘ : ~ F HIT. -. “J yiF III‘I‘JIJ‘“ . ‘ lLI' ‘5‘1 I “ I ‘ r I. J:; J: ‘JI J b M ..I.' H "I .JJ' J, .IIJ. JUNJJHIHI This is to certify that the A thesis entitled A STUDY TO EXAMINE BELIEF PATTERNS ABOUT TEACHING, LEARNING AND CLASSROOM ORGANIZATION AMONG TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS ENGAGED IN IMPLEMENTING RATIONAL MANAGEMENT MODELS AND ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS presented by James Earl Ray has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D. degree in Educational Administration 4% {M Major professor / ,v ,4 p (A /. Date/34”” 2k" I"? 1 ,/ ,17 j 0-7 639 LIBRARY Michigan 5mm University M ii iii“ “ill“ “HI“\|\\\|\\\|l\\\\i\\|i\i L 3 1293 10059 9327 A STUDY TO EXAMINE BELIEF PATTERNS ABOUT TEACHING, LEARNING, AND CLASSROOM ORGANIZATION AMONG TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS ENGAGED IN IMPLEMENTING RATIONAL MANAGEMENT MODELS, AND ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS By James Earl Ray A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1978 ABSTRACT A STUDY TO EXAMINE BELIEF PATTERNS ABOUT TEACHING, LEARNING, AND CLASSROOM ORGANIZATION AMONG TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS ENGAGED IN IMPLEMENTING RATIONAL MANAGEMENT MODELS. AND ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS By James Earl Ray Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine points of differences about teaching, learning, and classroom organization between some ele- mentary classroom teachers and some school administrators who are engaged in attempts to influence teaching, learning, and classroom organization by the implementation of rational management models. In addition, this study examined points of differences about the three areas of concern between the same group of elementary teachers and some elementary principals who are not engaged in rational management model usage. A subpart of this study examined points of differences about the three areas of concern between the two administrator groups. Two sociological concepts, gemeinschaft and gesellschaft, provided the conceptual framework for the study--gemeinschaft being associated with teacher classroom behavior opposed to gesellschaft, James Earl Ray which is associated with administrators' efforts to implement rational management models in classrooms. Methodology A 47-item Q-sort instrument was developed, field tested, and administered to 82 school personnel in Michigan. Among this group were 47 elementary teachers, l2 administrators who are actively engaged in model usage, and 23 elementary principals. All of the 47 items were statements of values and beliefs about teaching, learning, and classroom organization. A Q-analysis computer program analyzed the returns. Z-score values of l.0 and above and -l.0 and below were considered significant. Results and Conclusions The following exploratory questions guided the study: 1. Do these teachers' value and belief patterns about the areas of concern differ from those of administrators who are actively engaged in rational management model usage? It was determined that these teachers' value and belief patterns do in fact differ from the subject administrators'. Item statements ranked high by the teacher respondents were items falling primarily within the affective domain. Item statements ranked high by the subject administrators were those falling primarily within the cognitive domain. 2. Do these teachers' value and belief patterns about the areas of concern differ from those of elementary principals? It was determined from the observations that the teachers' and this group of principals' values and beliefs about the areas of concern are James Earl Ray quite similar and, overall, very little difference exists between these groups. 3. Do those administrators who are engaged in rational management model usage phrase their efforts in gesellschaft terms? It was determined that these administrators do in fact phrase their efforts in gesellschaft terms, as described in the literature. Eight out of ten items receiving a Z-score ranking of l.0 or above by the group were items described in gesellschaft terms. 4. Are these teachers attempting to create classroom organi- zations with the characteristics of a gemeinschaft? It was deter- mined that the teachers in the study are attempting to create classroom organizations with characteristics of a gemeinschaft, as described in the literature. Five out of eight items receiving a Z-score ranking of 1.0 or above were items described in gemeinschaft terms. 5. Are the elementary principals' views about the areas of concern different from those of administrators engaged in rational model usage? It was determined that these principals' views about the areas of concern do differ from the subject administrators'. Item rankings by the principals were closely related to those of the teachers in the study. This study described some of the relevant characteristics relative to the three areas of concern between the teachers and subject administrators involved in the study. Although many distinctive characteristics were identified between these two groups, James Earl Ray there were also areas of common agreement. This points out that the two sociological concepts are not necessarily distinct in all respects. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is with great pride and joy that I dedicate this disser- tation to my parents, who have provided me with everlasting motiva- tion which has allowed me to arrive at this point in my life. Sincere appreciation goes out to my committee chairman and dear friend, Dr. Philip Cusick, who conceived the study and provided me with the necessary guidance to complete this work. His endless hours of input will never be forgotten. Appreciation goes out to my other committee members: Dr. Samuel Moore, whose scholarly support will always be remembered; Dr. Keith Anderson, whose thought- provoking suggestions assisted in providing direction to the study; and Dr. Thomas Patten, who assisted in providing technical input that helped to increase the quality of the study. Thanks goes out to those who participated in this study. Without their support the study would not have been possible. A very special and sincere thanks goes out to my friend, Dr. Frederick Ignatovich, whose computer skills and expertise in the statistical area utilized in the study provided direction at a time when I needed it the most. The endless hours he contributed will never be forgotten. Thanks goes out to my dear friend, Dr. Howard Hickey, who provided the moral and humorous support necessary to keep my SpertStflL ii To all the students and secretaries in the department who have assisted me, thanks. Finally, I wish to express my appreciation and gratitude to Rebecca, whose love, patience, and support helped me throughout this endeavor. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................ LIST OF FIGURES ........................ Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ..................... Purpose ....................... Introduction .................... Exploratory Questions ................ Significance of the Study .............. Definition of Terms ................. Limits of the Study ................. II. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............. Introduction to Systems ............... Forms Systems Thinking Has Taken .......... General Systems Theory (GST) ........... Cybernetics .................... Operations Research ................ Holism ...................... Systems Design .................. Information Theory ................ Systems Analysis ................. Systems Engineering ................ Input/Output Analysis ............... Mathematical Programming ............. Computer Science ................. Summary ...................... Types of Systems .................. PPBS ....................... PERT ....................... MBO ........................ Management Information Systems (MIS) ....... Characteristics .................. Summary ...................... Some Attempts to Impose Systems on Classroom Teachers ..................... Background on Some Teachers' Attempts in Classrooms .................... Summary ...................... Conceptual Framework ................ Summary ...................... METHODS AND PROCEDURES ................ Methodology Employed ................ Selection of Participants .............. Administrators .................. Teachers ..................... Elementary Principals ............... Concept Identification ............... Concept Reduction .................. Selection of Q-Sort Items .............. Pilot Test ..................... Administration of the Q-Sort ............ Treatment of the Data ................ Validity ..................... Reliability .................... ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ................. Introduction .................... Factor Clarification ................ Participant Composition ............... Selected Personal Characteristics of Participants: Teachers and All Administrators .......... Age and Area ................... Sex and Area ................... Experience and Area ................ Selected Personal Characteristics of Participants: Administrators and Administrators ......... Age and Area ................... Sex and Area ................... Experience and Area ................ Item Typal Belief Patterns ............. Descriptive Titles ................. Type One (Gemeinschaft-Oriented Teachers) Belief Pattern ................. Type Two (Gesellschaft-Driented Administrators) Belief Pattern ................. Type Three (Teacher-Oriented Administrators) Belief Pattern ................. Descending Array of Difference Between Types . . Summary ...................... Consensus Items ................... Plots of Rotated Factor Loadings .......... V Page 83 88 93 107 Ill lll Chapter Page V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... l2l Purpose of the Study ................ l2l Procedure ...................... l22 Summary of Findings ................. 124 Belief Patterns .................. l24 Selected Characteristics ............. l25 Conclusions ..................... l26 Recommendations ................... l29 APPENDICES A. COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONS CONCERNING PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS ................... 133 B. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .................. 134 C. ITEM STATEMENTS REPRESENTING VALUE AND BELIEF PATTERNS . l35 D. DIRECTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE Q-SORT ......... 138 E. INTERCORRELATION MATRIX ................ l4l BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... l42 vi Table TO. ll. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Participant Composition ................. Relation Between Age and Area, Expressed as Frequencies (Teachers and All Administrators) ........... Relation Between Sex and Area, Expressed as Frequencies (Teachers and All Administrators) ........... Relation Between Experience and Area, Expressed as Frequencies (Teachers and All Administrators) ..... Relation Between Age and Area, Expressed as Frequencies (Administrators and Administrators) .......... Relation Between Sex and Area, Expressed as Frequencies (Administrators and Administrators) .......... Relation Between Experience and Area, Expressed as Frequencies (Administrators and Administrators) . . . . Item Descriptions and Descending Array of Z-Scores for Teachers (Significant Items Above l.O) ........ Item Descriptions and Descending Array of Z-Scores for Teachers (Significant Items Below -l.0) ........ Item Descriptions and Descending Array of Z-Scores for Gesellschaft-Oriented Administrators (Significant Items Above l.O) ................... Item Descriptions and Descending Array of Z-Scores for Gesellschaft-Oriented Administrators (Significant Items Below -l.0) ................... Item Descriptions and Descending Array of Z-Scores for Teacher-Oriented Administrators (Significant Items Above l.O) ...................... Item Descriptions and Descending Array of Z-Scores for Teacher-Oriented Administrators (Significant Items Below -l.O) ...................... vii Page 68 7O 7O 72 73 74 76 78 Bl 84 86 89 91 Table I4. 15. l6. I7. 18. l9. 20. El. Comparisons Between Factors Two and One (Significant Differences Above a Z-Score Value of 1.0) ....... Comparison Between Factors Two and One (Si nificant Difference Below a Z-Score Value of -l.O§ ....... Comparisons Between Factors Three and One (Significant Differences Above a Z-Score Value of l.O) ....... Comparisons Between Factors Two and Three (Significant Differences Above a Z-Score Value of l.O) ....... Comparisons Between Factors Two and Three (Significant Differences Below a Z-Score Value of -l.O) ...... Consensus Items: Teachers ................ Consensus Items: Administrator Groups .......... Intercorrelation Matrix of Administrators by Group (Ordered Within Each Group by Factor Loading) ..... viii Page 94 99 112 llS l4l LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page l. Plot of Rotated Factor Loadings: Teachers and Model Users .................... ll7 2. Plot of Rotated Factor Loadings: Administrators and Administrators ................. ll9 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose The researcher's purpose in this study was to examine points of differences about teaching, learning, and classroom organization between some elementary classroom teachers and some school adminis- trators who are engaged in attempts to influence teaching, learning, and classroom organization by the implementation of rational manage- ment models (systems). In addition, this researcher examined points of differences about teaching, learning, and classroom organization between the same group of elementary teachers and some elementary principals who are not engaged in attempts to influence teaching, learning, and classroom organization by the implementation of rational management models. A subpart of this study examined points of dif- ferences about the three areas of concern between the two adminis- trator groups. Introduction Morrish (1976) states that institutions like the school must reflect, almost inevitably, the sort of society in which they exist. Society has a tendency to produce and maintain the institu- tions which serve it best, and when a particular institution is perceived as not rendering the required service, attempts are made to modify its role or replace it with something else. It is apparent that schools will not be substituted but there are presently attempts to modify their role.1 Schools over the years have been faced with constant changes. One of the reasons for many changes taking place is due to the fact that there is no universal agreement by those responsible for organizing and conducting school procedures, on the actual role of the school in society. Attempts continue to be made to establish the types of schools (primarily public schools) that will meet the needs of the present and future society. Public schools cannot avoid the impact of this society's sophistication. As society becomes more modern, with increased usage of highly sophisticated programs and techniques, there is a perceived need to adjust schools accordingly. The impact of these adjustments is not always positive. Lortie (l975) states that public schools are among major social, economic, and political institutions and that they, like other large institutions, are headed for the "trauma" Max Weber calls "rationalization."2 Rationalization in this sense is used to describe a situation where primary efforts are made toward estab- lishing logical and reasonable explanations for any and all activi- ties and procedures taking place in an institution. Public schools are not exempt from the impact of rationali- zation methods that are utilized in other large institutions in society. Efforts are constantly being made to better organize work units and modes of operation in other large institutions on down to learning units in schools and their mode of operating. Since public schools are open to public scrutiny (more so than other large institutions like government and private industry), more rigorous efforts are being made to better plan and account for what is taking place in schools that directly affects the outcome. These efforts are being made by some professional educators who have been assigned the task of planning and organizing major aspects of school programs. These efforts are all aimed at making functions in the school a more rational process. The efforts these educators are making toward making the functions of the school a more rational process will be described within the sociological context of what has been termed a gesellschaft, which will be elaborated on within the conceptual framework appearing in Chapter II. In these educators' attempts to better coordinate, control, predict, and generally make more sense out of educational process and procedures, the trend shows that many of these educators have adopted and mandated implementation of various "rational management models" which have been modified for classroom use. These rational management models were originally developed for use in other large institutions, mainly government and private industry. These insti- tutions have experienced, to some degree, success with rational management models. The success has been with these models helping to assist organizations reach their desired goal(s). Rational management models are characterized by their clear distinction between means and end. There is an interdependence of parts. These models have an emphasis in abstraction. Hard technology fits into this description. Rational management models are designed to more systematically assist organizations reach their goal(s). With rational management models, organizational leaders can more accurately assess and plan for organizational activities. The characteristics described above are basically synonymous with the more commonly used term system. Churchman (1968) says that the word system has been defined in many ways, but most definers will agree that a system is a set of parts coordinated to accomplish a 3 (A more detailed discussion on system appears in the set of goals. review of literature in the following chapter.) Rational management models (systems) are presently being introduced in the school organization more and more by some educa- tors who are responsible for planning and organizing school functions. To what extent, if any, classroom teachers who are or would be directly responsible for the actual task(s) assigned by the model, accept the concept underlying such model usage is not known. Many models, when implemented, alter the way classroom teachers teach. In addition, these models rearrange the way students learn as well as the way classrooms are organized. This study examined points of differences about teaching, learning, and classroom organization between some elementary class- room teachers and some school administrators who are engaged in attempts to influence teaching, learning, and classroom organi— zation by the implementation of rational management models (systems). In addition, this study examined points of difference about teaching, learning, and classroom organization between the same group of teachers and some elementary principals who are not engaged in attempts to influence teaching, learning, and classroom organization by the implementation of rational management models (systems). A subpart of this study examined points of differences about the three areas of concern between the two administrator groups. Exploratory Questions The following exploratory questions guided this study: 1. Do teachers' value and belief patterns about teaching, learning, and classroom organization differ from those of administrators who are actively engaged in attempts to influence teaching, learning, and classroom organi- zation by the implementation of rational management models (systems)? 2. Do teachers' value and belief patterns about teaching, learning, and classroom organization differ from those of administrators who are not engaged in attempts to influence teaching, learning, and classroom organiza- tion by the implementation of rational management models (systems)? 3. Do those administrators who are engaged in rational man- agement model usage phrase their efforts in gesellschaft terms? 4. Are teachers attempting to create classroom organizations with the characteristics of a gemeinschaft? 5. Are elementary principals' views about teaching, learning, and classroom organization different from those of admin- istrators who are engaged in rational management model (systems) usage? Significance of the Study Because the business of classrooms is learning, it appears that what and how one learns is directly related to the structure in which one learns. Outside educators and classroom teachers each have their own idea of what constitutes the most appropriate learn- ing and classroom structure. With the adoption and implementation of various systems models in classrooms, administrators engaged in rational management model usage attempt to establish a learning and operating structure that sometimes conflicts with that of classroom teachers. When there are basic disagreements between teachers and outside educators regarding what each perceives to be the most appropriate learning and classroom structure, conflict sets in and the teaching and ultimately the learning process is hindered. It appears that the number of those outside the classroom who are intent on affecting events inside the classroom is growing, and as the number increases, the pressures to develop abstract sys- tems for classroom use will also increase. Continued attempts to implement these will increase, and perhaps teacher frustration and conflict with these will increase. For these reasons and more, the area was worthy of study. Definition of Terms Outside Educator--A nonclassroom person who has the power to mandate the usage or influence the use of varioUs systems approaches on classrooms. These people function from outside the immediate boundaries of the classroom but do impact on teaching, learning, and classroom organization. Rational Management Model (Systems)r-One of many types of management-oriented techniques devised to systematically coordinate activities in an organization; it has clearly defined means and ends. Gemeinschaft—-Refers to a community, close-knit group, collective good rather than individual attainment; relations based on personal affectivity, resistance to change, and an identification of means with ends. Gesellschaft--The emphasis here is on the individual achieve- ment, efficiency, complexity, and individual happiness rather than collective good. Valuer-Intrinsic significance one places on a method or pro- cedure that has become desirable to the individual. Beliefy-Conviction in the manner of carrying out certain acts or functions. Limits of the Study 1. This study deals only with the phases of the school program, K96, in some public schools in Michigan. The first group of subjects is linfited to those outside educators who are engaging in attempts to impose a rational management model on classrooms; the second, a group of elementary classroom teachers; and last, a group of building-level administrators all in the State of Michigan. 2. No attempt is made to evaluate the effectiveness of teachers, outside educators, or their programs in terms of structure or outcome. No attempt is made to postulate ideal instructional situations or settings. Chapter II contains a review of the literature giving a general background on systems. It is important to include this since systems usage is on the increase in organizations, including schools. Footnotes-~Chapter I 1Ivor Morrish, Aspects of Educational Change (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1976), p.l55. 2Dan C. Lortie, Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), p. viii. 3C. West Churchman, The Systems Approach (New York: Delarante Press, 1968), p. 29. CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction to Systems Hall and Fagen (1956) define a system as a set of objects together with relationships between the objects and between their attributes.1 Another way is to say that a system is an entity com- posed of (l) a number of parts, (2) the relationship of these parts, and (3) the attributes of both the parts and the relationships. One could also perceive a system as "some form in structure or operation or function of united and integrated parts."2 In reality, just about anything can constitute a system. It could be something as large and complex as the solar system or as small as a single cell in the human body. Systems themselves are composed of parts which are themselves systems. An example would be the human body, which is a system composed of various subsystems (nervous, cardiovascular, etc.). In turn, these subsystems are composed of cells, each of which is itself a system. Thus, systems typically exhibit a structure in which there are parts (subsystems) embedded within other parts (subsystems) within the overall system. The embedding of one system within another can-go on through many stages, almost endlessly.3’4 lO 11 This study is concerned only with the use of systems as it relates to management systems and management-oriented systems pro- cedures that are conceived and developed by man in his effort to better coordinate, control, and generally better predict organiza- tional activities and outcomes. Forms_§ystems Thinking Has Taken Movement toward systems thinking began about 45 years ago and has its greatest period of development in the past 25 years or so. There are basically 11 major approaches systems thinking has taken over the years that have led to the present modes of systems thinking. These approaches are presented in this section. General Systems Theory (GST) Developed by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, GST has its roots in the organismic conception of biology. GST also draws heavily upon mathematics, physiology, and economics. Its main area of study, "its domain," is the phenomena of growth and evolution. Its main assump- tion is that the process of growth and its intermediate and final stages (evolution) follow the same pattern, whether the growth is of a single organism, of a group of organisms, or of society itself. GST can employ either of two approaches. The first approach is to look over the empirical universe and pick out certain phenomena which are found in many different disciplines, and seek to build up general theoretical models relevant to these phenomena. The second approach is to arrange the empirical fields in a hierarchy of 12 complexity of organization of these basic "individual" or unit of behavior, and to try to develop a level of abstraction appropriate to each.5 Cybernetics Cybernetics is defined by Norbert Wiener as the science of control and communication in the animal and the machine. Cyber- netics deals with all forms of behavior so far as they are regular, or determinate, or reproducible. It holds that people and society themsleves can be best understood through the communication and control activities of the system. It establishes a network for assessing feedback and its effect on system state, the monitoring of system activity, and the adaptation of the system in light of information (knowledge).6 Operations Research Operations Research is the use of the scientific method to provide criteria for decisions concerning man-machine systems involv- ing repeatable operations. As part of the general systems movement, it was first to move directly into applied practice. It involves the concept of optimization. That is, considering all possible modes of operation of a man-machine system, it strives for that mode which is considered the "best" or optimum one for achieving the established task.7’8 13 m This approach was originally centered in continental Europe. Holism has many similarities to the General Systems movement because of its interdisciplinary emphasis and generic focus. Its distinct characteristic that makes it different from General Systems Theory is its tendency to incorporate, to a greater extent, the concerns of philosophy, theology, and the humanities (along with the social, behavioral, and physical sciences). Most recently this movement has been applied particularly to concerns normally falling into the tra- ditional realms of philosophy and religion.9’10 Systems Design The Systems Design approach has grown from General Systems Theory and the Operations Research movement. Like Holism, Systems Design is interdisciplinary and based in the "generalizability" of system findings. But unlike Operations Research, Systems Design is less concerned with the creative development and structuring of new, different, and unique systems. This approach can be applied to man, machine, or man-machine systems, simple or complex. This pro- cess can be develOped through high-level mathematical procedures or logical-subjective techniques.n Information Theory This approach is an outgrowth of Cybernetics and the first purely quantitative branch of the systems movement. This process was originally developed to respond to problems in communications l4 engineering, but more recently has been applied to telephone commu- nication and radar as well as to various information systems in machines and organizations. The premise behind Information Theory is that more right guesses can be made when its information is defined quantitatively.12 Systems Analysis This approach is basically an analytical technique that is a modified systems process for business and industrial problem solving. Systems Analysis involves the breaking down of a particu- lar system into its logical components or subsystems. Subsequently, the inputs, processor, outputs, and feedback of each system will be defined in terms of the information required to make decisions regarding the prOper function of these system elements.13 Systems Engineering Systems Engineering grew out of Operations Research. With Operations Research being concerned primarily with existing systems, Systems Engineering focuses more on the planning and design of new systems (as well as on the improved performance of existing opera- tions). Systems Engineering seeks to create better systems-~man, man-machine, or mechanical. It tends to be a discipline in the tra- ditional sense and thereby has tended to create its own specialists, procedures, and specified body of knowledge. 15 Input/Output Analysis Input/Output Analysis is a SOphisticated branch of Systems Analysis. Its major premise is that a system (organization) can be studied in terms of the results of its actions or activity. The major focus here is on (1) outcomes or output, (2) the evaluation of output in terms of system goals, and (3) subsequent feedback to the system as to how its operations and processes can be modified to better achieve system goals. Mathematical Programming, Mathematical Programming is one of the widely known pro- cesses used in management decision making. It applies quantitative techniques. It uses mathematical formulas, such as linear equations, to solve complex organizational problems. Computer Science Computer Science is concerned with the use of computers to assist in making organizational decisions. It has great value in such areas as scheduling and accounting. Computer Science is a grow- ing area of interest to organizational leaders, with endless pos- sibilities.14’]5 Summar These 11 major forms systems thinking has taken over the last 40 years provide the conceptual foundation from which present systems procedures are now built. Although they overlap in many respects, a certain degree of distinctiveness also exists. 16 Types of Systems In organizational leaders' continuous efforts to make more rational the activities within the organization and to exercise better control over the overall process toward reaching organizational goals, many of these leaders are "thinking systems." The end results vary, but the idea behind each is the same. As a result of systems think- ing, a multitude of systems approaches have been developed for organi- zational use, both in the private and public spheres. Following are some of the more popular systems procedures presently used. jfifig; The Planning-Programming-Budgeting System is the short- and long-range systematic budgeting scheme originally developed by the Rand Corporation and made popular by the federal government.16 An important aspect of PPBS is its rational planning process that takes into account the scarcity of resources and seeks to optimize them. It also establishes a process whereby there is a systematic alloca- tion of limited resources. Apparent in this approach are long-range projections of goals for the organizational units or activities in terms of precise objectives with systematic cost-benefit analysis of alternative strategies and a resulting multi-stage financial plan (multiple year budgeting) in order to meet organizational goals 17:18 PPBS focuses on long-range through optimum use of resources. goals and objectives and the most economical steps to meet them. The program activities that will be involved are clearly spelled out. 17 The decision-making process is perceived to be more rational through the use of PPBS because goals are spelled out in relationship to €051: . PERI Program Evaluation and Review Technique (or Critical Path Method, as it is sometimes referred to) had its formal beginning in the Department of Defense, where the technique was employed to help speed up the development of the United States Navy Missiles Project. PERT has been used to help schedule and control all the activities of getting a system designed and installed.19 PERT is a process for analyzing, planning, and scheduling large, complex projects. The process requires that a project be broken down into its various parts or activities, determining which of these are more critical than others, and then scheduling the project in terms of its parts or subactivities in order to meet a target time at minimum cost.20 PERT basically allows organizational leaders to gather neces- sary information in order to best, from their perception, utilize human and material resources in the organization. The process also points out possible obstacles that may be encountered as well as time estimates on the total project and all of its subactivities. All of this is plotted on a network diagram. Like other systems techniques, the PERT network application is a means of reviewing the logical steps and their interrelationships in achieving a desired outcome. The major steps involved in PERT are as follows: 18 1. Identify the desired outcome. 2. List the events necessary for completing the final event. 3. Diagram the events into a network. 4. Estimate the times for each event. 5. Determine the critical path. 6. Estimate probability (which is a mathematical procedure that employs a fixed formula).2]’22 MBQ_ Peter F. Drucker was one of the first to express the notion of Management by Objectives, which was reported in 1954 when he was concerned with overall management at General Motors. Drucker felt that General Motors' success as a work organization was not solely dependent on the quality and design of their products, production processes, systematic cost control, and strong dealer organizations, but pivoted on the fact that the managers at General Motors had implemented the concept of working by objectives. Their individual work behavior was monitored by the clearly spelled out objectives they had established along with their superior in the joint effort to meet organizational and self goals.23 Managers being involved in the decision-making process was a means for better realizing corporate goals. Under MBO, emphasis is focused upon the goals to be reached rather than the various activities being performed by the managers or upon the traits one may or may not exhibit in the per- formance of these activities.24 19 This whole concept grew from Drucker's belief that no individual in a large-scale organization could direct all the activi- ties of one's subordinates. The idea was that if the manager could control the end-product or results of their work by a system built around understood goals, the individual could more effectively manage the large number of people the person is responsible for.25 Here, managerial performance could be measured against pre- established goals. As one can observe, Drucker's concept took into consideration only those who served in a managerial capacity in the organization. By 1957, Douglas McGregor had become one of Drucker's strongest supporters, but he went one step further and expanded the concept to include nonmanagerial employees. In this respect, employees would be informed of the specific goals they are expected to achieve. The employees would then make decisions on the most appropriate work and time arrangements and other considerations toward reaching organization goals. The idea behind this procedure is that employees will feel that they are more a part of the total organization and are perceived by management to possess relevant input toward reaching desired results. Intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivation will supposedly exist because employees will be self-motivated since managers are not watching over employees step by step. McGregor does point out that management must continue to reserve the right of management to determine how work will be organized.26 20 M80 procedures like the one proposed by McGregor are not always successful. Not many are used by large organizations because they are difficult to maintain over long periods of time. Those programs that are successful usually have an inception period which ranges from three to five years. Odiorne (1965) perceives MBO not only as a management system but also as a method of performance review. Odiorne endorsed a procedure whereby managers are reviewed annually in terms of the pre-set goals and their performance in relation to these set goals. This is quite similar to Drucker's original version. Managers, knowing what is expected of them, are free to set up work activi- ties in their particular department to best achieve their goals, which are directly related to the organization goals. Because managers know what is expected of them, it is perceived that less manager apprehension will exist. Odiorne states that there should be less doubt and fewer risks involved for organizational members. Through such a procedure, the organization's hierarchy can reduce levels of uncertainty and hopefully make better organizational pre- dictions.27 In the descriptions up to this point, the attempts were to involve more people in the organization's decision-making process toward the realization of the organizational goals, while at the same time reducing the level of organizational uncertainty and increasing employee morale. 21 Management Information Systems (MIS) Slightly different in concept, a Management Information System is a formal system in the organization which provides manage- ment with the necessary reports to be utilized in the decision— making process.28 The task of many organizations over the years has been to establish regulation. Information is considered to be the essential factor required for organization regulation. Govern- ment and business organizations have led the way with attempts to more effectively establish Management Information Systems for the purpose of generating change as well as understanding all relevant aspects of the organization. For all Management Information Systems, the major goal is to provide information for managers to assist in making organiza— tional decisions. Many of these systems serve in a support capacity to managers, while others make some of the repetitive decisions usually made at the lower levels of the organization. Management Information Systems are primarily developed for providing information for planning and control purposes. Like other management systems, MIS's are tailored to the particular organiza- tion.29 MIS's are geared to help reduce the degree of organizational uncertainty when decisions are to be made by organizational managers. Characteristics In an effort to reduce noise (uncertainty) so that a system can achieve balance among its parts, a system must have a feedback 22 (information) mechanism. When there is a fixed reference for this balance, such as body temperature, it is called equilibrium. When there is a balanced relationship independent of a fixed reference, the system is said to be in a steady state.30 All systems seek to maintain a state of steadiness. Cannon (1939) was an early theorist on the tendency of systems to seek steady states. He wrote that every "complex organism must have more or less effective self-righting adjustments in order to prevent a check on its functions, or a rapid disintegration of its parts, when subjected to stress."31 The check on functions and the rapid dis- integration of parts is what has been termed entropy.32 Entropy is the equivalent of death, where negative entropy would be a healthy state. Theoretically, systems can avoid entropy by the evaluation of feedback (information) which can be regarded as the difference between actual performance and expected performance. When the feed- back loop exists within the system, it is called a closed loop. When the feedback loop extends beyond the boundary of the system into the environment, the loop is said to be open. Sensor elements moni- tor feedback 1oops, and report perceived changes to decision-making elements which make the necessary adjustments in the system to achieve a steady state and avoid entropy.33 Summary Originally developed as an engineering concept for use in industry and then government, systems analysis is now being used in the social sciences. One such approach, the Planning-Programming- 23 Budgeting System (PPBS) serves primarily to facilitate organiza- tional resources. Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) is a procedure for gathering information toward more efficient appropriation of human and material resources as well as a procedure for pointing out possible obstructions in achieving desired goals and to estimate project and subproject time requirements. Another systems approach described was Management by Objec- tives (MBO). Presented were several versions. The first was a program geared Specifically for organizational managers. Goals were spelled out to managers and it became their responsibility to coor- dinate their work to reach agreed-upon objectives. The second pro- posed version of M30 saw nonmanagerial employees involved in organizing their work with assistance from their superiors. Another adaptation is the Management Information System (MIS). This system is set up to provide the organization's hierarchy with relevant information on activities taking place in the organization. From such information, perceived relevant decisions are made. The presentation of systems thinking, in general systems particularly, and their characteristics, provides one with a clearer perspective of the total systems movement and its present state. What appears common to all systems approaches as management per- ceives it is their ability to better control organizational activi- ties (including people within the organization) toward more effec- tively reaching the organizational goal(s). It is viewed as a more rational way of operating. It is a part of an overall attempt to reduce the degree of uncertainty in the organization. Systems take 24 into account human behavior and seek to structure this behavior so as to complement and not hinder efforts toward the realization of the organization's goal(s). To what extent these movements' efforts conflict with the efforts of the individual members of the organiza- tion is not known. System approaches are being introduced into the school organi- zation and many are not experiencing success. Presented next are situations where systems approaches were implemented in schools and eventually rejected by teachers for various reasons. Some Attempts to Impose Systems on Classroom Teachers Montello (1975) in his discussion on systems usage in public education, states that because public education is currently experi- encing a dramatic test of continual existence, educators are fran- tic in their efforts to find new ways to restructure education.34 Educators outside of the classroom whose productivity to some degree appears to be determined by the amount of structure they establish on the classroom, have imposed and are continuing to impose various systems models on schools and their classrooms. Wolcott (1977) points out that outside educators' (whom he refers to as technocrats) efforts to effect change in the classroom and in the total school by implementing some type of systems approach have not always experienced success at the classroom level. He states that although these technocrats may insist that the quality or effectiveness of teaching can be improved (and some teachers agreed, while others disagreed), the teaching processes remain relatively 25 unchanged. Structural changes like team teaching seem to fare best, perhaps because they do not interfere with the teaching process. However, when attempts to tamper with teaching or teachers become too heavy-handed (through attempts to coordinate teachers' efforts by imposing some form of a systems approach), teachers almost reflexively close ranks and begin drawing upon their broad repertoire of resisting behavior. Wolcott cites a specific example where one such systems model, School Planning Evaluation and Communication System (SPECS), a Spin-off of Planning-Programming-Budgeting System (PPBS), was imposed on teachers in the South Lane School District in the State of Oregon, and the resulting conflict it had with teachers there. SPECS was devised basically to increase the accountability of public school employees and programs. SPECS was geared to influence the instructional interaction between administrators and teachers, the communication between central office and school building, and the relationships between a school district and its community.35 SPECS presumes that program effectiveness and efficiency will increase substantially as the processes for planning and evaluating those programs become more data-based, output-oriented, and self-corrective. SPECS is made up of five basic components, which include: 1. A Systems Analysis of the School District--This would be a descriptive system analysis of the school district. Hierarchical relationships among on-going programs and activities are found here. 26 2. Program Budgeting and Cost Accounting-—This phase deals primarily with desired and actual program impacts in relation to finances. 3. Program Planning, Evaluation Replanning, and Articulation-- This is considered the heart of the SPECS model. It is geared to encourage staff members to use summary data about district programs toward self-improvement. 4. The Monitoring Subsystemr-Broad organization goals are established here and expectations that have been gener- ated by those providing feedback to the total system. 5. The Management Subsystem--Here "gaps" that exist between actual and preferred states of the school district are identified.36 The decision to adopt and implement such an elaborate, all- purpose system was made by the superintendent of schools in South Lane. The superintendent had made his own assessment of the need to better coordinate his schools (i.e., better control), to improve the quality of curriculum planning, and to anticipate the growing interest in educational accountability. Imposition of SPECS without teacher input negatively affected SPECS' possible chances of survival. It can be inferred that this outside educator sought to gain more con- trol of the activities in the classroom and how the teacher operated. This educator attempted to place more structure on classroom teach- ers and their classrooms. SPECS appeared to coincide with the values and beliefs this person holds about teaching, learning, and classroom organization. 27 Through an interviewing process, Wolcott found that a large number of teachers in this district had virtually the same nega- tive feelings about the use of SPECS in their classrooms. Because SPECS required teachers to organize their classroom activities according to pre-set, structured procedures spelled out by SPECS, teachers strongly rejected SPECS usage. SPECS basically conflicted with how teachers felt their classroom program should be structured, as well as how they perceived themselves operating in the classroom. South Lane teachers questioned the wisdom of following the same pro- cedure for every type of instructional program which SPECS dictated. Antagonism to the way the materials had been imposed within the dis- trict was at least as strong as the antagonism to the materials themselves. Teachers felt that in their zeal to "effect a techno- logical change, the developers and superintendent alike had failed to attend to some corresponding dimensions of human change."37 Cooperation, he states, had simply been mandated. Because of these reasons and more, SPECS failed in the South Lane school district. Wolcott is firmly convinced that "with minor variations, the develop- ment, implementation, and de-implementation of some type of systems model like SPECS has been and will be re-enacted time and time again 38 The results, he feels, will be the same: in the nation's schools." conflict and rejection by classroom teachers. Knezevich (1969) states new ideas upset established proce- dures; this in turn unsettles the people (teachers in this case) who have already designed what they perceived to be conducive operating procedures, adjusted accordingly, and learned to live with 28 them as standard operations. He feels that many of the problems in schools can be traced to rapid acceptance of the products of "new technological" methods by some and not others.39 In 1976, Perrone conducted an investigation of Michigan's Kalamazoo Public Schools' Accountability System, from the perspec- tive of the teachers affected by it. Up to the point when the investigation began (April, 1976), there had been much conflict over the school system's accountability program.40 Charges and counter- charges had been exchanged regularly between the Kalamazoo Educa- tion Association (KEA) and the Office of the Superintendent of Schools. Perrone and other investigators who made up the investigating com- mittee conducted the investigation in an effort to establish a more positive dialogue about accountability between the Kalamazoo Public Schools teachers and those who were actively engaged'hithe implemen— tation of the system. The Kalamazoo Accountability System was perceived as a com- prehensive system of employee evaluation and accountability--one 41 An overview designed to "reward excellence and stifle mediocrity." and the developmental sequence of this system follow: - In an effort to increase efficiency of school operations, the Kalamazoo board established a department of Research and Development that was developed in the fall of 1972. - Pre-tests were administered to students in grades one through nine in September and May, using nationally stan- dardized achievement tests. 29 - Kalamazoo teachers received test scores of individual students, composite scores for their class groups, and an analysis of test items most frequently missed. - The teachers were required to administer their own tests to their students. - In addition to teachers being involved, each school year all administrators were required to develop performance objectives; percentages of accomplishment were determined at the end of each year by several relevant groups (e.g., school board). — Performance profiles were developed for all teachers. The profile was accumulated to measure and improve teacher per- formance. Included in the profile were views of the teacher from students, principals, other teachers, parents, and a teacher self-evaluation. (This information was shared with the teacher.) - All this information was collected, interpreted, and reported by the Research and Development staff members. The information was purported to assist school personnel toward self-improvement.42 This constituted the basis of the system. Although some teachers perceived this approach as beneficial, the great majority Perrone states felt that the effects were negative. Teachers stressed that instead of using ratings for professional growth, performance objectives for improved instruction, and testing for assessing student progress over time, the Kalamazoo Accountability 30 System was primarily used to assess teacher accountability for stu- dent performance. This, teachers felt, was unrealistic because so many other extrinsic conditions affect student learning. Besides feeling threatened, pressured, and feeling administrators in the district displayed little concern for their feelings, teachers were also disturbed over the little input they were allowed to contribute into this system. For these reasons and more, the Kalamazoo teach- ers, like those in Oregon's South Lane district, did not support the accountability system that was imposed on them. Perrone concluded his report by saying that the overall responses from teachers were negative--among the most negative that he ever viewed in an evaluation. Bleecher (1975) measured Michigan's K-B teachers' under- standing of, and attitudes toward, a state department of education's demand for accountability and assessment of learning outcomes using Barnard's theory of authority as a framework for analysis.43 The six parts that constitute the accountability system are: 1. identification of common goals, development of performance objectives, assessment of educational needs, analysis of delivery systems, evaluation of testing systems or progress, and 0101-th recommendations for improvement. Of these, number three became a primary concern for Michigan teachers. Michigan's State Superintendent of Public Instruction, John Porter, defines assessment of educational needs as a process 31 of obtaining,'flmrdecision-making purposes, information concerning educational activities. The program was originally initiated by the Governor and the Legislature in an effort to account for what two billion dollars of state monies was buying in terms of outcomes. By 1968, the plans had been developed for statewide assessment by high-level staff persons. Act 38 of 1970 instituted the State Department of Educa- tion's six-part system toward achieving educational accountability. To find out teachers' understandings about the overall system, Bleecher mailed a questionnaire to 500 teachers in the state. He found the following: K98 teachers felt the communications of accountability and assessment were inconsistent with the purposes of the school organization as they understand it; that the communica- tions of accountability and assessment were not compatible with teachers' personal interests; and teachers felt that they could not comply, physically and mentally, with the accountability and assess- ment program. With these findings, Bleecher concludes that this sample of the teachers involved in the investigation theoretically will with- draw cooperation from the accountability and assessment program. It is Bleecher's feeling that the purpose of such a rational system is to reduce equivocality and increase predictability, which he feels is the nature of rational systems. The reduction of equivo- cality and increase of predictability enlarges the possibility of control of activities by those who allocate resources.“’45 32 Summar In each case presented, it was concluded that teachers generally were not able to comply with the systems imposed on them by educators who function from outside the classroom. Various reasons prompted decisions to adopt and implement a systems approach in each of these districts. Bain (1970) points out that teachers feel threatened by various state and local assessments, or accountability programs, and seem to be resisting many of these models. They detect the control element clearly. They feel they have "too little control or no control" over the facts which might render such programs feas- ible or fair.46 With the School Planning Evaluation and Communication System (SPECS), it was the feeling of the superintendent that a more syste- matic procedure was needed to increase the interaction and accounta- bility level of the public school employees and programs in the district as well as his awareness level (through planned communi- cation) of classroom activities. The superintendent saw SPECS as a possible answer to his attempts. The implementors of the Kalamazoo Accountability System sought to establish a more structured procedure of employee evalua- tion and accountability. It was explained to teachers in the beginning of this program that one of the primary attempts was to reward teachers who were perceived to be excellent and not reward those perceived to be mediocre. Teachers eventually felt that it was used to assess overall teacher accountability for student 33 performance in their classrooms. Judging excellence and mediocrity on student achievement or nonachievement caused many teachers to react negatively to this system. Michigan's Educational Accountability Program was developed to better account for educational spending and outcomes. Teachers were not able to comply because they felt the communications of accountability and assessment were inconsistent with the purposes of the school as they understood them. They also felt that the communication of accountability and assessment was not compatible with their personal interest. In each application it appeared that these outside edu- cators saw a need to install a system approach that would assist them in their effort to do such things as: 1. require teachers to structure their programs more in line with their values and beliefs, 2. require teachers to do more planning and rely more on test results, 3. require teachers to be more open with their teaching methods, 4. provide for a more direct channel of obtaining informa- tion on classroom activities and teacher functions, and 5. hold teachers more accountable. For such educators, systems models appeared to incorporate those prescribed functions they seek to have performed in classrooms. Such efforts stem from the values and beliefs these educators have about teaching, learning, and classroom organization which possibly 34 differ from those of teachers who are responsible for carrying out the assigned task(s). Presented thus far has been a brief description of system development. As stated earlier, such models allow those assigned with the responsibility of planning and organizing school functions a procedure wherebythey are able to more accurately account for what takes place in schools and their classrooms. Application of systems models in classrooms forces teachers and their classrooms to readjust to a more structured mode of operating. Whether this more struc- tured procedure increases learning is not known and was not deter- mined by this study. This study examined differences between groups of educators on issues that may in fact affect learning and teachers' overall efforts in classrooms. Teachers do not always accept the same set of values and beliefs about teaching, learning, and class— room organization as those administrators who propose system usage. This study examined points of differences about teaching, learning, and classroom organization between some elementary class- room teachers and some school administrators who engaged in rational management model (systems) usage. In addition, the study examined points of differences between the same group of elementary teachers and some elementary principals not engaged in model usage. A subpart of this study examined differences between the two adminis- trator groups. The purpose behind including elementary principals is to determine how this group's values and beliefs about teaching, learning, and classroom organization match or differ from teachers and rational model users. It is this group who is in a key position 35 to make a strong impact on the success or failure of activities and functions taking place inside classrooms. In an effort to better understand why teachers' values and beliefs may in fact differ from those of the subject administrators, it is perceived necessary at this point to provide some background information on some teachers' attempts in classrooms. Understand— ing what some reported successful classroom teachers do in their classrooms should provide some helpful insight on why differences may exist between teachers and the subject administrators over the three areas of concern (i.e., teaching, learning, and classroom organization). Background on Some Teachers'Attempts in Classrooms A number of studies on teachers' behavior and classroom envi- ronment have provided some insight to the behavior and environ- mental conditions teachers attempt to establish in their classrooms that make for what they perceive to be the most conducive learning and teaching situation. Jackson (1968), through a series of classroom observations and interviews done in such areas as Palo Alto, California, and Chicago, Illinois, provides a description of important variables of life in the classroom related to teaching and learning. In inter- views with teachers, Jackson found that the teachers sought to develop a sense of closeness in their classes. This closeness was exemplified by the lack of interest these teachers had in educational modifications. Such interest was mild and typically restricted to 36 ideas about minor matters like room arrangements. "Rarely," if ever, was there talk about the need for educational change.47 Janesick(l977), through a participant observation approach, sought to describe and explain one teacher's classroom perspective about teaching and the learning environment in that person's class- room. Over a participatory period of seven months, the researcher obtained an understanding of the teacher's world and how this person constructed his teaching in the classroom. This researcher found that the teacher worked at developing a sense of groupness and thereby achieved his classroom goals. Two factors contributed to this: (1) the teacher consciously worked to develop a strong group, a community feeling in the classroom; and (2) by developing this group, community feeling, the classroom was not easily manipulated by outside interferences. It was reported that this teacher and the group (students) exhibited all the characteristics of a small, com- munal family. Respect and cooperation contributed toward the goals of the total class. In many respects this teacher took on a leader- ship role similar to that displayed by the family 1eader.48 Smith and Geoffrey (1968), like Janesick, viewed a single classroom but used more of a direct observation technique. The focus differed in that they studied an urban classroom to see how a middle-class teacher coped with a group of lower-class youngsters. The researchers found that this teacher did attempt to develop a community feeling about the room. Efforts were made toward develop- ing a feeling of groupness. Lack of interest in new approaches like certain new textbooks that were prescribed for the class were 37 countered by this teacher's interpersonal relations and personalized interaction.49 Although this study has many psychological implica— tions for those primarily interested in urban classrooms, it also has relevance for the concern at hand, in that it points out that classroom teachers are attempting to establish conditions in class- rooms that basically reject outside interference. These researchers infer that many teachers in schools are not open to certain inno- vative techniques about learning and classroom operations because they do not coincide with their perceptions of adequate teaching and learning environments. Summary Each investigation presented was conducted in classrooms of reputed “successful" teachers. In each case teachers concen- trated a major part of their effort toward creating a community with students. Teachers in the study stressed group participation and a feeling for the classroom as a collective in which each student could obtain recognition and satisfaction from contributing to the whole unit. It was not suggested that academic achievement was of minor importance to those teachers, but in order to be successful, those teachers felt that they had to create, in Lortie's terms, "cordial, disciplined and work-eliciting relationships" between themselves and the students and among the students themselves.50 Collectively, these teachers have decided on this type of behavior and classroom environment which they perceive to be the 38 most conducive for themselves as teachers and the learning that goes on in their classrooms. How and to what extent various management systems conflict with teachers' values and beliefs about teaching, learning, and classroom organization are not known. What is known is that such systems do affect the way teachers conduct their teaching and oper- ate their classrooms. The efforts these teachers are making in their classrooms will be described within the sociological context of what has been termed a gemeinschaft which, as will be described, is opposed to a gesellschaft. Both concepts are discussed within the conceptual framework appearing in the following section. Conceptual Framework Hillary (1968) defines communal organizations as a quality, generally referring to people having something in common.51 Sociolo- gists such as Maine, Becker, Weber, Durkheim, Parsons, and Toennies, in particular, have outlined the characteristics of these societies which Toennies terms "gemeinschaft" opposed to noncommunal societies 52 Toennies sees gemeinschaft and which he terms "gesellschaft." gesellschaft as two different modes of mentality and behavior, and as two different types of societies. Gemeinschaft includes the characteristics of collective good rather than individual attain- ment, isolation from the resistance to influences from outside and outsiders, relations based on personal affectivity, resistance to change, an identification of means with ends as opposed to a means- ends dichotomy, and an emphasis on individual behavior that is not 39 only collective oriented, but present oriented. It can be inferred that many of the characteristics itemized in the sociologists' writings are those sought after by classroom teachers. Gesellschaft types of societies are just the opposite. They are characterized by emphasis on the individual and the orientation of the individual toward discrete ends. It follows that the orien- tation is toward efficiency and alteration of means in order to maximize returns, and on individual achievement, particularly indi- vidual "happiness" rather than collective good. Other characteris- tics include relationships that are temporary and secondary, open- ness and accessibility from without, affective neutrality, univer— salism, and the desire for change. With its emphasis on abstract principles and a sharp distinction between means and ends, a gesell- schaft is perceived to be much more rational than a gemeinschaft with its emphasis on collective behavior and a confusion of means and ends. Systems models implemented in classrooms by educators who function from outside the immediate boundaries of the classroom are basically identical with those described by sociologists in their elaboration on gesellschaft. In both situations, the emphasis is on individual achievement as opposed to collective well-being, on universalism as opposed to particularism, on secondary as opposed to primary relations, cognitive rationality rather than affective empathy, and on a sharp distinction between means and ends. These concepts by the sociologists lead to material des- cribed in the management literature. In reviewing this literature, 40 one can easily see that the rational management models espoused by the management oriented are identical with those explained in gesellschaft terms by sociologists. In both instances, the empha- sis is on individual achievement as opposed to collective well-being, on universalism as opposed to particularism, on secondary as opposed to primary relations, cognitive rationality rather than affective empathy, and on a sharp distinction between ends and means. Accounta- bility assessment models, variations on program budgeting, program evaluation review techniques, management by objectives, and competency-based performance, even in education, are all from a gesellschaft-type perspective and they are diametrically opposed to a gemeinschaft-type perspective. Summary It appears that those administrators who are engaged in attempts to make classrooms more rational have adopted (by the use of systems models) methods and procedures that are not necessarily in agreement with classroom teachers. The sociological concept, gesellschaft, which has been applied to the administrator group engaged in rational model usage, does have endemic characteristics which are contradictory to the gemeinschaft, which is applied to the teacher group. As described earlier, institutions usually end up reflecting the type of society in which they exist. Modern society reflects the concept of gesell- schaft. The classroom teachers described are making efforts to establish and maintain a gemeinschaft-type environment in the 41 classroom. These two sociological concepts served as a basis for categorizing the attempts to the two primary groups of concern. Using these descriptors, the study examined the differences between some elementary teachers and the subject administrators. Additionally, a group of elementary principals was examined with this group of teachers and administrators. 42 Footnotes-~Chapter II 1Arthur D. Hall and Robert E. Fagen, "Definition of System," General Systems I (1956): 18. 2R. P. Grinker, Toward a Unified Theory of Human Behavior (New York: Basic Books, Publishers, 1956), p. 370. 3David I. Cleland and William R. King, Management: A Systems Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1972), pp. 32-33. 4Peter P. Schoderbek, Asterus G. Kefolas, and Charles G. Schoderbek, Management Systems (Dallas, Texas: Business Publications, Inc., 1975), pp. 8-9. 5W. Ross Ashby, An Introduction to Cybernetics (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1963), pp. 147. 6Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1948). 7David S. Stroller, Operations Research: Process and Strategy_ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1964), pp. 3-10. 8James L. Riggs and Michael S. Inorie, Introduction to Opera- tions Research and Manggement Science (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975). 9Glen L. Immegart and Francis J. Pilecki, An Introduction to ,Systems for the Educational Administrator (Reading, Mass.: Addison- Wesley Publishing Co.,'l973), pp. 9-10. 'Oibid. nMarcus Alexis and Charles 2. Wilson, Organizational Decision- Making (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967), p. 313. 12 Schoderbek, Kefolas, and Schoderbek, p. 191. 13Immegart and Pilecki, pp. 9-16. 14F. E. Emery, Systems Thinking (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd., Harmondsworth, 1969). 15Harry J. Hartley, "PPBS: The Emergence of a Systematic Concept for Public Governance," General Systems 13 (1968): 149. 16 Immegart and Pilecki, pp. 157-58. 43 17Harold A. Havey, The Planning, Programming,g8udgeting Approach to Government Decision-Making(New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publisher, 1968), p. 27. 18Richard W. Lott, Basic Systems Analysis (New York: Confield Press, 1971), p. 184. 19F. K. Levy, G. L. Thompson, and J. D. West, "The ABC's of the Critical Path Method," Harvard Business Review 4 (September- October 1963): 98-108. 20For a full description of PERT, see Joseph J. Moder and Cecil Phillips, Project Management With CPM and PERT (New York: Reinhold PublishingCorporation, 1964). 21 22Thomas H. Patten, Jr., Pay: Employee Compensation and Incentive Plans (New York: The Free Press, Collier:Macmillan Pub- lishers, 1977), pp. 343-45. 23Herbert J. Chruden and Arthur W. Sherman, Jr., Personnel Mana ement, 5th ed. (Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western Publishing Co., 1976). pp. 206-209. 24 25Peter F. Drucker, The Practice of Management (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954). P. 126. 26George S. Odiorne, MBO: A System of Manggerial Leadership (New York: Pitman Publishing Corp., 1965). 27Schoderbek, Kefolas, and Schoderbek, p. 192. 28Russell L. Ackoff, "Management Information Systems," Management Science (December 1967): 147-56. 29Robert Chin, "The Utility of Systems Models and Develop- mental Models for Practitioners," in The Plannipg of Change: Readings Immegart and Pilecki, pp. 147-55. Patten, p. 566. in the Applied Behavioral Sciences, ed. Warren G. Bennis, KennethTD: Bennet, and Robert Chin (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), pp. 204-205. 30Kurt Lewin, "Quasi-Stationary Social Equilibrium and the Problem of Permanent Change," in The Planninggof_Cpange: Readings in the Applied Behayioral Sciences, ed. Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Bennet, and Robert Chin (NewTYork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 235. 44 31Walter B. Cannon, The Wisdom of the Bogy(New York: W. W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1932), pp. 36-40. 32Norbert Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society_(Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1954), p. 22. 33 Ibid., p. 39. 34Paul A. Montello and Charles A. Wimberly, Management Systems in Education (Professional Educators Publications, 1975). 35Harry Wolcott, Teachers Versus Technocrats (Oregon: Center for Educational Policy and Management, 1977), p. 231. 36Leroy Casagrada, “Perspective." A newsletter of the School Planning, Evaluation and Communication System, Fall 1974. For future elaboration on SPECS contact Dr. John Nagle, Program Directors, SPECS, Center for Educational Policy and Management. 37Wolcott. 381bid. 39Stephen J. Knezevich, Administrative Technology and the School Executive (Washington, D.C.: American Association of School Administrators), pp. 10-11. 40Vito Perrone, "Does Accountability Count Without Teacher Support?“ An Assessment of the Kalamazoo Public Schools Accounta- bility System From the Perspective of Teachers, August 1976. 4lPhilip G. Jones, "How One School Board Judges, Rewards and Penalizes Its Superintendent on the Basis of His Performance," The American School Board Journal 161 (February 1974): 32-36. 42 43Harvey Bleecher, "The Authoritativeness of Michigan's Educational Accountability Process" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975). 44 Perrone, pp. 1-2. Ibid., p. 98. 45 46Helen Bain, "Self Governance Must Come First, Then Accounta- bility," Phi Delta Kappan 51 (April 1970): 413. Ibid. 45 47Phiiip N. Jackson, Life in Classrooms (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1968), p. 148. 48Valerie Janesick, "An Ethnographic Study of a Teacher's Classroom Perspective" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1977). 49Louis M. Smith and William Geofferey, The Complexities of of an Urban Classroom: An Analysis Toward a General Theory of Teaching (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1968), pp. 184-85. 50Dan C. Lortie, Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), p. viii. 51George A. Hillary, Jr., Communal Organizations: A Study of Local Societies (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), p. 3. 52For a full discussion on gemeinschaft and gesellschaft see Ferdinand Toennies, Fundamental Concepts of Sociology, translated and supplemented by Charles Loomis’TNew York: American Book Co., 1940 . CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES Chapter III presents a description of the procedures that were utilized in this study. This description is presented in the following divisions: methodology employed, selection of partici- pants, concept identification, concept reduction, selection of Q-sort items, pilot test, administration of Q-sort, and treatment of the data. Methodology Employed This study utilized Q-methodology and techniques to identify and analyze the belief patterns of three groups of school personnel. The first group consists (If a particular group of administrators in Michigan who are actively engaged in attempts to influence some elementary classrooms' operating procedures by the implementation of rational management models (systems). The second group is composed of some elementary classroom teachers in the state. The third con- sists of a group of elementary principals not engaged in rational management model usage. All groups were analyzed with reference to their values and beliefs about teaching, learning, and classroom organization. The Q-methodology was developed by Stephenson (1953) and involves the rank-ordering of objects (statements in this case 46 47 written on cards) by persons with statistical treatment of the data to establish clusters of people with similar belief patterns.1 In addition to the Q-sort, other information concerning personal characteristics of the participants was obtained by having the participants complete a short questionnaire before completing the Q-sort instrument (see Appendix A). Selection of Participants Administrators In Q-methodology the selection of the participants is not usually done randomly but rather they are chosen to represent iden- tifiable divisions of the population with which the study is con- cerned. For the primary group of administrators this study is concerned with rational model proponents; the Q-methodology appears to be one of the most appropriate procedures. It would not have been possible to randomly select a group of administrators around the state who are actively engaged in attempts to influence classroom procedures by the implementation of some rational management model for classroom use because the number is limited. For this reason the first task was to identify a population of administrators who are presently engaged in some attempt to impose a rational management model on classrooms. In doing so, it became necessary to carefully select administrators who have publicly identified themselves with such an effort. Over the course of many phone calls and many references from other educators, 12 adminis- trators in Michigan who fit the description for this research were 48 identified. It is important to point out here that there was not a large number of these administrators to choose from and for this reason only 12 were involved. Among the 12 were 3 superintendents, 2 principals, an asso- ciate superintendent of the Michigan Department of Education, and 6 people in central offices who have positions in planning and evaluating. Each had publicly identified him/herself with an attempt to impose a rational model on classrooms. Teachers Since the intent of this study was to identify and analyze belief patterns of some elementary classroom teachers in general and not to seek reactions of particular teachers who are directly affected by the actions of such administrators described above, the selection process for teachers proceeded in the following nonrandom manner. Six districts in Michigan were contacted and permission was granted from the district offices to approach individual schools within these districts in an effort to obtain the necessary number of teacher respondents. Individual schools were approached and the necessary number (47) of teacher respondents was acquired for the purposes of this study. Elementary Principals Again, a nonrandom selection process took place for the ele- mentary principals involved. Sixteen of the 23 principals were selected from the Middle Cities School District, which is a nonprofit 49 organization of 16 urban school districts in Michigan. The remaining seven were from surrounding districts. All were contacted and asked to participate in the study. Concept Identification Scheduled interviews were set up with each of the 12 identi- fied educators who espoused the use of rational management models (systems). (Interview questions appear in Appendix B.) The purpose of the scheduled interviews was to learn about their efforts and the assumptions they have made about teaching, learning, and classroom organization. Each interview was taped and ranged from one-half hour to two hours in length. The next task was to study the content of the protocols to gather some initial ideas about the values and beliefs these people hold. The attempt next was to isolate the beliefs they held in common and extract those beliefs and values toward the development of concepts that would contribute to a more precise instrument. Listed below are 23 belief statements of rational model proponents extracted from the interview tapes, each of which was voiced by 5 or more of the 12 subjects. 1. Learning is acquiring discrete skills. 2. Students are quite different from one another and should be approached individually. 3. Teaching can be characterized as a "delivery system" geared toward individual students. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 50 Teachers have to identify where a child is on a particular skill level and then they may bring appropriate resources to help him move to a higher level. Teaching then is a monitoring function, with the teacher monitoring individual learning activities. Classrooms should be more "rational" places. ("Rational" in this case means that distinctions between means and ends should be more clearly delineated.) It is important to articulate classroom procedures and processes to parents. Teaching-learning decisions can be made outside the classroom. There is room for individualized approaches among teachers but this individualization has gone too far. Learning outcomes are important; those outcomes should be clear. A system will improve teaching but not tell teachers how to teach. Classrooms need to be more open and accessible. Teachers should have a choice but their choice should be within a "modeled" context. External evaluation is necessary and should be increased. Measurable achievement is the goal. Administrators should review instructional processes. Abstract models of instruction are important. 51 18. Competency levels should be phrased abstractly and objective plans should be developed to attain those levels. 19. Classrooms should treat children equitably. 20. A highly mobile student population justifies the press for coordination. 21. There needs to be a more precise division of labor in education. 22. Communication among teachers should be increased. 23. There is a need for coordination across classrooms. In reviewing this list of statements, one can see that the subject administrators,vnu)are all engaged in some clear attempt to apply a version of a rational management model to classrooms, tend to hold a simplistic but fairly well integrated conceptual picture of teaching, learning, and classroom organization. They tend to view classroom learning as the acquisition of a set of discrete and measurable skills by a heterogeneous number of equal and individual learners. Hence discreteness and objectivism of learning and the universalism of the clientele are components of their value/belief pattern.- They see teaching as the bringing of appropriate resources to those learners as individuals. Hence individualization is a part of their value/belief pattern. Since they all see a clear differ- ence between teaching, the means, learning, and the end, they espouse a rationalistic approach to instruction with the applied means clearly distinct from the measurable ends. 52 Ideally, this process should lend itself to being formulated as a series of clearly defined rational procedures which, since they are stated abstractly, can be applied universally and evaluated from without. Beliefs in abstract models of instruction and external evaluation are elements of the set. It follows that since the pro- cesses can be abstracted, modeled, and given to a set of discrete but equal learners, then both teaching and learning can be organized from without. Therefore, an administrative hierarchy has an important part in the learning processes. Subsequently, this administrative hierarchy through its authoritativeness not only evaluates but can assist in the standardization of classroom procedures. And it fol- lows that if learning can best be attained by the application of abstractly defined and administered processes, then classroom pro- cedures should be open, accessible, and manipulable by those outside the classroom. Hence accessibility is part of that set of values and beliefs. In sum, the key elements in the perceptual set held by those administrators outside the classroom who are engaged in such attempts seem to revolve around these elements: objectivism of learning, universalism of students, individualization of instruction, rationalization of classroom processes, abstract modeling of instruc- tional plans, and the importance of an administrative hierarchy which will assist in standardization and external evaluation and a greater accessibility of classrooms to changes imposed from without. To this one more is added, and that is a sense of urgency. All of 53 the subjects voiced feelings that classrooms "had to change." The extent of change or degree of perceived urgency varied with each reSpondent, of course. Listed above are those concepts that were identified from the interviews with the select group of administrators. For the purpose of this study, each will be further reduced. Concept Reduction The first reduction was to take the concepts of "abstract models of instruction" and "individualization" and reduce them to one concept, which is called "a belief in the abstract rationality of classroom processes." This concept includes the belief that classroom processes should clearly delineate the cause-effect or means-end relations between the instructional activities undertaken or planned by the teacher and the outcomes expected of students. This delineation should be phrased in clear terms and be adhered to independently of the varied personalities among those who are charged with implementing it. This is what is meant by abstract. The second reduction process was to take the concepts "universalism of clientele," "discreteness of learning," and "indi- vidualization of instruction" and reduce them into one concept, which is termed "a belief in the incremental and individualized instruction." What this means is that the subjects see learning as the acquisition of groups of discrete skills and bits of infor- mation. Each individual child is at some places on the continua of acquiring these sets of skills and learning these bits of 54 information. Subsequently, the task of the teacher is to accurately ascertain the place of each child on those continua and bring to bear whatever resources will assist the child in moving along toward greater mastery. That the concept includes the idea of "universalism" means that each child is to be treated equally, unlike a normative society wherein different individuals create different roles and expectations for themselves and hence get treated, and indeed treat themselves, differentially. The third reduction was to take the concepts of "adminis- trative hierarchy" and "authoritativeness" and combine them into the concept of "the importance of administrative hierarchy in learning." These two concepts are practically synonymous and their relation has been explained above. The fourth reduction was to take the concepts "external evaluation," "standardization," and "accessibility" and reduce them to the concept of "coordination and evaluation from without." The idea here is that since the processes can be abstracted and objec- tivized, then the administrative hierarchy will be able, through independent measuring devices, to accurately assess the efforts of the teachers and the learning of the students. And since the pro- cesses are abstracted and rationalized, they will similarly be open to suggestions for improvement, and through the authoritative hier- archy, implementation of those suggestions. The fifth concept, which was perceived not needing any further reduction, is a "sense of urgency" and the value placed on change. 55 The above-identified concepts generated from the interviews with the 12 administrators encompass this group's values and beliefs about teaching, learning, and classroom organization. Since the study is designed to test the value and belief patterns of teachers, administrators who are engaged in attempts to influence classroom procedures through the imposition of some rational management models (systems), as well as administrators who are not engaged in such attempts (elementary principals), it was necessary to review each concept from the teachers' perspective. The question that had to be addressed prior to setting up individual items under each concept or category was whether teachers' beliefs about teach- ing, learning, and classroom organization could be encompassed, either affirmatively or negatively, under these concepts. While the intent is to see if the two parties differ on the issues of concern, it was perceived necessary to leave room for some possible concepts which might indicate other areas of similarity or differences. In order to search further for concepts, several related searches were undertaken. First the works cited earlier by Janesick,2 3 4 and Lortie5 were reviewed. These works contained Martin, Smith, first-hand descriptive material about some successful teachers' pro- fessional lives. In addition, a series of ten exploratory inter- views with some teachers were held. These teachers were asked to express their values and beliefs about the areas of concern. These took place to see if the concepts previously established or their converse could encompass teachers' values and beliefs. It was also perceived necessary to search for concepts not previously considered. 56 After studying the teacher protocols and the related litera- ture, it was felt that the five concepts, as they are presently formulated, may be over-representative of the administrative side of the issue (rational model users). Since the intent is to develop an instrument to which both administrators and teachers may respond, it was perceived necessary to have additional categories of items in the instrument that would allow the teacher respondents sufficient room to voice a wide range of beliefs about teaching, learning, and classroom organization. Two additional categories were generated, which will allow the subject teachers in the study a greater oppor- tunity to respond positively. The first of these concepts is "affectivity,“ and by that two things are meant. First the descriptive data indicate that much of a teacher's effort seems to be designed to gain the personal respect of the students. Lortie cites subjects from the five towns study as saying a "good teacher" was one who could "(1) produce affection and respect from students, (2) got work out of the students and (3) was effective in winning student compliance and discipline." The passage from Janesick was also cited, indicating that the teachers spent a great deal of time trying to build positive affective feelings among the students, toward developing them into a normative society. The second meaning of that concept, from the interviews with teachers, is that affectivity is itself a major instructional goal. Listed below are statements supporting this concept, which were made by several of the teacher interviewees. 57 l. I get a chance to treat people as I wish I had been treated when I was that age. 2. Insensitivity toward students is a very big concern. 3. Treating students fairly is very important. 4. The first goal of the student is to feel good about him/herself and the second is to achieve some kind of self-discipline. 5. We should be doing an awful lot of humanistic education. 6. Affective education is what should be going on in elemen- tary schools. What is pointed out here is that this goal of affectivity is an important lesson and affectivity as a means to classroom instruction appears to be a very important element in the way teachers conduct their classrooms. The second concept added is "behaviorism." This means that it seems teachers do not express their instructional goals in abstract or rational terms, but rather in terms of what behavior the students exhibit in the classroom. Of course, this is closely related to the concept of affectivity, but it is felt that this area deserves a separate identity because of the intensity with which it showed up in the data. According to Lortie, it is the way the students behave with respect to the teachers and with respect to one another that counts. After concept reduction and additions, a total of seven concepts was developed. Five of the seven were generated from 58 examining administrator interviews and two were generated from looking at descriptions of teachers (in addition to the teacher interviews). Within each of the seven it is felt that there is room IX) search for and possibly demonstrate differences between the subjects. Selection of Q-Sort Items In order to operationalize each concept, a set of items was developed. The attempt in developing a group of items was to test for differences between the parties within each of the seven cate- gories that are being used as a framework toward the exploration of belief patterns between the groups of concern. Again reviewing the studies by Janesick, Martin, Smith, and Lortie, a general list of items was developed. The list was revised by several professors in the College of Education. In total, 60 items were generated. These items were considered by local teachers, adminis- trators, fellow students, and several professors. These people were to select relevant items on the basis of their representativeness of the particular concepts and overall intent of the study. The number of items was eventually reduced to a final set of 47 to be utilized for the Q-sort instrument. (See Appendix C.) This number was reduced to 47 in order to: 1. increase its proportionality, 2 remove possible redundancies, 3. remove items which could be misinterpreted, and 4 reduce the number of items to a more manageable size. 59 People considering the items were to judge each item using the following criteria: 1. Is the message of each item understandable? 2. Are any areas unrepresented by the item sample? 3. Are any areas overemphasized?6 Overall, those considering the items felt they represented the established concepts. Pilot Test Before administering the items to the actual population, a pilot test was run. Because of the limited number of administrators who are engaged in rational management model usage in this state, none of these subjects appeared in the pilot; only teachers were used in the pilot test. Sixteen teachers were pilot tested to see if the items were representative of the concepts. These teachers were allowed to add their input. It was found that these teachers' belief patterns about teaching, learning, and classroom organization did cluster together, which indicated a similar value and belief pattern. Administration of theyg-Sort The 47 items were mimeographed onto 5x7 index cards suitable for sorting and were randomized for presentation to the participants. The participant was asked to sort the cards (items) into nine piles on a continuum ranging from very strongly agree to very strongly disagree, with varying degrees in between. The participant was required first to look through the entire deck of 47 cards and 60 select 11 he/she most agreed with and to place them on the left-- 11 more they most disagreed with were to be placed on the right, and the remaining 25 cards were to be placed in the middle. The next step required the participant to take the first stack of 11 cards on the left (those most agreed with) and further subdivide this pile by placing two cards in the very strongly agree envelope, three cards in the strongly agree envelope, and the remain- ing six cards in the moderately agree envelope. Participants were instructed to follow the same procedure for the stack of 11 cards on the right, and finally, to conduct a similar procedure for the stack of 25 cards in the middle until all the cards were placed in the envelopes that best represented the respondent's feelings about the statements. The participant was informed that following the original sort, it was allowable to go back and exchange a particular card, but the final distribution of cards had to be in the following form: Pile No. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 No. of Items 2 3 6 8 9 8 6 3 2 The Q-sort steps were incorporated into an instruction sheet (see Appendix D) which was explained to the participants. Instruc- tions and the Q-sort deck were left with the participants for several days to allow them to complete the process at their convenience. Treatment of the Data A Q-analysis computer program developed by N. Van Tubergen of the Mass Communications Research Bureau of the School of 61 Journalism of the University of Iowa was used in the study. Data were processed in the following manner: 1. A Pearson product-moment correlation matrix was con- structed by correlating every person's sort of items with those of every other person. (Two separate correlation matrices were pro- duced from two separate runs.) 2. This matrix was evaluated for principal component factors and those were submitted to varimax rotation. The obtained factors then represented groups of persons who presented similar patterns of belief. 3. The program then weighted each item response of the person by the loading of the factor with which he/she was most closely associated, summed these weighted responses across each item separately, and produced an item array of weighted responses for each factor. These item arrays were then converted to Z-scores. 4. The item arrays were then ordered from most accepted to least accepted on the basis of their Z-scores to provide a hierarchy of item acceptance for each factor. 5. The acceptance of each item by each factor (grouping) was then compared to provide a basis for differentiating the factors from one another. A difference of 1.0 in Z-scores for an item factor was considered significant.7 From the steps described above, this researcher was able to examine the different patterns of belief about teaching, learning, and classroom organization between the elementary classroom teachers, 62 the administrators engaged in rational management model (systems) usage, and the elementary principals. Validity Since the researcher was testing the theory that teachers' belief patterns about teaching, learning, and classroom organization differ from those engaged in rational management model usage, as well as from administrators not engaged in rational model usage, the following definition of validity was applied: "If the theory is valid, and if the Q-sort adequately expresses the theory, two rather big ifs, the statistical analysis of the sorts should show the theory's validity."8 Reliability Kerlinger quoted Stephenson as saying: "For statistical sta- bility and reliability, 40 or 50 items in some rare cases are suffi- cient."9 Forty-seven items for this study were determined to repre- sent the identified concepts. 63 Footnotes--Chapter III 1William Stephenson, A Study of Behavior (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953). 2Valerie J. Janesick, "An Ethnographic Study of a Teacher's Classroom Perspective" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977 . 3William H. Martin, "A Participant Observation Study of an Outdoor Education Experimental Curriculum Experiment Operating on a Public Secondary School" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1977). 4Louis Smith and William Geoffrey, The Complexities of an Urban Classroom (Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968). 5Dan C. Lortie, Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), p. 120. 6Harvey B. Tiller, "Quality Belief Patterns in Secondary Education" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 1969). 71bid., pp. 35-36. 8Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964), p. 588. 91bid., p. 582. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction This researcher examined points of differences about teaching, learning, and classroom organization between some elementary class- room teachers and some school administrators who are engaged in attempts to influence teaching, learning, and classroom teaching by the implementation of rational management models (systems). In addition, this researcher examined points of differences about teaching, learning, and classroom organization between the same group of elementary teachers and some elementary principals who are not engaged in attempts to influence teaching, learning, and class- room organization by the implementation of rational management models. A subpart of this study examined points of differences about the three areas of concern between the two administrator groups. The following questions were investigated: 1. 00 teachers' value and belief patterns about teaching, learning, and classroom organization differ from those of administrators who are actively engaged in attempts to influence teaching, learning, and classroom organi- zation by the implementation of rational management models (systems)? 2. Do teachers' value and belief patterns about teaching, learning, and classroom organization differ from those of administrators who are not engaged in attempts to influence teaching, learning, and classroom organization by the implementation of rational management models (systems)? 64 65 3. Do those administrators who are engaged in rational management model usage phrase their efforts in gesell- schaft terms? 4. Are teachers attempting to create classroom organizations with characteristics of a gemeinschaft? 5. Are elementary principals' views about teaching, learn- ing, and classroom organization different from those of administrators who are engaged in rational management model usage (systems)? A total of seven concepts was generated from a series of structured interviews with administrators engaged in rational man- agement model usage, and some classroom teacher interviews. Each concept was represented by a set of operational items. A total of 47 items was developed. These items were generated primarily from 2 3 and a review of classroom studies byJanesick,1 Martin, Smith, Lortie4 as well as from a review of the original administrator and teacher interviews. A Q-sort of these items was done by 83 teachers and administrators from various districts in Michigan. Each of the 82 participants was to sort the 47 items into 9 piles according to their relative importance regarding issues related to teaching, learning, and classroom organization. Respondents were allowed to place only a specific number of items into each pile so that their final distribution of the items appeared in the following form: Pile No. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 No. of Items 2 3 6 8 9 8 6 3 2 This resulted in the respondents placing two items they very strongly agree with into pile number nine, three they strongly agree with into 66 pile number eight, six they moderately agree with into pile number seven, eight they slightly agree with into pile number six, nine they' neither agree nor disagree with into pile number five, eight they slightly disagree with into pile number four, six they moderately disagree with into pile number three, three they strongly disagree with into pile number two, and two they very strongly disagree with into pile number one. The items in pile nine were each assigned a value of nine, those in pile eight received a value of eight, those in pile seven received a value of seven, and so on. These values were used for statistical purposes. Because Q-analysis does not allow the number of respondents to exceed the number of items, two computer runs were made to accom- modate the total number of 82 respondents. The respondents broke down into the following distribution: . 47 elementary classroom teachers . 12 administrators engaged in rational management model usage . 23 elementary principals Administrators engaged in rational management model usage and ele- mentary principals made up the first run, whereas the second run consisted of teachers. Matrices of intercorrelations were formed by correlating every person's sorting with every other person's sorting-—in this case, administrators with administrators. Teachers were not cor- related with the model users because of their similar correlation with the principals group. (See Appendix E.) The matrix was 67 submitted to analysis with items as observations and persons as variables. A principal axis solution was obtained and submitted to a varimax rotation, which produced three orthogonal factors for administrators and three for teachers. For teachers, data on three factors appeared with one factor (factor one) surfacing as meaningful. Humphrey's test (a test that measures the significance of each factor) verifies this by indicat- ing that factors two and three are not meaningful. Additionally, the arrived eigenvalue for the first factor for teachers is 19.7 compared to an eigenvalue of 2.5 for factor two and only 1.8 for factor three. Data on three factors appeared for administrators also, with the first two factors surfacing as meaningful. It is important to point out here that on the run for administrators, not one administrator engaged in rational management model usage fell under factor one. Factor one consisted entirely of elementary prin- cipals. Nine out of the 12 administrators engaged in rational management model usage fell under factor two, which had an N of 14. Although Humphrey indicates that all three administrator factors are meaningful, the arrived eigenvalue for factor one is 11.3 and 3.1 for factor two, with factor three receiving an eigen- value of only 1.6. With this information, a total of three factors collectively (from both runs) was observed for the purposes of this research: factors one and two for administrators and factor one for teachers. 68 Factor Clarification Since two distinct runs were made and each produced meaning- ful "factor ones" (i.e., one factor one composed of teachers and the other composed of elementary principals), the two will be distin- guished. The factor "one" composed of all teachers will remain as factor one, whereas the factor "one" composed of all elementary principals will now be classified as factor three to alleviate pos- sible confusion. Participant Composition Eight-two school personnel from various districts in Michigan participated in the study. Data on six factors were provided, with three being observed as meaningful. Table 1 presents the make-up of the three identified meaningful groups or types. Table l.--Participant composition. Type No. Teachers Model Users Pliflgibg1§ 1 23 23 O O 2 9 O 9 O 3 16 0 O 16 Total 48 23 9 l6 69 Selected Personal Characteristics of Participants: Teachers and A11 Administrators Age and Area Presented in Table 2 are the age distributions of teacher and administrator respondents from the meaningful factors observed, relative to the area employed. Of the age group 20-26, there were 3 teacher respondents or 100% of the total number of respondents in this age group. There were no administrator respondents between the ages of 20-26. 0f the age group 27-33, there were 14 teacher respon- dents or 88%, while there were 2 administrator respondents or 13% of the total number of respondents in this age group. There were 3 teacher respondents or 23% between the ages of 34-40, while there were 10 administrators or 77% of the total. Between the ages of 41-47, teachers comprised a total of 2 respondents or 15%, while there were 11 administrators or 85% of the total number. Of the age group 48 and older, teachers made up a total of l or 14%, while administrators made up 6 or 86% of the total number of respondents. The phi-prime coefficient for the data in Table 2 is .70 and indicates a strong association between the age of the respondent and the area employed. A basic conclusion to be reached here is that administrator respondents in the study are older than the teacher respondents. The majority of the teacher respondents were between the ages 27-33, while the majority of the administrator respondents were between the ages of 41-47. 70 Table 2.--Relation between age and area, expressed as frequencies (teachers and all administrators). Area Age Teachers Administrators Total 20-26 3 (100.0)a o ( 0.0) 3 27-33 14 ( 87.5) 2 (12.5) 16 34-40 3 ( 23.1) 10 (76.9) 13 41-47 2 ( 15.4) 11 (84.6) 13 48 and over 1 ( 14.3) 6 (85.7) 7 Total 23 29 52 a . Numbers in parentheses represent row percentages. Sex and Area Presented in Table 3 is the variable sex relative to the variable area. There were 5 male teachers or 20% of the total number of responses observed compared to 20 male administrators or 80% of the total number. For females, there were 18 teachers or 67% of the total number observed compared to 9 administrators or 34% of the total number of female respondents. Table 3.--Re1ation between sex and area, expressed as frequencies (teachers and all administrators). Area Sex Teachers Administrators Total Male 5 (20.0) 20 (80.0) 25 Female 18 (66.7) 9 (33.3) 27 Total 23 29 52 71 The phi-prime coefficient for the data in Table 3 is .47 and indicates a slight association between the sex of the respondent and the area in which the person is employed. The conclusion reached here is that the largest concentration of teacher respondents is female, while the majority of administrator respondents are male. Experience and Area Presented in Table 4 is the variable experience (years teach- ing or years as an administrator) relative to the variable area. Seven teachers or 88% of the teacher respondents had 4 or less years of experience, while only 1 or 13% of the administrators fell in this category. 0f the years between 5-8, there were 6 or 60% of the total number of teacher respondents compared to 4 or 40% admin- istrator respondents. Seven teachers had between 7 and 12 years of experience (50% of the total number), while 7 administrators or 50% had had between 9-12 years of experience. One teacher had between 13-16 years of experience or 25% compared to 3 administrators or 75% of the total number of respondents in this experience category. One teacher had between 17-20 years of experience or 20%, while there were 4 administrators or 80% falling in this category. One teacher or 25% of the teacher respondents had 20 or more years of experience, while 3 or 75% of the administrators had 20 or more years experience. The phi-prime coefficient for the data in Table 4 is .44, and indicates a slight association between experience and area. The conclusion to be reached is that the majority of the teacher respon- dents had either 1-4 years of experience or 9-12 years, compared to 72 administrators having 9-12. The administrators overall have more experience than the teachers. Table 4.--Re1ati0n between experience and area, expressed as frequencies (teachers and all administrators). Experience Area (Years) Teachers Administrators Total 1- 4 7 (87.5) 1 (12.5) 8 5- 8 6 (60.0) 4 (40.0) 10 9-12 7 (50.0) 7 (50.0) 14 13-16 1 (25.0) 3 (75.0) 17-20 1 (20.0) 4 (80.0) 5 20 or more 1 (25.0) 3 (75.0) Total 23 22 45 Selected Personal Characteristics of Participants: *AmeHTStrators and Administrators Administrators in factor two (i.e., administrators who are engaged in rational management model usage) and administrators in factor three (i.e., elementary principals) were compared on the following variables: Age and Area Presented in Table 5 are the age distributions of the two groups of administrators relative to the particular area in which they are employed (i.e., administrators engaged in rational management model usage and elementary principals). None of the administrators engaged in rational management model usage was between the ages of 73 20-26. One elementary principal fell into this age group, which constituted 100% of the total number of administrator respondents in this age group. One rational model administrator or 50% was between the ages of 27-33, compared to 1 elementary principal or 50% of the total number of respondents falling in this age group. Five rational management model administrators or 50% were between the ages of 34-40, compared to 5 or 50% of the elementary principals. There were 2 rational management model users or 18% between the ages of 41-47, while 9 or 82% of the elementary principals were between the ages of 41-47. One rational management model administrator or 17% was 48 or older, while 5 or 83% of the elementary principals were 48 or older. Table 5.--Relation between age and area, expressed as frequencies (administrators and administrators). Area Age Total Model Usersa Elem. Principals 20-26 0 ( 0.0) 1 (100.0) 27-33 1 (50.0) 1 ( 50.0) 2 34-40 5 (50.0) 5 ( 50.0) 10 41-47 2 (18.2) 9 ( 81.8) 11 48 and over 1 (16.7) 5 ( 83.3) 6 Total 9 21 30 aAdministrators engaged in rational management model (systems) usage. The phi-prime coefficient for the data in Table 5 is .36, and indicates a slight association between age and area. In 74 conclusion, the largest concentration of model users is between the ages of 34-40, while the largest concentration of elementary prin- cipals is between the ages of 41-47. Sex and Area Presented in Table 6 is the variable sex relative to the variable area. There were 6 male rational management model users or 30% compared to 14 male elementary principals constituting 70% of the total number of respondents for all male administrators. There were 3 female rational management model users or 30% compared to 7 female elementary principals or 70%. Table 6.--Relation between sex and area, expressed as frequencies (administrators and administrators). Area Sex Model Users Elem. Principals Total Male 6 (30.0) 14 (70.0) 20 Female 3 (30.0) 7 (70.0) 10 Total 9 21 3O The phi-prime coefficient for the data in Table 6 is .00, which indicates no association between the variables sex and area employed. In conclusion, the majority of rational management model administrators are male, while majority of elementary principals are also male. 75 Experience and Area Presented in Table 7 is the variable experience relative to the variable area. There were no rational management model users with 1-4 years of experience, while there were 5 elementary princi- pals or 100% of the total number of respondents within that experi- ence range. One rational management model user or 17% had 5-8 years of experience, while 5 elementary principals or 83% had 5-8 years of experience. There was 1 rational model user or 25% with 9-12 years of experience, while there were 3 or 75% of the elementary princi- pals with 9-12 years of experience. No rational model users had 13-16 years of experience, while 4 or 100% of the elementary prin- cipals fell within this experience range. There were 2 rational management model users with 17-20 years of experience or 67%, while there was 1 elementary principal or 33% with 17-20 years of experi- ence. A total of 8 observations was missing, which prevented analyzing the variable experience with the variable area for the groups with 20 or more years of experience. The phi-prime coefficient for therdata of Table 7 is .56, which indicates a moderate association between the variable experi- ence and area employed. General conclusions were not reached because of the eight missing observations. 76 Table 7.--Relation between experience and area, expressed as frequencies (administrators and administrators). Experience Area (Years) Model Users Elem. Principals Total 1- 4 0 ( 0.0) 5 (100.0) 5 5- 8 1 (16.7) 5 ( 83.3) 6 9-12 1 (25.0) 3 ( 75.0) 4 13-16 0 ( 0.0) 4 (100.0) 4 17-20 2 (66.7) 1 ( 33.3) 3 Total 4 18 22 Item Typal Belief Patterns Item patterns for each of the three factors were estimated by weighting the person most highly associated with a given factor to the degree with which he/she was related to that factor. The higher a person's loading on the factor, the greater was the weight. These weights were applied to each item response and the weighted item scores were then summed across all persons on the factor. This produced an array of weighted item scores for each of the factors or types. The arrays of weighted item scores were then converted to Z-scores where the highest Z-score is attached to the item deemed most important by the particular group of respondents regarding their beliefs about teaching, learning, and classroom organization.5 Descriptive Titles A descriptive title was applied to each of the three factors to provide the reader with a necessary frame of reference. For 77 factor one (teachers) and factor two (administrators engaged in rational management models' usage) the original sociological concepts gemeinschaft and gesellschaft are applied; gemeinschaft-oriented to represent the teachers and gesellschaft-oriented for the subject administrators. Factor three (elementary principals) will be referred to as teacher-oriented because of their response pattern described in the following sections. Type One (Gemeinschaft-Oriented Teachers) Belief Pattern An array of item statements ordered according to the way the gemeinschaft-oriented teachers responded to items regarding teaching, learning, and classroom organization is presented in Table 8. Listed on the left-hand side are the item numbers for reference purposes; next are the items with the particular concept listed in parentheses, and appearing on the right are the Z-score values. For the purposes of this study, items ranking one or more standard deviation above or below the mean were considered to be significant. Items above or below this point represent those most strongly agreed or disagreed with by the particular group of respondents. A standard deviation of 1.0 was chosen arbitrarily as a cut-off point for determining those items with which respondents most strongly agreed or disagreed. Items falling between a Z-score value of 1.0 and -l.O are also listed to provide the reader with additional information on the overall response pattern. Those items type one most strongly agree with have a Z-score value of 1.0 or above. This type believe that matters like 78 opm. Axuwpmcowumc pumcumnmv m:_;oemu uoom cu meucmmmm we umcwmmu apcmmpu Ems» cmmzamn mcompepms any use umumum apcmmpo use mm>paumnno ace upmom :pmcmgz Emumam < a o_m. .A»5_Pe=ewoae ooeeomeav moLoL>Looa soosmmepo ppm LoC mpmom voumum xpcwmpu m>ms mcmsummu yoga acmucoaem mp pH 5 ems. .A_e=ewsweew .FeoeoEoeoewv meweoeoo o>woooeco so mummmzamsmca ucmwsoqsp an we xawczssou-wcws a one? mmopu mg» Go acmsgopm>mo mm cap.~ .Asom>ecmn mgmgpo on pumamms saw: mmmpu cw o>egma macwusum go; we mEoomempu cw awn» pcmpgoasw one me me_._ .A_e=eL>PeeL .FeoeoEoLoeLv Fo>o_ Pesewsweew Lo; Lo are we mcmxcoz my upwgu some ceases: mmosp wee mEooemmepu Fawmmmuusm umoe mzh mm oo~.F .Asup>woooecav masouazo mFBmczmmms new: mw>pmmsmgu :Lmucou cg: omega coca m>wuummmm egos use compuzgumcw cu mmgomocqam umumwcmssg cam: mw>mesogp csmucou on: mgmcomwh me mem.F .Apeacm>wucw .qucmEmcucpv mecca soogmmmpu o» stowcou op c—Pgu page Low mm up we xppezum>wvcw m>wwgom op upwgu a so; acmpcoasp we we um um emm.F .Aapwpmcowumc pumsumamv use cm cwmsms ppwz tee use cm mm mcwgumwu uoow N em¢.p .Asom>e;mn .xuw>wuummemv mcmguewp so» Foam ucepcoaew cu m_ mmuauwpuw Papoom pcmuaum m>wuwmoa mcwupwzm Fe moo.— .Axuv>wpumw$mv mummy umNWucevcmpm co aco2m>mpcum seep “seasons? wees men mucmuzum ace mgmgummu cwmzpmn mcompmpmc m>mawmoa me «mm.— .Axpw>wuumwmov womammc chomcma saw: mpcmuaum ummsp on we on coo mcmgummp mews“ oncogene? amos one cc mcoom-N =o_pawL6mma emuH swam .Ao., 3.02. mew»? ucmuwtwcmwmv mcmcommp to; mmsoumuN mo xmscm mcwucmummv new mco_uawcummu EmaHuu.w mpnme 79 ee_.- .Aosoeopz .cowumcmucooov mmwuw>wpum Pacowuuacamcp sm>o >Eocogzm m>mc op use memeuew» em mop. Apmzup>mucw .Pmucmsmcucmv mpmma amgmuaniampm a co vmssuuagam on emu newccemA mm com. .Azumpecowuec pumcumnmv mcmcummu noon on zgamwmum: use m—mvos pmcowuochmca m mom. .Apmzuw>wu:w .Pmucmsmgucwv mmwum>muue mcwcgmm_ umNPFmsuw>wucw 4o Loumcummguso mg» on on me new m.Lm;omwu < em mmm. .Ammcmgu zucmmcsv mmcmcu chowumusum same no: com: mcmgumm» up oev. .Ammcmsu xucomczv mmzawccump acycummu vm>ogasm on m>pm=oamwg uses on o» vow: mswgummh FF mom. .Axgw>muum$wwv m>wuumm$m may no gmaocm no: ecu mcwccmwp mo pomamm m>wuwcmou mg» no umompg mwmmzasm guns cop mp peace we 0mm. .Aspvpeeowoee Homepages moPSL>Ppoe Pacowuussumcm megu mo mmsoupso caveman? ms» ewe—axm spammpo cu vow: msmgummh 0 men. .Ammmuoga m:_:smmp ..:Fsuov mgmgummp on» Co auw_wnwmcoammc we» prcmewcn ma upzosm meoocmmmpu esp cw mompa wage» was: up mme. .Apesew>weep .Faoeoeoeoe_v mpm>wp ucmem>m_;ue ucmwaum mmwmc on mamcmoca mcwcsemp um~mFmaum>mucH Pm «me. .Acow>m;mnv soogmmmpu mgu c? m>mzmn mucwuaum an: mgu o>cmmao on we mmocm>wuuweem smguwmu mcwmmmmmm cw acmEum “cantons? umoe ask me man. .Azaw>muuwwmmv —mom soosmmmpu cones mew umsmwpasouue coca m>mz mcmsummu .Lmnpozm mco com mcpxwp use pumnmmg .mucmczum mcwaopw>mu an ac mgoumiN cowpawsummo EmuH swam .eoseeoeoo--.m o_aee 80 personal respect for students, positive class relations among students, and establishing student respect for other students are of utmost impor- tance. These teachers do not believe teaching is or can be a science, but rather they see it as an art. Two items falling under the concept of incremental and individualized instruction ranked high (i.e., having a Z-score of 1.0 or more) in the teachers' response pattern. It is worth pointing out here that items under this concept were generally ranked high by all three groups, as will be observed in the later tables. It is therefore decided that although this concept and its representative items are important, it is not perceived as one that clearly distinguishes the belief patterns of the different groups of concern. For replication purposes, the items under this concept should appear differently in order to more accurately assess differ- ent belief patterns. In general, items believed most important by teachers in the study were those pertaining to positive-humanistic working relationships in the classroom. The items which type one most strongly disagree with have a Z-score value of -1.0 or below and are presented in Table 9. These items primarily refer to these teachers' rejection of outside inter- ference by administrators. These teachers are strongly against any evaluation using student achievement test scores as a way to measure teacher effectiveness. Programs are not to be selected from those chosen by administrators but rather selected by themselves. These teachers feel that not all learning activities taking place in the classroom can be measured. Some things teachers do in the classroom simply cannot be tested. 81 mm~.- .Aaoozupz .oo_uoomogooov mmoooom Losooou op “cantons? m? mowup>wpoo mowccoop mo cowuoo_ogooo oowzuuowgamwo um wom.- .Apo=o_>woop .PoucoEoLoowv Fooow>woow gooo on son» Locum; ooocm o mo memosoop op moogoomoc mopmowgo Go now o zpwcoewco my mcpguoo» mm mmm.- .Aomoogo xuoomsov omo meow» o>wmuzuoozp czocx mo: cog» 3o: momsooou Poemmoooom woooo ozocx m? woos zoo: m omo.- .momooco xocmmsov opooopo> mowoo moo meoumam Fooowuoogumom cw momcozo oomo oco on» mo «mo: mF mmm.u .Apo=o_>woov .—ouoosoco:_v mucoooum mooEo cowuocooooo ou ousnwguooo msosmoco movosoop ooNEPooow>woou om ~m~.- .Arooo_>woow .PopcoEoLoowv mowuw>wuoo ooocm mo commons on“ on on we now m.co;ooou < NN NNN.- .Aomcogo >u:omcov mooowogoop Pooopposcpmop umoaoF mop sue: on now; mgoguooh op co~.- .Aomcozo accomcov opaum pooom>vo:_ m.co;ooou one mo moo—ocomoc oouooEopoew on coo msoumxm Fooo_poscumcw pommmoooom m omm.- .Apoosuvz .covuocwocooov woo awn“ cos» ocoe oouoomocooo on op woo: mowuw>muoo Loguoou Fooom>wooH mm o-.- .Auooguw: .cowuoowocoouv powcomwo ocmuoo co owguwz aumoomuooo Pocomuoscumow ogsmop mgoooopo Fooowuouoom mm mo~.- .Aomcogo xu:omcov ozoso>o mcop woo mooowogoou PocowuoosumoP Logooop ow momoosu m_ mom.- .Axpwpocowuoo guacamoov oooowom o or axes coo o3 poo poo co mp mopzooo» m mm—.- .Aomoogo xucomgov 3o: me up xoz on“ soc» poocoomwo appmo> on Ppwz mowgooou soocmmopo .mcoo» o>wwuzucozu :H op mop.- .Ammooogo mowocoop ..=wsoov momsooou Loo ooom m? oowuoopo>o o>waogpmwopso< op «LoomiN cowuopcomoa souH EmuH .Ao.P- zepoa mew»? pcoowopcmwmv mcogooou so» motoomuN mo xocco mcwocoomoo ooo moompowoomoo soumui.m opooh 82 oom.~u . .Auaogum: .oomueomocooov mmooo>wuoo$oo Logoeou ogomeos on he: “moo on» one motoom poop nooso>owzoe ucoooum mm Fmo.~- .Aoeocuw: .cowoeowogooov msooommepo ow co moom peg; so» —oom ooom e oweocwee Ppwom oeo msoocmme_o new: uoepooo poocmo cw «o: oce on: mgouegpmpowso< mm “Nm.—- .Axuwpeoowoeo ooegomoev ooomoo on :eo peso emcee» omogo momgoeoo ocezoo ooooocpo on on oge mugomoo cones .mgozoeoh F moo.P- .Ammoooco mowcLeop ..:_Eoev msooecumpowsoe xo oo:PELoooo oo o» oce mooowocooo momgoeoo cw momcegu pm Foo.pu .Auoosowz .cowueopogooov moosoeoo ose :esu mopsoeoo or moowue>occw ozone oseo. ou cowowmoo couooo e o? ope soocmmepo one oowmaoo meooeoooo omoge mm mmo.F- .Ammooogo mowogeop ..=Psoev msoogmmepo ogp cw eon: mpe_couee one moosuoe osu ow oowo> moogom e o>e= op ose mgooecompcwso< my mmm.F- .Ammoooeo mcwoceop ..:wsoev mgooeomogooo one moocoepo oowomo Fecoooo an ooooopom omoso Soto ooee on o» ope msecmogo Lepoowoseo mcwocemoc o>es mcogoeoo moowosu om Poo.~- .Ammooogo mcwcseop ..=wsoev mcwogeop ocoooum op cowooowsoooo woeosooem :e we ooowgomoo on “moo ceu oopmw>soo=m o>woecumwcwso< mp eee.- .Apeseeswee_ .peucososoomv cw pcowowmoo on op mocoooum ozu 3ogm mpmoa oonoLeoceum peso mppwxm Lepouwuseo omosu oopo>oo ou mp xmeo cones m.go;ueou ogh mu Nm~.- .Apooguwz .cowuecwoooouv mopzpm Peoowooooumcm .mgogoeoo moose xuwmco>mo zoos oou xpooomoco mp ogogh mm osoomiN corpowcumoo soon sopH .eesevoeoo--.m opeee 83 Type Two (Gesellschaft-Oriented Administrators)Belief Pattern Presented in Table 10 is an array of item statements ordered according to the way the gesellschaft-oriented administrators (type two) who are engaged in rational management model usage responded to items regarding teaching, learning, and classroom organization. Those items which type two most strongly agree with have a Z-score of 1.0 or above. Type two, which is composed primarily of administrators who are engaged in rational management model usage, strongly believe that teachers need to clearly explain the intended outcomes of their instructional activities. This type believe that classroom goals and objectives need to be clearly stated and the relations between them clearly defined. For these administrators, these matters are essen- tial to what they perceive as good teaching. Where teachers (type one) believe administrative evaluation is not necessary to good teaching, type two believe administrative evaluation is good for teaching. Individualization is believed to be a major goal for teachers to work toward in their classrooms. Programs that have discernible ends are also believed important. Those items type two most strongly disagree with have a Z-score of -l.O or below and appear in Table 11. Unexpectedly, this group is strongly against using student achievement test scores as the best way to measure teacher effectiveness. But this group is strongly against too much teacher autonomy over instructional activi- ties. This group states that they cannot possibly maintain a good feel for what goes on in classrooms. The group of responses appearing 84 men. .Anyypenoypen poenpmnev mnynoeoy ooom op anemmooon one myooos yenoypoonymnp m «mm. .Ammooono anynneoy ..nyEoev msoonmmepo ony np oom: myeynoyee one moonyos ony ny ooyo> mnonpw e o>en oy one mnoyenymynysoe my ymo.p .Anpy>yyoonnev pooomon yenomnoo npyz mynoooym peony op my oo neo mnonoeoy onyny pneynoosp ymoe on» on no_._ .Ammooono mnynneoy ..nysoev anyoneoy ynoooym op nopyonynynoo yneynoosy ne me oonynomoo on ymon neo noymy>noo=m o>ypenymynyso< my may.y .Ayeoop>yony .yeynoEononyv moyyy>yyoe anyoneop ooNy—eooy>yonp no nopenpmonono onp on op my now m.nonoeoy < om pn~.p .Ayeooy>pony .yeynoEononyv menon Economepo oy snonnoo op onyno yenp non my pp we spyesop>neep esopnoe op oppno e non yeepnonep me my pp pm mmm.~ .Azypyenoyyen poenymnev moppy>yyoe soonmmeyo ype non myeoa ooyeym xyneoyo o>en mnonoeoy yenp yneynoosy my pp u 5mm.y .Ayeooy>yony .yeynoeononyv yo>oy yeooy>yony non no myn ye mnpnnoz my oyyno noeo nyononz omony one msoonmmeyo yonmmoooom pmoe on» mm mmo._ .Anop>enon .zpy>pyoonyev mnonoeoy non yeom yneynoosp ne my moooyyype peyoom ynooopm o>yppmoo anyoyyom yo oym._ .Ammooonn anyoneop ..nysoev mnynoeoy non ooom my nopyeope>o o>yyenpmynyso< my mmo.~ .Aapyyenoyyen yoenpmnev mnynoeop ooom op yeyynommo my oonyooo apneoyo Sony noozyon mnoypeyon onp one oopepm apneoyo one mo>yyoonno one m—eom nyononz EopmAm < o mm~.~ .Axpypenoyyen poenpmnev moypy>ypoe yenoypoonymny npony no moeooyoo ooonoyny onp nyeyoxo apneopo oy ooon mnonoeoh m onoomiN noypoynumoo soy” soyp .Ao.y o>one meopy yneoynynmpmv mnopenpmynysoe ooynopnoiymenomyyomom non monoomuN no xenne anyonoomoo one mnoyyoynumoo soypiu.op oynep 85 meo.- .nnyn>nyoonnen osypoonne any no nosoeo pon one mnnnneoy no pooome o>ypynmoo onp no ooueno enmenoso nuns ooy on ononn No yoo. .Apoonyn3 .nonyennonooov yonnymno onnyno ne nnnynz apynnnynoo yenonyonnymnn onnmnn mnonneyo penonpeooom mm moo. .Ammooono mnnnneoy ..nnsoev mnonoeoy onp no myynnnnmnoomon ony xynnesnno on oyzonm meoonmmeyo onp nn ooeyo money yen: up no_. .Apoonynz .nonpennonooov mmouuzm nonoeoy oy yneynoosn on monyn>nyoe mnnnneo. no nonyennonooo oonziyonnpmno mm opp. .Anon>enonv Economeyo onp nn o>enon mynoooym me: onp o>nomno oy my moono>nyoonno nonoeoy mnnmmomme nn ynosoyo pneynoosn ymos one no .Aomneno monomnov ooono>o mnoy one mononnnoop yenonyoonpmny nonoeoy nn momnenu my own. .Ayeoon>nonn .yeynosononnv myo>oy pnoso>onnoe ynoonym omnen oo msenmono mnnnneon ooaneoon>nonH Fm nmo. .Anon>enon mnonyo oy yooomon nynz mmeyo nn o>enon mynoooym son my msoonmmeyo nn nnnp yneynoosn onn on «mm. .Ayeooy>nonn .neynosonunnv mnmen ooymianuooym e no oonoyoonym on neo mnnnneon mm com. .Aomneno monomnav monopnnoop mnnnoeop oo>onosn op o>nmnoomon ones on oy ooon mnonoeon PP mom. .Aomneno monomnov omneno yenonyeoooo neon yon ooon mnonoeon Np onoom-~ nonponnomoo sopp soyp .ooeenyeeo--.op oneey 86 mmm.- .Aapn>npoonnev mosoopao opnenomeos npnz mo>PomEony nnoonoo on: omony neny o>npoonno once one nonpoonpmnn op monueonooe onymyneson npnz mo>yomsonp nnoonoo on: mnonoeon me nnn.- .Ayeoon>nonn .yeynoEononnv monyn>nyoe ooonm no nomenes onp on oy my now m.nonoeoy < «N nno.- .Aomneno monomnov oyaym peoon>nonp m.nonoeoy ony no mmononemon oopnosoyosn on neo msoymxm nenonpoonymnn yonmmoooom m mmn.- .Axyn>nyoonnev mymoy ooNnoneoneym no pnoEo>onnoe neny yneynooen once one mynooopm one mnonoeop noozyon mnonyeyon o>npymon me nno.i .Azpnnenonyen yoenpmnev ounonom e yn ones neo o3 yon yne ne mp mnnnoeon m mam.- .nnesepsneen .peyeononoeyo mynooopm mnose nonyenooooo oy oyannnynoo mEenmono mnnnneoy oo~nneoon>nony om mmm.- .Ayeoon>nonn .nepnosononnv mnynoeoy o>nyoonno op opnmnooonono ynepnoosn ne my apnnoseoounnns e opnn mmeyo onp no ynosooyo>oo mm mnm.- .Aoaneno monomnov zon my yn aez ony Eonn pnononnno anyme> on Pynz mnnnoeoy soonmmeyo .mneoa o>nnizpnozy np on mmm.- .Aomneno monomnov ome mneo» o>nnuxpnozp nzonn me: neny 3o: mnnnoeoy ponmmoooom poone nzonn on onos non: w mmm.i .Ayoonpnz .nonpennonooov mnonoeop one neny mnnnoeoy nn mnonpe>onnn yoone nneoy oy nonyymoo nopyon e nn one soonmmeyo onp oonmpoo mnoyeoooo omonn mm FNN.- .Aneoon>nonn .yeynosononnv nn ynononnoo on op mynoooym onp zone mpmoy ooNnoneo -neym yeny m—ynnm neyoonyneo omony ooyo>oo op on nmey nones m.nonoeop onn mm mmo.- .Aomneno zonoanov oyneoye> opyoo one msopmAm yenonyoonymny nn moaneno oomooono onp no poo: my ono.- .Ayoonyyz .noyyennonooov 0L6 paw—B. :53. mLOE DmHMCPULOOU mn— on— Umm: mmwuw>muum ngummu szuw>wUCH mm onoomuN nonponnomoo sopp nopH .Ao.yu zoyon mEoyn pneonnnnmnmv mnoyenymnnnEoe oopnonnoupnenompyomom non monoomnN no nenne mnnonoomoo one mnonyonnomoo Eoyyuu._n opnen 87 mmm_.- .Ayoonynz .nonpennonooov mmono>nyoonno nonoeoy onomeoe op me: pmon onp one monoom ymoy pnoso>oynoe pnooopm mm nom.n- .Apoonynz .nonyennonooov monyn>nyoe yenoyyuonpmnn no>o zsonoyae o>en op one mnonoeon em oyo.n- .Ayoonpn: .noyyennonooov msoonmmeyo nn no moon yen: non noon ooom e nnepnnee npyym neo meoonmmeyo nyyz yoeynoo yoonno nn yon one on: mnoyenymynn5o< mm onm.p- .npesep>neey .neyeoEononpv yeeensnenp noeo oy neny nonyen ooonm e we mnonneoy oy moonoomon mnnmnnnn no non e xnnneenno my mnnnoeon mm mom.y- .Ammooono mnynneoy ..nnsoev mnoyenymnnnsoe an oonnsnoyoo on op one mononnnooy mnnnoeop nn momnenu Fm yw_.n- .Ammooono mnnnneoy ..nnEoev mnoyennonoou one mnonneno oonnno yenpnoo xn oopooyom omonp Eonn oer on op one maenmono nepoonyneo anyonemon o>en mnonoeop moonono om ewy.y- .nnynpenonpen yoenymeen eopmoy on neo yenp mannny omonp mnnnoeoy onezop ooyoonno on op one mpnonno nowes .mnonoeon y nmo.y- .Aomnenu aunomnov mononnnooy penonyoonymnn pmopen onp nynz o: ooon mnonoeon on oyo.y- .Axpnyenonyen poenpmnev yne ne nneson yynz one yne ne my annnoeop ooon N mmm.u .Aapn>nyoonnev neon soonmmeyo nomee onp oonmnposoooe nonp o>en mnonoeoy .nonyone ono non unnnnn one yooomon .mpnooopm unnoo—o>oo an on mom.u .Ayoonpnz .noyyennonooov moPAym yenonyoonymnn .mnonoeop onoEe mynmno>no none ooy hypnomono on ononn mm onoomiN nonponnUmoo Eopy Eoyp .eoseppeeo--.nn onnep 88 at the bottom of Table 11 differed from the response anticipated at the outset of this investigation. Type Three (Teacher-Oriented Administrators) Belief Pittern An array of item statements according to the way the teacher- oriented administrators (type three) responded to matters regarding teaching, learning, and classroom organization is presented in Table 12. The items which type three most strongly agree with have a Z-score of 1.0 or above. Type three generally believe that teach- ers who concern themselves with humanistic approaches to instruction are more effective than those who concern themselves with measurable outcomes. Positive relations between teachers and students are believed to be more important than achievement on standardized tests. Type three believes that successful classrooms are those wherein each child is working at his/her own level. Building positive social attitudes is believed most important and teaching to this type is an art and will remain an art. The items which type three most strongly disagree with are those with a Z-score of -l.O or below; they appear in Table 13. Type three generally believe that student achievement test scores are not the best way to measure teacher effectiveness. 'This type believes that teachers and not administrators are to determine what changes, if any, are to take place in classrooms. Administrators like themselves are not necessarily in a better position than teach- ers to learn about innovations in teaching. It is also believed by 89 men. .Aomneno nonomnov monopnnooy mnnnoeoy oo>onoep op o>pmnoomon onoe on op ooon mnonoeon pp eon. .ANpppeoonpen yoenpooev monopopyoe penopyoonpmnp npony no mosoopoo ooonoynp onp nnepoxo apneopo op ooon mnonoeop o pen. .npooopopeon .pepoononoonn moppp>pyoe mnpnneop ooNppeoop>ponp no nopenpmonono onp on oy on non m.nonoeop < nN mom. .Axpppenopyen poenpmnev mnpnoeop ooom op pepynommo my oonnnoo apneopo Sony noozyon mnopyepon onp one ooyepm apneopu one mo>nyoonno one mpeom npononz Eoympm < o moo. .ANppsppoonnop oonpoonne onp no nooooo yon one mnnnneop no yooome o>pynnmoo onp no oouepo enmenoso noes ooy mp ononn No omp.p .npeoop>ponn .peynoEononnv menon soonmmepo oy Enonnoo op oppno yenp non mp pp me appeoop>nonp o>opnoe op oppno e non yneynoosn me on pp nN NMN.p .nzynpenonyen yoenymnev yne ne npeson ppnz one yne no on mnpnoeoy oooo N noo.p .nnop>enon .npp>npoonnev mnonoeop non peom ynepnooep no on moooypyye pepoom ynooopm o>pynmoo mnpoppom po nen.p .Apeoop>ponp .peynoEononpv po>op peoop>ponp non no mpn ye mnpxnoz mp oppno nueo npononz omonp one msoonmmepo ponmmoooom pmoE onp mN pmm.p .Axyp>ppoonnev yooomon penomnoo nypz mynooopm peony op on oo neo mnonoeoy onnny ynepnooep ymos onp on pom.p .npyp>nyoonnev mymoy ooNponeoneym no ynoso>opnoe neny pneynoosp once one mynoooym one mnonoeop noozyon mnopyepon o>pypmon mo nno.N .napp>npoonnev mosoopoo opnenomeoe nypz mo>pomeony nnoonoo on: ooony neny o>ppoonno once one nopyoonymnp oy monoeonooe opympneson nypz mo>pomsony nnoonoo on: mnonoeon mo onoomuN nopyonnomoo soyp Eoyp .no.p o>one msoyp yneonnnnupmp mnoyenympanoe oopnopnoinonoeoy non monoomiN no zenne mnponoomoo one mnoppopnomoo noppuu.Np opnep 90 opo.- .nomneno aunomnov ooono>o mnop one monopnnooy penopyoonpmnp nonoeoy np momnenu mp nNo. .npeoop>ponn .pepnosononpv onpnoeop o>ppoonno oy oypmnooonono pnepnooen ne mp xynnossoounnps e opnp mmepo onp no pnosoopo>oo mN mNo. .ppeoop>ponp .peynoEononpv enmen oopm-»nuooym e no oonoyoonpm on neo mnnnneop mN an. .nomneno monomnop opaym peoop>ponp e.nonoeoy onp no mmoponemon ooynosopoep on neo meopmzm penonyoonymnp ponmmoooom m mop. .npnonppz .nonyennonooov one nony neny onoe ooyenponooo on op ooon moppp>nyoe nonoeop peoop>ponp mm pON. .nomneno zonomnov omneno penoppeoooo neon yon ooon mnonoeop Np nmo. .nnop>enonv mnonpo op yooomon nypz mmepo np o>enon mynoooym non mp meoonmmepo np mnnnp yneynoosp onp no wee. .npeoopopoop .popoononoopp mpnooopm mnose noppenooooo op oponpnpnoo onenmono mnpnneop ooaneoon>nonp om mom. .Aapp>npoonnev peom economepo nowes onp oonmnposoooe nony o>en mnonoeop nonpone ono non mnpnpp one pooomon .mynoooym mnpoopo>oo am on moo. .Mpooopspoop .pepoononoopp mpo>op ynoso>opnoe ynoooym ompen oo msenmon mnpnneop ooaneoon>ponp pm one. .ANynpeooppen poonpooov monopopyoe soonmmepo ppe non mpeom ooyeym apneopo o>en mnonoeop yenp ynepnoosn mp pp n onoomuN nonponnomon Eopp sopp .oooopyooo--.~p opoey 91 mmn.- .nyoonypz .nopyenponooov mopaym penopyoonyenp .mnonoeop mnose aypmno>po noes ooy apynomono on ononp mm mom.- .pAyppenopyen yuenymnev oonopom e yp ones neo oz yon yne ne mp mnpnoeop m Nmm.- .nmmooono onpnneop ..npsoev meoonmmepo onp np oom: mpepnoyes one moonyos onp np oopo> mnonpm e o>en op one mnoyenympnpso< mp oom.- .npeoepopoop .peynoEononpv mopyp>pyoe ooonm no nomenes onp on op on non m.nonoeoy < NN mom.- .nomneno monomnov monopnnoop penopyoonymnp pmoyep onp nyp: o: ooon mnonoeon op omo.- .nyoonypz .nopyenponooov popnympo onpyno ne npnypz xyponnynou penoppoonymnn onomnp mnonnepo penopyeooom Nm mNo.- .nomneno xenomnov one mneo» o>pnuxyno3y nzonn me: neny zoo mnpnoeoy ponmmooonm yoone nzonn on once non: w oom.- .nyoonppz .nopyenponooov mEoonmmepo on no moom pen: non poon ooom e npeynnee ppppm neo msoonmmepo nypz yoeynoo yoonno np yon one on: mnoyenpmpnp5o< mm ONN.- .nmmooono mnpnneop ..nnsoev mnnnneop ynoooym op nonponpnynoo yneynooep ne me oonpnomoo on pmon neo nonmp>noonm o>ppenympano< mp an.- .nmmooono mnpnneop ..anoep mnonoeoy onp no Aypppnpmnoomon ony Appneepno on opoonm msoonmeepo onp np ooepo money yen: np nop.- .noaneno zonomnov go: on pp he: onp Eonn ynononnpo xppme> on ppnz mnpnoeop soonmmepo .mneoz o>nnuppnozy np op oNp.- .Anop>enonv Economepo onp np o>enon mynooopm he: onp o>nomno op mp mmono>pyoonno nonoeoy onpmmomme np ynosopo yneynoosn ymoe onp no omo.- .Ammooono mnnnneop ..nnsoev mnpnoeoy non oooa mp nonyeope>o o>pyenympnp5o< op moo.- pzyppenopyen yoenymnev onpnoeoy ooom oy nnemmooon one mpooos penopyonnymnp m onoomuN noppopnomoo soyp soyp .no.p- 3opon msoyp yneonnpnmpmv mnoyenympnpsoe ooynonnoinonoeoy non monoumuN no aenne mnponoomoo one mnonyonnomoo Eoppiu.mp opnep 92 pmo.N- .nyoonypz .nopyenponooov mmono>pyoonno nonoeoy onomeos op me: ymon onp one monoom ymoy ynoEo>opnoe ynoooym mm mom.p- .Ammooono mnpnneop ..npsoev mnoyenympnpsoe no oonpsnoyoo on op one monopnnoop mnnnoeoy np moanenu pN mmo.p- .Apoonypz .nopyenponooov mnonoeoy one neny mnnnoeop nn mnonpe>onnn yoone nneop oy nopypmoo noyyon e on one soonmmepo onp oopmpeo mnoyeozoo ooon» mm ono.p- , .nnpnpenopyen yoenymnev ooymoy on neo yenp mmnpny omony mnpnoeoy onezoy ooyoonpo on op one mynonno nones .mnonoeop p mmN.p- .nmmooono mnnnneop ..npeoev mnopennonooo one mnonnepo oopnno penynoo an ooyoopom omonp Eonn ooee on op one msenmono nepoonyneo mnponemon o>en mnonoeoy mooponu 0N NoN.p- .npeoop>ponp .peynosononnv np ynonopnoo on op mpnooopm onp zone mymoy ooNponeo uneym yenp mpppnm nepoopyneo omony oopo>oo op mp nmey nonee m.nonoeoy onp mN mop.p- .Apeoop>ponp .peynoEononpv peeop>ponn noeo op neny nonpen ooonm e we mnonneop oy moonoomon mnpmnpnn no non e apnnespno on mnnnoeop nN mNp.p- .Aysonypz .nopyennonooop monyn>pyoe penoppuonymnp no>o anonoyoe o>en oy one mnonoeop om Nnm.- .nyoonynz .nonyenponooov mmoooom nonoeoy oy pneynoosp mp mopyn>pyoe onpnneop no nopyennonooo oonziyopnympo nm nnm.- .Aomneno nonomnop opneope> oppoo one mEoymam penopyonnymnn nn momneno oomooono onp no ymoz mp onoomuN nonpopnomoo soyp Eoyp .oooonoooo--.ep opoop 93 this type that teachers do not have to direct their major efforts to toward those matters that can be tested. In many respects, type three response pattern is similar to that of type one; but, like type two, they believe teachers are not to have autonomy over instructional activities. Descending Array of Difference Between Types The researcher's intent was to examine points of differences between three groups of educators on matters regarding teaching, learning, and classroom organization. These differences were examined by determining each group's belief pattern on items related to the three areas of concern. Thus far, each group's belief pattern has been presented individually. Presented next are comparisons, first between gesellschaft-oriented administrators and the gemeinschaft-oriented teacher group. The second comparison will be between teacher-oriented administrators and the gemeinschaft teachers. The third comparison will be between the gesellschaft group and the teacher-oriented group. Again, differences falling between standard deviation -l.O and 1.0 are also included to provide the reader with additional information on the way the groups dif- fered or were similar overall. Listed first in Table 14 are the items, followed by the groups' identification and the Z-score value. In the last section are the differences between the two groups. A Z-score difference of 1.0 above or below the mean was considered as a significant differ- ence between the groups. 94 ppe. oom.N- mam.p- .nyoonypz .nopyenponooov mmono>ppoonno nonoeoy onomeoe oy no: ymon onp one monoom pmoy ynoEo>opnoe ynoooym pNo. pmo.N- opo.p- .nyoonyn3 .nopyennonooov msoonmmepo np no moon yen: non poon ooom e nneynnee pppym neo msoonmmepo nyn: yoeynoo poonpo np yon one on: mnopenympnpso< now. own. 1 pop. .Ayoonynz .nopyenponooov mmoooom nonoeoy oy pneynoosp mp mopyp>pyoe onpnneop no nopyennonooo oopzuyonnymno mmm. mom. mop.p .Apeaop>ponp .peynosononpv moppp>pyoe mnnnneop ooNppeoon>ponp no noyenymonono onp on oy on non m.nonoeoy < mop.p poo.p- mmm. . .Ayoonypz .nopyenponooov mnonoeoy one neny anpnoeoy np mnopye>onnp poone nneop op nopypmoo noyyon e np one soonmmepo onp oopmyoo mnoyeoooo omonp NoN.p ope. emo.~ Anoppooonyon poonyooop oonnoeoy ooom op pepynommo on oonpnoo apneopo nony noozpon mnopyepon onp one oopeym apneopo one mo>nyoonno one mpeom npononz soymam < Noo.p nee. e-.~ .ANyppeoopyen yoenpooep oopynsnpoo peooppoonpoop npony no monooyoo ooonoynp onp npepoxo apneopo oy ooon mnonoeop Noo.p mop. . opm.p .Ammooono mnpnneop ..npsoep mnnnoeoy non ooom mp nopyeope>o o>nyenympnpso< mON.N pno.p- nop.p .nmmooono mnpnneop ..anoeV mnpnneop ynoooym oy nopponpnynoo pnep -noosp ne we oonpnomoo on poon neo nopmp>nooom o>pyenpmnnp2o< pNo.N mmo.p- Nmm. .Ammouono mnnnneop ..nnsoev Economepo onp nn oom: mpepnoyes one moonyoe onp np oono> anonym e o>en op one mnoyenympnpso< .nnpo muwmmwmp .pflwmww nopyopnomoo soyp e.nc.p no oope> onoomiN e o>one mounononnpo yneopnnnmnmp ono one ozp mnoyoen noozyon mnomnneoeouni.op opnen 95 opp. mNm. . mmm. - .nomneno nonomnzv one mneox o>pnizyno3y nzonx me: neny non mnpnoeoy ponmmoooom poone nzonn up once no:: men. eon. - one. - .Ayoonynz .oonpeoponooon one nony neny onos oopenponooo on oy ooon moppp>nyoe nonoeoy peoop>ponp mpN. opN. . poo. .Ayoonypz .nopyenponooov yopnymno onppno ne npnypz apnonpynoo penopyoonymnp onomnp mnonnepo penoppeooom opm. mmm. moo. .nomneno aonomnov omneno penonyeoooo neon yon ooon mnonoeop men. one. . mmo. . .nomneno monomnov opnezpe> oppoo one esopmam penoppoonymnp np moaneno oomooono onp no poo: com. mON. . pmp. .Aomneno monomnop ooono>o anop one mononnnooy penopyoenymnn nonoeoy nn moanenu poo. me.p- oNp.p- .nzyppenopyen yoenpmnev ooymoy on neo yenp mmnpnp omony onpnoeoy onezop ooyoonpo on.oy one mynonno nones .mnonoeop mpo. mop. on. .Apeoop>ponp .peynoEononnv enmen oopmixniooym e no oonoyoonpm on neo mnpnneon one. ope. oeN.p .nnyppeoopyon yoenpooep monopopyoe noonooepo ppe non mpeom ooyeym apneopo o>en mnonoeoy yeny yneynoosp on pp mom. eon. - pen. - .npooopopoop .popooEonoopv np pnonopnoo on op mynoooym onp zone mymoy ooNponeoneym yenp mpppnm nepzoppneo ooony oopo>oo op mp nmep nones m.nonoeoy onp mom. OON. mop. nnpppenonyen poenymnev mnnnoeoy ooom op nnemmooon one mpooos penoppuonymnp mnonoeop .ano< .nnpo .nnoeow .ppomou nonponnomoo Eoyp .ooooppooo--.op opooy 96 pop. - Nmn. . moo. . .Ayoonyp: .nonyennonooov mophym penopyoonymnn .mnonoeoy moose hynmno>no none ooy hpynomono mp ononp omp. . mop. . one. . .nomneno honomnov :on on pp he: ony Eonn pnononnno hpyme> on ppp: mnpnoeoy soonmmepo mneoh o>pnihpno:y np ope.p- nmo. one. - .npeoenopoop .peynosononpv onpnoeoy o>nyoonno op oypmpooonono yneynooep ne mp hypnossooupnps e oynn mmepo onp no ynosoopo>oo pno. . emo.p mNo.p .pnop>enon .hyn>pyoonnev mnonoeoy non peom ynepnoosp ne mp moooypyye pepoom ynooopm o>nypmoo unpopnom coo. mom. - mom. - .npeoononoop .peyoononoonv opoooooo oooee nonpenooooo oy oyonpnpnoo onenmono mnpnneop ooNppeoop>ponp epo. oo~.p po~.p .npeoopopeop .pepoononoonp manon Economepo op anonnou op oppno yenp non mp yp me hppezop>nonn o>opnoe oy oppno e non yneynooen we on pp mop. nmo.p- mom.p- .nmmooono mnnnneop ..npsoev mnoyenpmpnnEoe hn ooannoyoo on oy one mononnnooy mnpnoeop nn moaneno Nmp. mmm.p- pmp.p- .nmmooono mnpnneop ..anoev mnoyennonooo one mnonnepo oonnno penynoo he oopoopom omony Eonn ooes on op one onenmono nepoopyneo unponemon o>en mnonoeoy mooponu onp. can. con. .nomneno honomnnv monopnnooy mnpnoeoy oo>onoep oy o>pmnoomon once on op ooon mnonoeoh onp. mop.p nem.p .npeoopopeon .peynoEononpv po>op peoop>ponp non no mpn ye mnpnno: on oppno noeo nponon: ooony one msoonmmepo ponmmoooom ymoe onp .nnpo muwuumwp .Wflwfiwm oopyopnoooo noon .oooonoooo--.op opoep 97 .ooope> onoomuN oyeoponn mnonE:n ppenon mpnoooym :on on mEoonooepo np mnpny pneynoosp poon onn omo. eon. opp. .nnop>enoov soonooepo onp np o>enon oynoooyo he: ony o>noono op on ooono>pyoonno nonoeop onpoooooe np ynoeopo yneynonsp poon onp mmm. woo. moo. .nooooono anpnneop ..nnsoev ononoeoy onp no hppppnponoooon ony hppnespno on opeono osoonooepo ony np ooepo money yen: mom. mom. moo. . .nhyp>pyoonnev o>pyoonne ony no nmoono yon one mnnnneop no yooooe o>pynnmoo onp no oooepo opoenoso noes ooy op ononn ooo. New. - nnn. - .npeoopopeop .peyooEonoonv mopyp>nyoe ooonm no nomenee onp on oy on non o.nonoeoy < poo. ooN. - poo. . .Aouneno honomnov ophyo peoon>ponp o.nonoeoy ony no oooponemon ooynoeoposp on neo esopoho penopyoonponp ponoooooom ooN. new. - pno. - .nnpppooonyen poenyonev ounopoo e yp ones neo o: yon yne ne on annnoeop oop. ooo. ooo. .npeoonspoop .poyoononoonn opooop ynoeo>opnoe ynoooyo oonen oo onenmono onpnneop ooNppeoop>nonp .nnpa muwumMMp .pflwmww nopyopnoooo soyp .oooopoooo--.op opooy 98 The first set of comparisons presented in Table 14 between the gesellschaft- and gemeinschaft-oriented groups shows that there is a significant difference between the groups on the amount of input these administrators believe they should have and what teachers believe these administrators should have regarding methods and materials used in classrooms. Teachers and these administrators differ widely on the way each perceives administrative supervisory functions where student learning is concerned. Where these adminis- trators believe administrative evaluation is good, teachers do not agree. It can be observed that the top three items with the great- est degree of difference between the two groups are those pertaining to administrators' input in classrooms. The next two items with significant degrees of difference relate to outcomes and clearly stated goals and objectives in the teaching process. The final item with a difference of 1.0 or more again relates to factors relative to these administrators' attempts to affect functions taking place inside the classroom. Only one item received a difference of -1.0 or below. These administrators do not believe good teaching is an art and will remain an art. However, teachers do believe this, which is reported in Table 15. Table 16 presents comparisons between teacher-oriented admin- istrators and gemeinschaft-oriented teachers (factors one and three). Only one item fell above a standard deviation of 1.0, with no items falling below. These administrators believe that administrators who function from outside the immediate boundaries of the classroom can 99 still maintain a good feel for what goes on in classrooms, whereas teachers basically disagree with this belief. Table 15.--Comparison between factors two and one (significant differ- ence below a Z-score value of -1.0). Gesell. Gemein. Diff. Item Description Admin Teachers Good teaching is an art and will remain an art (abstract rationality). -1.010 1.384 -2.394 Table 17 presents significant differences between the gesellschaft-oriented administrators and the teacher-oriented admin- istrators. There was a significant difference of 1.0 or more on five items. There were eight items with a standard deviation of -l.O or below. These two groups of administrators basically differ over items pertaining to humanistic teaching approaches, positive teacher/ student relations and student/student relations. Whereas the teacher- oriented administrators strongly agree with matters described above as important, gesellschaft-oriented administrators rank them low. Gesellschaft-oriented administrators do not believe good teaching is an art, whereas teacher-oriented administrators believe good teaching is an art and will remain an art. Gesellschaft-oriented administrators more strongly disagree with the item stating administrators who are not in direct contact with classrooms can still maintain a good feel for what goes on in 100 poo. ooN. . mop. .Ayoonpp: .nopyenponooov one hony neny onoE ooyenponooo on op ooon mopyp>pyoe nonoeoy peoop>nonp mno. eon. pen. .npeoopsneop .peoooEonoopv monoponyoe ooponeop ooNppeoop>ponp no nopenyoonono onp on oy on non o.nonoeoy < moo. oop.p non.p .npooononeon .peynoEononpp po>op peoop>nonp non no opn ye mnpnno: op oppno noeo nponon: ooony one osoonooepo ponooooooo poon onp non. mmo.p- Nmo. . .pooooono mnpnneop ..anoev msoonooepo onp np ooo: opepnoyes one ooonyoe onp np oopo> anonyo e o>en op one mnoyenyopnpso< poo. poo.p- one. - .nooooono mnnnneop ..npeoev mnpnneop pnooopo op nonponnnpnoo pneynoosp ne oe oonpnoooo on poon neo nonop>noo=o o>pyenpopnp2o< nnm. Nmn. oNp. . .pnop>enonv soonooepo onp nn o>enon mynooopo he: onp o>noono op on ooono>ppoonno nonoeoy unpoooooesnp pnosopo ynepnooen poon onp ppm. ooN.p nno.N .nhyp>pyoonnev ooeoopso opnenooeos nyp: oo>pom5ony nnoonoo on: ooony neny o>pyoonno onos one nonpuonyonp oy monoeonooe opyopneson nyp: oo>poonony nnoonoo on: ononoeop omm. mom. . omm. .Apenop>ponp .peynosononpv oynoooyo mnose nonpenooooo op opennnynoo onenmono onnnneop ooNppeoop>ponp poo.p pmo.N- com. . .nyoonyp: .nopyenponooov osoonooepo np no ooon yen: non poon ooom e npepnpee ppppo neo osoonooepo nyp: yoeynoo poonpo np yon one on: onoyenyopnnno< .nnpo mmwmmwwn .mwmmm nopyopnoooo Eoyp .no.p no oopoo onoooiN e o>one ooonononnpo yneopnnnmpov ono one oonny onoyoen noo:yon onompneoaouuu.op opnen 101 poo. nNm.p- ooo.p- .nhyppenonyen yoenponeo ooyooy on neu yenp monpny ooonp onpnoeop onezoy oopoonpo on oy one mynonno nones .ononoeon pop. on. . oNo. . .Aoonenu honoonov ooe mneoh o>nnuhyno:y n:onx me: neny :on onpnoeoy ponoooouoo yoone n:onn on once non: mop. oop. - ooo. - .nhyppeoopyen yoenponeo onpnoeoy oooo op hnemoooon one opooos o>nyenponnnso< opp. moo.p poo.p .nhyp>ppoonnep oyooy ooNnoneoneyo no ynoEo>opnoe neny yneynoosn onoE one oynoonpo one mnonoeoy noozyon onopyepon o>pypmoo onp. oom. mop. .nhpppenonyen poenyonev oopyp>pyoe penopyoonyonp nnonp no ooeooyoo ooonopnn onp npepoxo hpneopo op ooon mnonoeon mop. ooN. . opo. . . .pooneno honoonov ooono>o onop one monopnnooy penonpoonyonp nonoeoy np mooneno moN. oon. moo. .nooneno honoonov monopnnooy onnnoeoy oo>onoep oy o>ponoooon onoe on oy ooon ononoeop moN. ooN. moo. . .phyppenonyen yoenponep onpnoeoy oooo oy hneooooon one opoooe penopyoonyonp oNo. ooN. . Nop. .nooneno honoonov ophyo penop>ponp o.nonoeop onp no oooponeoon oopnoEopoEp on neo oEopoho penopyoonyonn ponoooooom omo. mom. Noo. .nhyp>nyoonnev o>pyoonne onp no nooono yon one onpnneop no pooooe o>pynnooo onp no oooepo opoenoeo noes ooy on ononp moo. oom.N- poo.N- .nyoonyp: .nopyenponoooo ooono>pyoonno nonoeoy onooeoe oy he: poon onp one monooo poop ynoEo>opnoe pnoooym .nnpo muwumwwp .nmwwm nonpopnoooo sopp .oooopyooo--.op opoop 102 mop. - ope. mno. .nhoppeooppen poenpooen oopynopyoo noonooepo ppe non opeoo ooyepo hpneopo o>en ononoeoy yenp yneynoosp on pp opp. . Non. . moo. . .nooneno honomnop oophpo penony noonyonp .ononoeoy mnose hypono>no noes ooy hpynooono on ononp moo. - omo.p noo.p .nnop>enon .hyp>pyoonnep ononoeoy non peom pneynoosn ne on ooooypyye pepooo ynoooyo o>nypooo onnopnom ooo. . oop. oNo. .ppeoon>ponp .peynoEononpp opoen ooyouhnuooyo e no oonoyoonpm on neo onpnneon ooo. - oom.p oop.p .npeoepopoon .peynosononpv menon soonooepo op Enonnoo op oppno yenp non on pp oe hppeoop>ponp o>onnoe oy oppno e non yneynooep me on pp moo. - ooo. moo. .npeoopopoop .peyoononoopo opo>op pnoeo>opnoe ynoooyo oopen oo onenmono mnpnneop oo~ppe=op>ponp omo. mmm.p- mmN.p- .nmmooono mnpnneop ..npsoev mnoyennonooo one ononnepo oopnno penynoo ho ooyoopoo ooony Eonn ooee on op one onenmono nepoopyneo onnoneoon o>en mnonoeoy ooopono omo. opo. moo. .nhynpeoonyon yoenoooeo oonnoeoy oooo oy pepynoooo on oonnnoo hpneopo nony noo:yon onopyepon onp one ooyeyo hpneopo one oo>nyoonno one opeom nponon: soyohm < poo. mmp. . oop. . .Aomneno honoonov :on on pp he: onp sonn ynononnno hpyoe> on ppp: mnpnoeoy soonooepo .mneoh o>nnihynozy np .nnno muwumwmn .mmfimm nopyopnoooo soyp .oooopyooo--.op opoop pom. . nmo.p- ooo.p- .pooooono mnpnneop ..anoev onoyenyopanoe hn ooannoyoo on op one mononnnoop mnpnoeoy np oomneno oom. - New. - ooo. - .npooopopoop .popooeonoopo oopyp>ppoe ooonm no nooenee onp on oy on non o.nonoeoy < omN. . opN. . omo. . .nyoonyp: .nopyennonoouv yunnympo onpyno ne _ npnyp: hyponnpnoo penopyoonyonp onoonp ononnepo penopyeooou . men. - one. - ooo. - .noooono nonponoo . monopnnooy penoppoonyonp pooyep onp nyp: o: ooon ononoeon m mNN. . mmn. . Nom. - .Apoonyp: .nopyenponooov ooooooo nonoeop op n yneynoosp on ooppp>nyoe mnpnneop no nopyenponooo oop:-popnyono _ npm. - poo.p- ooo.p- .nooonyp: .ooppeoponoooo oo ononoeoy one neny mnpnoeoy nn onopye>onnp poone nneop op mm nonppmoo noyyon e on one Economepo onp oopoyoo onoyeoooo ooonn oop. - oon. ooo. .nnynopyoonneo peom soonooepo nones onp oonoppoEoooe nony o>en ononoeoy .nonyone ono non mnnnpp one yooooon .oynooopo onnoopo>oo ho mop. - mom. poN. .nooneno honomnov omneno penopyeoooo neon yon ooon ononoeon mop. . oom.p pmo.p .Ahyp>ppoonnev pooooon penoonoo nyp: oynoooyo peony op op oo neo ononoeoy oonpny ynepnoosp poon onp oop. . oom.p oMN.p .nhpppenopyen yoenyonev yne ne npeson ppn: one yne ne on onpnoeoy oooo . ononoeop .npso< nnpo .nnosoo .o-.p nonponnoooo noyp .eooonyooo--.op opoop 104 mnm. . nop. . oNp.p- .Ayoonyp: .nopyennonooov oopyp>ppoe penopyoonponp no>o hsonoyoe o>en op one ononoeon poo. - nmo. oNo. .npooopspoon .peooononoopo oopnooop oopooonno op opponooonono pneynoosp ne op hypnoeeooupnps e oynp ooepo onp no ynonoopo>oo Noo. . moo. an. - .nooooono mnpnneop ..npsoev ononoeoy onp no hppppnponoooon onp hppnennnno onopoono osoonooepo onp np ooepo money yen: ooo. - oop.p ooo. .nnop>enooo ononyo oy yooooon opp: ooopo np o>enon oynoooyo :on on osoonooepo nn mnnny yneynoosp onp noo. - ooo. - oop.p- .npeoonopoop .peynoeononpo peoon>ponn noeo op neny nonpen ooono e we ononneop oy ooonoooon onnmnpnn no non e hppnespno on mnpnoeop ooo. . poN. . mmo. - .phyppenopyen poenyoneo oonopoo e yp ones neo o: yon yne ne on onpnoeon ooo. - onn. - NoN.p- .npeooponoop .pepoononoono np ynopopnoo on oy oynooopo onp :ono opooy ooNponeoneyo yenp opppnm nepooppneo ooonp oopo>oo op on noey nowes o.nonoeoy onp Nmo. . omo. . ooo. . .Aomnenu honomnov opneope> oppoo one osoyoho penopyoonyonp nn oomneno oooooono onp no poo: .nnno mnwummwp .nwwmw nonpopnoooo soyp .oooopyooo--.op opoep 105 omo. nmm.p non.p .npeoon>ponp .peynoeononpv po>op peoon>ponp non no opn ye mnpnno: on oppno noeo nponon: ooony one osoonooepo ponooooooo poon onp ono. ono.p- ooo. - .noooeno honomnov mononnnooy penopyoonpmnn yooyep onp npn: o: ooon ononueon oon. poo.p pmo.p .nhpnopyoonnoo yooooon poooonoo nyp: oynoooyo peony op on oo nee ononoeoy mnpny ynepnoosp poon onn mNo. poo. - Nop. .pooneno honomnov ophyo peoop>nonp o.nonoeoy onp no oooponemon ooynosoposp on neo osopoho penopyoonyonp ponmooooom oeo. ooo. - omo. .npeoopspoon .poooononoono opooeopo mnose nonpenoooou oy oyonpnynoo osenmono onpnneop ooNppeoop>ponp nom. moo. . Nom. .nhyn>pyoonnev o>ppoonne onp no nooono yon one mnpnneop no yooooe o>pynnooo onp no oooepo opoenoEo noon ooy mp ononn ono.p opo.p- ooe. - .npoonyp: .noppenponooov osoonooepo on no ooom yen: non poon oooo e npepnpee ppnyo neo osoonooepo npn: yoeynoo poonno np yon one on: mnoyenpopnp2o< ooo.p mom. . moo. .nhyp>pyoonnev peom Economepo nones onp oonmnposoooe nony o>en ononueoy .nonpone ono non onnnpp one pooooon .oynoonyo onnoopo>oo ho ooN.N opo.p- omN.p .nhpppenoppen yoenyonev yne ne nneson ppp: one yne ne on mnnnoeoy oooo ooo.N mmo. . pom.p .nhyp>pyoonnev oyooy ooNnoneoneym no ynoso>opnoe neny pneynoosn once one oynoooyo one ononoeoy noo:pon onopyepon o>pypooo ppm.N mmo. . pno.N .nhpn>pyoonnev oosooyoo opneneoeoe nyp: oo>poosony nnoonoo on: ooony neny o>ppoonno onos one nopyoonyonp op oonoeonooe opyopne53n nyp: oo>poosony nnoonoo on: ononoeon . .npso< .npso< nnpo .ppoooo .o-.p nonpopnoooo sopp .no.p no oopeo onooo-N e o>one ooonononnpo yneopnnnonov oonny one o:p onoyoen noo:yon onoopneoeoo--.np opnen 106 moo. poo. ooo. .nnopoenoov ononyo oy yooooon non; ooepo np o>enon oynoooyo :on on osoonooepo np onnnp pneynoosp onp opo. ooo.p noo.p .nnopoenoo .hypoppoonnoo ononoeop non peoo yneynoosp ne on ooooypyye penooo pnoooyo o>pypooo mnnoppoo ooo. ooo. moo. .Aomneno honoonov monopn inooy onpnoeoy oo>onoep op o>ponoooon once on oy ooon ononoeon nop. nnn. - ooo. - .Apeoopopoop .peoooeonoono oopyp>pyoe ooonm no nomenes onp on oy on non o.nonueop < oop. ooo. moo. .npeoop>peop .poyooEonoono opo>op pnoeo>opnoe ynoooyo oopen oo osenoono onpnneop ooNppesop>ponp ooN. onm.p- oop.p- .npeoop>nonp .peynoEononpv peoop>nonp noeo oy neny nonpen ooonm e we ononneop op ooonoooon mnpmnnnn no non e hppnespno on onnnoeon ooN. mom. - omn. - .npoonyp: .nonyenponooov oophyo penoppoonyonp .ononoeoy moose hypono>po noon ooy hpynooono on ononn mMN. mnm. . oop. . .pomneno honomnov :on on yp he: onp Eonn ynononnpo hpyoe> on ppp: mnpnoeoy soonooepo .oneoh o>nnihpno:y np ooN. ono. - mmp. .pyoonyp: .nopyenponoooo one hony neny onos ooyennonooo on op ooon ooppp>pyoe nonoeoy peoop>ponp Npo. oom. - oNo. .npeoop>ponp .pepnoEononnv onpnoeoy o>pyoonno op oynopooonono yneynooep ne on hypnossooupnpa_e opnp moepo onp no pnoEoopo>oo pNo. poo.p- oNp.p- .nyoonpp: .nopyenponooov ooppp>ppoe penopyoonyonp no>o hsonoyoe o>en oy one ononoeon . .npso< .npson nnpo .ppomoo .o-.p nopyopnoooo sopp .oooopyooo--.np opoep 107 classrooms. Teacher-oriented administrators feel they can maintain a good feel for things taking place in the classroom. Table 18 presents those differences falling on the negative end of the scale. The greatest difference here is regarding the belief that administrators are to have a strong voice in the methods and materials used in the classrooms. Teacher-oriented administra- tors do not believe this is necessary. They also feel administrative evaluation is not necessarily good for teaching. Outside of matters regarding administrators' involvement in classroom activities, the groups differed in their beliefs about matters related to clearly stated goals and objectives and district-wide coordination of learn- ing activities. Teacher-oriented administrators do not believe such matters are of utmost importance to teaching, learning, and classroom organization, whereas gesellschaft-oriented administrators do believe these things are important. Summary Tables 14-18 indicate that gemeinschaft-oriented teachers' and teacher-oriented administrators' belief patterns about teaching, learning, and classroom organization do in fact differ from that of the gesellschaft-oriented administrators. It is determined from the observations that gemeinschaft-oriented teachers and teacher- oriented administrators have similar belief patterns. Both groups ranked personal and humanistic matters high. 108 ooo. opp. onp. - .nnonoenooo soonooepo ony np o>enon oynoooyo he: onp o>noono oy on ooono>ppoonno nonoeoy mnnoooooe np pnosopo ynepnoosp poon onp ooN. ooo. Npp. . .pomooono mnpnneop ..npnoev ononoeoy ony no hynpnnponoooon onp hppnespno on opoono oeoonooepo onp np ouepo money yen: NNN. pno. - moo. - .nhynpeoonyen yoenyonev oonopoo e pp ones neo o: yon yne ne on mnnnoeop omp. pop. opo. . .Aomneno honomnov ooono>o onop one mononnnooy penopyuonyonn nonoeoy np oomneno oop. moo.p- poo.N- .npoonyp: .nopyenponooov ooono>nyoonno nonoeop onooeoe oy he: poon onp one monouo poop ynoso>opnoe ynoooym opp. pop.p- mmN.p- .nooooono mnpnneop ..npsoev onoyennonooo one ononnepo oopnno penynoo hn ooyoopoo ooony sonn ooes on op one onenoono nepoopyneo mnnonemon o>en mnonoeoy moopono ono. mom. . oNo. . .pomnenu honomnov ooe mneoh o>nnuhyno3y n:onn we: neny :on mnnnoeoy ponmoooooo poone n:onn on once nos: ooo. poN.p oop.p .npeoonsnoon .peynosononpv menon soonooepo oy Enonnou op opnno yenp non on pp me hppeoop>nonn o>opnoe op oppno e non yneynooen me on pp . .ano< .npso< nnpo .ppoooo .o-.n nopyopnoooo sopp .no._- no oopoo onooo-N e :opon ooonononnpo yneopnpnopov oonny one o:p onoyoen noozyon mnoopneosoouu.op opnep 109 pNo.p- pNN. . NoN.p- .npeoop>nonp .peynoeononpv np ynopopnoo on oy opnooopo onp :ono opooy oouponeonepo yenp opppno nepoopyneo ooonp oopo>oo op op noep nonee o.nonoeoy onp moo. - eon. ooo. - .ANonpeoonpon yoonyoooo mnpnoeoy ooom oy hneooooon one opooos penonyoonyonp pop. . ooo. . ooo. . .nooneno honomnoo opneope> oynoo one osoyoho penopyoonyonn np oomneno oooooono ony no poo: opo. . moN.p mno. .nhyppenopyen yoenyonev oopyp>pyoe n.oonooepo ppe non opeoo ooyeyo hpneopo o>en mnonoeoy yenp ynepnooep on yp mmo. . mom.p- ooo.p- .nooooono onpnneop ..npsoev onoyenpopnpsoe hn oonpsnoyoo on op one monopnnooy mnpnoeop np oooneno omo. . mmo. poN. .nomneno honomnov ooneno penonyeoooo neon yon ooon ononoeon omo. . oNo. oNo. .Apeoop>ponp .peynosononpv opoen oopouhniooyo e no oonoyoonyo on neo mnnnneon poo. . poo. ooo. . .nyoonyp: .nopyenponooov yopnyopo onpyno ne npnyp: hyponnynoo penopyoonymnp onoonn ononnepo penopyeoooo ppo. . mmp.p pop. .npeoop>ponn .pepnoEononpv oopyp>pyoe mnpnneop ooNppeoop>ponp no noyenyoonono onp on op on non o.nonoeop < mmm. . oNp.p- ooo.p- .nhyppenopyen yoenyonev ooyooy on neo yenp oonpny ooonp mnpnoeoy one:oy ooyoonno on op one oynonno nowes .ononoeon . .npso< .npso< nnpo .ppoooo .o-.p nopyopnoooo soyp .oooonyooo--.op opoop 110 ono.p- Nom. Nmo. . .nooooono mnpnneop ..npsoep mEoonmoepo onp np ooon opennoyes one ooonyos ony np oopo> ononyo e o>en op one onopenponnpso< ooo.p- opo.p ooo. - .nooooono oononeop ..npeoev mnpnoeop non oooo on nopyeope>o o>pyenpopnpeo< Noo.p- oNN.N oon. .nhyppenopyen poenyoneo oopyp>ppoe penopyoonyonn nponp no monouyoo ooonoynp onp npepoxo hpneopo oy ooon ononoeop nom.p- nop.p oNN. . .nooooono mnnnneop ..anoeo mnpnneop ynoooyo op nonponnnynoo ynepnoosp ne oe oonpnoooo on poon neo nonop>noooo o>ppenyopnpeo< on.p- mmo. . ooo.p- .nyoonyp: .nonyenponooov ononoeoy one neny mnnnoeoy np onopye>onnp poone nneop oy nopynooo noppon e nn one soonooepo ony oopoyoo onoyeoooo ooonn moo.p- noo.n ooo. .nhynpooonyen poenyoooo oonnoeoy oooo op pepynoooo on oonpnoo hpneopo nony noo:pon onopyepon onp one ooyeyo hpneopo one oo>ppoonno one opeom nponon: soyoho < moo.p- nop. Nom. . .npoonyn: .nopyenponooov ooooooo nonoeoy oy yneynooen op oopyp>nyoe onpnneop no nonpennonooo oop:-yonnyono . .nneo< .ano< nnpo .ppoooo .o-.p noppopnoooo noyp .oooonoooo--.op opoon 111 Consensus Items Table 19 presents those consensus items held by teachers on matters regarding teaching, learning, and classroom organization. Listed along with the consensus items are the average Z-scores for each item by the types combined, although only type one was considered meaningful and utilized in the analysis. Consensus items are those generally agreed on by the total number of respondents collectively. The item statements at the top are the ones most strongly agreed on by all the subject teachers. Treating students with personal respect ranked the highest. A total of 31 consensus items was determined. Table 20 presents 20 consensus items and their average Z-scores for these items. This table indicates those items of common agreement by both groups of administrators. Building positive student social attitudes is the most important goal for teachers. It must be pointed out here that there was a total of 12 administrators involved in rational management model usage and 23 elementary princi- pals in the study. This is to say that those items ranking high as consensus items for all administrators may have appeared differently if there had been an equal number of administrators. Plots of Rotated Factor Loadings Presented in Figure l is a plot of rotated factor loadings for gemeinschaft-oriented teachers and the gesellschaft-oriented administrators. As can be observed, the two groups do not cluster together but do in fact cluster separately, representing a difference in belief patterns. 112 pno. .Aomneno honomnov monopnnooy mnpnoeoy oo>onosp op o>ponoooon once on op ooon ononoeop mno. .nomneno honoonov ooneno penonyeoooo neon yon ooon ononoeon mpo. .npeoop>ponp .peynosononnv opo>op ynoeo>opnue ynoooyo oopen oo onenmono mnpnneop ooNppeoon>ponp Nmo. .nnop>enonv ononpo op yooooon nyn: ooepo nn o>enon oynooopo :on on oEoonooepu nn mnnny yneynooEp onp mnm. .nhyppenopyen yoenyoneo onpnoeoy oooo op penynomoo on oonpnoo hpneopo Sony noo:pon onopyepon ony one ooyepo hpneopo one oo>pyuonno one opeom nponon: soyoho < ooo.p .nooooono mnpnneop ..anoev ononoeoy onp no hyppnnponoooon ony hppneepno on opoono oeoonooepo onp np ooepo money pen: opp.p .nhynpenopyen yoenyonev yne ne npeson ppp: one yne ne on mnpnoeoy oooo oom.p .npeoop>ponp .pepnosononnv osnon eoonooepo oy snonnoo op opnnU yeny non op yp me hppeoop>nonp o>opnoe oy oppno e non yneynoosp me on pp ooo.p .Anon>enon .hyn>pyoonnev ononoeop non peom yneynoosp ne on ooooypyye pepooo ynoooyo o>nypooo mnpoppoo moo.p .Ahpp>pyoonnev myooy ooNponeoneyo no pnoeo>onnoe yeny pneynooen once one oynooopo one ononoeoy noo:yon onopyepon o>pypoon oNn.p .nhyp>pyoonnev yooooon penoonoo nyp: opnoonpo peony op on oo neo ononueoy onnnp pneynoosp yoos onp onoo . omenw>m nopyopnoooo soyp .ononoeoy "msopp moonoonooii.mp opnen 113 ooo. . .npoonyn: .nonyenponooov ooooooo nonoeoy op yneynoosp on oopyp>pyoe mnpnneop no nopyenponooo oop:uyonnyopo ope. - .npeoenonoon .peynosononnv oonyn>nyoe ooono no nooenes onp on oy on non o.nonoeoy < NmN. . .Ahynpenonyen yoenponev oononoo e pp ones neo o: yon yne no on mnpnoeon oop. - .npeoononeon .pooooEonoono oynoooyo moose nonpenooooo oy oyonnnynoo onenmono mnpnneop oo~ppe=op>ponp oNp. . .npoonyp: .nopyenponooov one hony neny onoE ooyenponooo on op ooon oopyp>pyoe nonoeoy peoop>ponp ooo. .npeoenonoon .peyoononoono ooppp>pyoe onpnneop ooNppeoop>ponn no noyenyoonono onp on op on no“ o.nonoeop < oop. .Ahyp>pyoonnev o>pyoonne onp no nmoono yon one mnpnneop no yooooe o>nypnooo onp no oooepo opoenoso nuns ooy on ononp opp. .nooooono mnpnneop ..nnsoev mnpnoeoy non oooo on nonpeope>o o>pyenyopnpso< moN. .nhyppenopyen poenyonev mnpnueoy ooom oy hneooouon one mpoooE penoppuonyonp poN. .nomneno honomnov :on on pp he: onp Eonn ynononnpo hpyoe> on ppp: mnpnoeoy soonooepo .oneoh o>pnihyno3y np ooo. .nhynpeoonyen yoenpooeo oonynonpoe penopyoonyonp nponp no oosooyoo ooonoynp onp npepoxo hpneopo oy ooon mnonoeop o oo . omenw>m nopyopnoooo soyp .oooonpooo--.op opoen 114 oNp.N- .Ayoonyn: .nopyenponooov ooono>pyoonno nonoeoy onooeoe op he: poon onp one oonooo poop ynoEo>opnoe ynooopm opo.p- .nooooono mnpnneop ..nnsoev onopenyopanoe ho oonpsnopoo on oy one monopnnooy onpnoeoy np oomneno moo.p- .nooooono mnpnneop ..npaoev msoonooepo onp np ooon opennoyes one ooonyos onp nn oopo> mnonpo e o>en oy one onoyenpopnpso< NoN.p- .nomooono mnpnneop ..anoep onopenponooo one ononnepo oonnno penynoo ho ooyoopoo ooony Eonn ooen on op one onenmono nepoopyneo mnnonemon o>en ononoeoy ooopono ooo. - .npoonynz .oonyeononoooo oophyo penopyoonyonp .ononoeoy mnone hynono>po none ooy hpynooono op ononp omp. . .npeoop>ponp .peynoEononnv peoop>ponp noeo op neny nonpen ooono e oe ononneop oy ooonoomon mnnmnpnn no non e hppnespno on onpnoeon «on. - .npeoonsnoon .peoooeonoono on poononnoo on on opoooopo onp zoom opooy oo~poneoneyo yenp oppnno nepoopyneo ooonp oopo>oo oy on noey nones o.nonoeoy onn mmn. . .Aomooono mnpnneop ..npsoep onpnneop pnoooyo oy nonponpnynoo yneynoosp ne oe oonnnoooo on poon neo nonop>noo=o o>ppenyopnnso< poo. . .Ayoonyp: .nonpenponooov yopnyopo onppno ne npnyp: hpnonpynoo penopyoonyonp onoonn ononnepo penopyeoooo onoo . ooenw>m nopyopnoooo soyp .eooonyooo--.op opoen 115 opo. . .nooooono mnpnneop ..nnsoep mnonoeoy onp no hypppnponoooon onp hppnesnno on opoono onoonooepo onp np ooepo money pen: mpo. .Apeoop>ponn .peynoeononpv onpnoeoy o>pyoonno op oppopooonono yneynooen ne on hypnosnoounnps e opnp ooepo onp no ynosoopo>oo ooo. .nnop>enonv soonooepo onp nn o>enon oynoooyo he: ony o>noono op op ooono>pyoonno nonoeoy mnpoooooe np ynosopo pneynooep yoos onp noo. .npeoop>ponp .peynosononpv opoen ooyouhnuooym e no oonoyuonyo on neo mnpnneon NpN. .npoonyp: .nopyennonooov one hony neny onoe ooyenponooo on op ooon oonpp>nyoe nonoeoy peoop>ponp ooo. .Anop>enonv mnonpo op yooooon nyp: ooepo np o>enon oynoooyo :on on osoonooepo np onpny yneynoosp onp ooo. .nhyppenopyen yoenyonev onnnoeoy ooom op hneooooon one opoooe penonyoonponp Noo. .Aomneno honomnoo ooneno penopyeoooo neon yon ooon ononoeop oom.p .Apeoop>nonp .peynosononnv menon soonooepo oy Enonnoo op opnno yenp non op pp me hppeoop>ponp o>onnoe op oppno e non yneynoosp me on pp moo.p .nhyp>nyoonnev yooooon penoonoo nyp: oynoooyo peony op op oo neo ononoeop mnpny yneynooep poon onp mpo.p pnnop>enon .hpp>pyoonnev ononoeoy non peom yneynooep no on ooooynyye pepoom ynoooym o>npnooo onnoppoo onoo - omenw>m nopyopnoooo sopp .oooonm noyenyonnpsoe "osopp ooonoonoo--.oN opnen 116 me.p- .nyoonyp: .nopyenponoouv ooono>ppoonno nonoeoy onooeoe op he: poon onp one oonooo poop ynoso>onnoe ynoooym mon.p- .nooooono mnpnneop ..anoev onoyenyopnpeoe hn oonpsnoyoo on op one monopnnooy onpnoeop nn oomneno mem.p- .nhpnpeoonyen poenpooeo ooyoop on neo yenp omnnny ooony onpnoeoy one:oy oopoonno on oy one oynonno nones .ononueop onN.p- .nooooono mnpnneop ..anoev onopennonooo one ononnepo oopnno penynoo hn ooyoopom ooony sonn ooes on op one onenmono nepoopyneo mnponemon o>en ononoeop ooopono ppp.p- .npoonyp: .nonyennonoouv oophpo penopyoonponp .ononoeoy mnoEe hppono>po none ooy hpynooono on ononn ooo. . .nomneno honoonov monopnnooy penopyoonyonp yooyep onp nyn: o: ooon ononoeon ooo. . .nhpppenopyen yoenyonev oonopoo e pp ones neu o: yon yne ne on mnnnoeop opo. - .Aomneno honomnop :on on pp he: ony Eonn ynononnpo hpyme> on ppp: mnpnoeop Economepo .oneoh o>nnuhpno:p np ooo. . .nyoonyp: .nopyennonooov yopnpono onpyno ne npnyn: hyponnynoo penonpoonponn onoonn ononnepo penonyeooom onou - omenw>m nopyopnoooo nopp .oooonoooo--.o~ opoen 1 F'AC2T()R 117 090°" + 0700" + i +* + + + ++ + +-+ + .p13* + + .300t + + + + 4f .IOOr + + -, + 100‘t + -0300" -.50 i i i 5 ’i’ i i -.600 --300 -.100 .100 ~300 .600 .700 .900 FACZTOll 2 Figure l.--Plot of rotated factor loadings: teachers and model users. 118 Presented in Figure 2 is a plot of rotated factor loadings for teacher-oriented administrators and gesellschaft-oriented administrators. As can be observed, the belief patterns for these groups also differ similarly to that of the teachers. 119 0900" + 0700" + I ++ + + + .soo> + + + + + + m + + m + E 0300" + + o +... < n + 0100" + + + + + + “0‘00" + “0300“ -.50 J. i t i i 3 i ”0500 -0300 -0500 0‘00 0300 0500 0700 0900 F A C T O R 2 Figure 2.--Plot of rotated factor loadings: administrators and administrators. 120 Footnotes--Chapter IV 1Valerie J. Janesick, "An Ethnographic Study of a Teacher's Clasiroom Perspective" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977 . 2Wi11iam H. Martin, "A Participant Observation Study of an Outdoor Education Experimental Curriculum Experiment Operating on a Public Secondary School" (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1977). 3Louis Smith and William Geoffrey, The Complexities of an Urban Classroom (Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,TInc., 1968). 4Dan C. Lortie, Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975). 5Harvey B. Tiller, "Quality Belief Patterns in Secondary Education" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 1969), p. 63. CHAPTER V SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Purpose of the Study The researcher's purpose in this study was to examine points of differences about teaching, learning, and classroom organization between some elementary teachers and some school administrators who are engaged in attempts to influence teaching, learning, and classroom organization by the implementation of rational management models (systems). In addition, this researcher examined points of differ- ences about teaching, learning, and classroom organization between the same group of elementary teachers and some elementary princi- pals who are not engaged in attempts to influence teaching, learning, and classroom organization by the implementation of rational manage- ment models (systems). A subpart of this study examined points of differences about the three areas of concern between the two adminis- trator groups. The specific questions that were studied are the fol- lowing: 1. 00 teachers' value and belief patterns about teaching, learning, and classroom organization differ from those of administrators who are actively engaged in attempts to influence teaching, learning, and classroom organi- zation by the implementation of rational management models (systems)? 2. 00 teachers' value and belief patterns about teaching, learning, and classroom organization differ from those of administrators who are not engaged in attempts to 121 122 influence teaching, learning, and classroom organiza- tion by the implementation of rational management models (systems)? 3. Do those administrators who are engaged in rational management model usage phrase their efforts in gesell- schaft terms? 4. Are teachers attempting to create classroom organizations with the characteristics of a gemeinschaft? 5. Are elementary principals' views about teaching, learning, and classroom organization different from those of admin- istrators who are engaged in rational management model usage (systems)? Procedure Five relevant concepts were generated from interviews with teachers and the administrators who are actively engaged in the use of rational management models (systems). Two additional concepts for teachers were developed from examination of studies by Janesick, Martin, Smith, and Lortie as well as the interviews obtained. The next step was to operationalize each concept. This process resulted in the development of 47 representative items. The items were considered by local teachers, administrators, fellow students, and several professors. Collectively, this group deter- mined the items to represent fairly the concepts which would allow this research to examine points of difference between the three groups of concern on matters related to teaching, learning, and classroom organization. Forty-seven elementary classroom teachers, 12 administrators who are engaged in rational management model usage (systems), and 23 elementary principals who are not engaged in rational management 123 model usage sorted the 47 items into 9 piles based on their feelings regarding the particular item. Information concerning selected personal characteristics of the participants was obtained by having respondents complete a short questionnaire. Each respondent's sort was correlated with the sort of every other respondent on each particular run. The resulting correlation matrix for each of the two runs (i.e., one for teachers and one for the two groups of administrators) was submitted to "principal com- ponent analysis" with a subsequent "varimax rotation." Data were analyzed for six factors with three being determined meaningful. Two factors were determined meaningful for the two groups of admin- istrators, which accounted for 41% of the total variance of the original matrix for administrators. One factor was determined meaningful for teachers, which also accounted for 41% of the total variance of the original matrix for teachers. For each run, selected respondents were associated with a particular factor. Item arrays for each of the factors were established with Z-scores computed for each item placement in each factor. These three item arrays, representing three belief patterns, were then compared both in terms of individual items and the particu- lar group responding, as well as by the concepts under which each item fell, which serve to establish group differences and similarities. The relationship between belief patterns, as established by this study, and selected characteristics was explored using Cramer's statistic phi-prime. The results appear in detail in Chapter IV. 124 Summary of Findings Belief Patterns Respondents of this study were grouped into a total of six factors with three being determined meaningful. Each factor rep- resented particular views held by three groups of educators about teaching, learning, and classroom organization. As described, each factor basically consisted of one distinct group of educators. This provided for easier determination of a group's position on the areas of concern. It was found that the teachers in this study basically differ from the group of administrators who are actively engaged in attempts to influence teaching, learning, and classroom organization by the implementation of rational management models (systems). These teachers are primarily concerned with matters related to respect for students and the establishing of personal relationships as a founda- tion for other things that are to take place in the classroom. The subject administrators (model users) are more concerned with out- comes, rationality, and more logical operating procedures in the classroom. Teachers and those administrators who are not engaged in attempts to influence teaching, learning, and classroom organization by the implementation of rational management models are in relative agreement on the issues related to teaching, learning, and classroom organization. These two groups both differ from the administrators proposing rational management models. 125 Selected Characteristics Cramer's statistic phi-prime was used to explore relation- ships between groups of people. In the first set, the groups con- sisted of teachers and both groups of administrators. In the second set, the groups consisted of rational management model users and elementary principals who were differentiated by belief patterns. There is an association between age and the current school position of the respondent. The teacher respondents were generally between the ages of 27-33. The average age for administrators, collectively, was between the ages of 41-47. Administrator respondents were older than the teacher respondents. There is a slight association between the sex of the respon- dent and the current school position. Mostly females made up the teacher respondents, whereas mostly males made up administrator respondents. There is a slight association between the number of years of experience and current school position. The teacher respon- dents had an average of 1-4 and 9-12 years of experience, whereas the administrators had 9-12 years. Distinctions were made between the two groups of administra- tors and produced the following findings: Most of the administrator respondents engaged in rational management model usage were between the ages of 34-40. The majority of the elementary principals were between the ages of 41-47. In both cases, administrator respondents were mostly male. The personal information on experience had eight missing observations; for this reason, accurate assessments could not be determined. 126 Conclusions The conclusions based on the researcher's findings are limited to the school personnel involved in the study. The extent to which these conclusions may be considered applicable to other school personnel groups in other situations is unknown and the reader is cautioned in this regard. Discussed below are the conclusions of the study with refer- ence to the specific questions to which the study was addressed. 1. Do teachers' value and belief patterns about teaching, learning, and classroom organization differ from those of administrators who are actively engaged in attempts to influence teaching, learning, and classroom organi- zation by the implementation of rational management models (systems)? From the belief patterns determined, teachers' belief pat- terns about teaching, learning, and classroom organization do in fact differ from those of administrators who are engaged in rational management model usage. The specific points of differences between the two groups are provided in detail in Chapter IV. For these teachers, data on three factors were provided, with only one factor determined meaningful. The teachers are distinguished by their desire to first establish positive working relationships with their students, which stems from their beliefs about humanistic approaches in the classroom. It appears to these teachers that such approaches are prerequisites to effective instruction. Students are looked upon with personal respect by the teacher. It is believed important to make efforts toward establishing student respect and liking for one another. 127 For the administrators engaged in rational management model usage, the concern is primarily with learning procedures and outcomes (with their administrative input into these areas). They do not believe humanistic approaches are of utmost importance, but they do feel it is important. More accessible information regarding what teachers do and intend to do in the classroom was a primary concern for this group of administrators. Such information would allow these administrators to account for as well as more accurately assess activities taking place in classrooms in which they have responsibility. These areas clearly distinguish the different belief patterns between these two groups. 2. Do teachers' value and belief patterns about teaching, learning, and classroom organization differ from those of administrators who are not engaged in attempts to influence teaching, learning, and classroom organization by the implementation of rational management models (systems)? It was observed that the belief patterns for these two groups are quite similar; only one item of significant difference existed between the groups, which is described in Chapter IV. Overall, very little difference exists between the groups. Teachers, like this group of subject administrators, believe humanistic approaches must come first. Effective learning can come only after establishing positive working relationships between students and teachers. Neither group cited learning techniques, outcomes, and administrative super- vision as most important items of concern. The foundation for effec- tive teaching and learning appears to be embedded in the items those principals and teachers ranked highest. 128 3. Do administrators who are engaged in rational management model usage phrase their efforts in gesellschaft terms? From the observations it is determined that these adminis- trators do in fact phrase their efforts in gesellschaft terms. Eight out of the ten items with a Z-score value of 1.0 or above are items representing concepts that are in line with the description of gesellschaft described in Chapter II. The concepts of abstract rationality, administrative hierarchy in learning, and incremental and individualized instruction are all from the gesellschaft per- spective. This group strongly believe teachers need to explain the intended outcomes of their instructional activities. They also strongly believe that a system wherein goals and objectives are clearly stated and the relations between them clearly defined are essential to good teaching. Rational management models (systems) do in fact establish these two primary concerns of the subject admin- istrators. Efforts to implement rational management models appear to come from a belief established in the gesellschaft mode of thinking. 4. 00 teachers attempt to create classroom organizations with characteristics of a gemeinschaft? From the observations, it is determined that these teachers do in fact phrase their efforts in gemeinschaft terms. Five out of the eight items with a Z-score value of 1.0 or above are items rep- resenting concepts that are in line with the description of gemein- schaft described in detail in Chapter II. The concepts of affectivity and behaviorism are both from a gemeinschaft perspective. 129 This group of teachers strongly believe that the most impor- tant thing teachers can do is to treat students with personal respect and that positive relations between teachers and students are more important than achievement on standardized tests. In these teachers' efforts to establish such situations in the classroom, they are basically operating from the gemeinschaft perspective des- 'cribed in Chapter II. 5. Are elementary principals' views about teaching, learning, and classroom organization different from those of admin- istrators who are engaged in rational management model (systems) usage? From the observations, it is determined that the views of the elementary principals involved in the study do in fact differ from those of administrators engaged in rational management model usage. These principals' belief pattern about the areas of concern is quite similar to that of teachers whose belief patterns about teaching, learning, and classroom organization differ from that of the adminis- trators engaged in rational management model usage. An important finding to point out here is that teachers and building-level adminis- trators'(elementary principals') belief patterns about teaching, learning, and classroom organization differ from those of adminis- trators who are engaged in attempts to implement rational management models (systems) in classrooms. Recommendations The findings of this study must be limited to the school per- sonnel who participated in it. Nevertheless, it is recommended that 130 the results of the investigation be seriously considered by those who are engaged in attempts to affect teaching, learning, and classroom organization by the implementation of rational management models (systems). These results can offer some explanation why some teachers are beginning to reject rational management model usage in their classrooms--mode1s that are usually imposed by administrators who function from outside the immediate boundaries of school buildings. This study has, in a prioritized manner, provided insight into areas of concern teachers believe to be important in their endeavors to be effective teachers. If situations described in Oregon and Kalamazoo (described in Chapter II) are to be avoided, then it may be worthwhile for the growing number of rational manage- ment model users to know and understand some of the important teacher factors involved when attempts are made to make teaching, learning, and classroom organization a more rational process. Teacher training as well as local school districts' inservice training programs may find it beneficial to analyze the results of this study since rational management model (systems) implementation is on the increase. Further studies should be conducted using a different and larger group of teachers (possibly secondary teachers) to explore their belief patterns. In addition, secondary principals could be used to see if they differ from or resemble teacher responses. Other groups that could be included could consist of heads of teacher 131 associations, parents, and politicians involved in educational policy making. Overall, the teachers in the study seem to hold a more sim- plistic view of teaching, learning, and classroom organization than do administrators engaged in rational management model usage. That is to say, these teachers basically attempt to establish an environ- ment within their classrooms that lends itself to the establishment and maintenance of a collectivity--a collectivity that is group oriented and built on the premise that such things as positive humanistic approaches must come first in the classroom as a pre- requisite for other events to take place. It can be inferred from the findings that these teachers are not open to programs and pro- cedures that may alter the basic structure. The findings indicate that the elementary principals' basic values and beliefs about teaching, learning, and classroom organization are in line with those of the teachers. Administrators engaged in rational management model usage appear not to hold such a simplistic view of teaching, learning, and classroom organization. Programs and procedures this group attempt to have implemented in classrooms are not always in line with class- room teachers' attempts. Rational models, when implemented, estab- lish clear relations between goals and objectives; concerns are with outcomes. Administrative input into classroom activities and pro- cedures is increasing. Model programs provide these administrators with a more direct line of conmuni cation regarding classroom functions. 132 The differences between the two modes of thinking and operat- ing fall within the way each approaches the business of teaching, learning, and classroom organization--teachers from a more simplistic standpoint and the subject administrators from a more rational standpoint. The similarities are that each seeks to influence effectively the overall processes taking place in classrooms. It appears appropriate to recommend that if present systems models fail to prove their effectiveness in classrooms over a given period of time, it may be feasible to discontinue the introduction of such models in classrooms. Since this study did not seek to deter- mine the most effective mode of teaching, learning, and classroom organization or make any program evaluations, it would not be appropriate to suggest that the absence or presence of systems models might improve teacher effectiveness and student learning. What has been determined is that basic differences about the areas of concern do exist between the teachers and administrators engaged in model usage. The reader is reminded that this study's findings are of limited generality. APPENDICES APPENDIX A COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONS CONCERNING PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS APPENDIX A COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONS CONCERNING PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS Dear , I greatly appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule to assist me in my research. Attached is a complete set of directions for you to follow in completing the attached instrument. The purpose of the research is to isolate the values and beliefs that teachers and administrators have about teaching, learn- ing, and classroom organization in the elementary school. By having a group of teachers and administrators respond to the same set of statements about teaching, learning, and classroom organization, I will be able to isolate what differences, if any, exist between these groups in the areas of concern. The methodology used is known as a Q-Sort. Q-Sorting requires you to place a particular number of items (statements written on cards) into an envelope. These items, as I state in the directions, explore your beliefs about teaching, learning, and classroom organization. There is no wrong or right way of responding, The Q-Sort need not take a lot of time to complete. Some respondents complete the entire process in less than twenty-five min- utes, where others take longer. It is not necessary to spend a lot of time studying each item, but do give each some thought. Results of the study will be made available to you upon request. Before reading the directions beginning on the next page, please fill out the information below. I assure you complete anonymity. As you notice, there are no places requiring you to write your name or school. I am a teacher I am an administrator Age Sex Highest degree attained Years as a teacher Years as an administrator Grade level taught I will return to pick up the completed materials on Sincerely, James E. Ray 133 APPENDIX B INTERVIEW QUESTIONS *1. mummbw 10. 11. 12. APPENDIX B INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Have you engaged in attempts to implement a rational model or "management" system for classroom use? Will you please describe these attempts? How were these attempts received by teachers? How did you approach teachers with this? How will these efforts help students? Will this basically affect the way teachers teach? Will this help teachers teach better? How do you see teachers teaching now and how will your efforts help them teach better? What do you think about learning? What do systems approaches have to do with learning? What do you see as a teaching problem? (i.e., What do teachers need to do better?) What does this (system) have to do with teachers teaching and how they operate in classrooms? *Study contents were explained prior to interview. 134 APPENDIX C ITEM STATEMENTS REPRESENTING VALUE AND BELIEF PATTERNS 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. APPENDIX C ITEM STATEMENTS REPRESENTING VALUE AND BELIEF PATTERNS Teachers' major efforts are to be directed toward teaching those things that can be tested. Good teaching is an art and will remain an art. Teaching is an art but we can make it a science. A system wherein goals and objectives are clearly stated and the relations between them clearly defined is essential to good teaching. Instructional models are necessary to good teaching. Teachers need to clearly explain the intended outcomes of their instructional activities. It is important that teachers have clearly stated goals for all classroom activities. Much more is known about successful teaching now than was known twenty-five years ago. Successful instructional systems can be implemented regardless of the teacher's individual style. Teachers keep up with the latest instructional techniques. Teachers need to be more responsive to improved teaching techniques. Teachers need not fear educational change. Most of the proposed changes in instructional systems are quite valuable. In twenty-five years, classroom teaching will be vastly different from the way it is now. Changes in teacher instructional techniques are long overdue. Administrative evaluation is good for teaching. What takes place in the classrooms should be primarily the responsibility of the teachers. 135 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 136 Administrative supervision can best be described as an important contribution to student learning. Administrators are to have a strong voice in the methods and materials used in the classrooms. Choices teachers have regarding particular programs are to be made from within those selected by central office planners and coordinators. Changes in teaching techniques are to be determined by adminis- trators. A teacher's job is to be the manager of group activities. The teacher's major task is to develop those particular skills that standardized tests show the students to be deficient in. A teacher's job is to be the orchestrator of individualized learning activities. Development of the class into a mini-comunity is an important prerequisite to effective teaching. Teaching is primarily a job of bringing resources to learners as a group rather than to each individual. It is as important for a child to achieve individually as it is for that child to conform to classroom norms. The most successful classrooms are those wherein each child is working at his or her individual level. Learning can be structured on a step-by-step basis. Individualized learning programs contribute to cooperation among students. Individualized learning programs do raise student achievement levels. Educational planners insure instructional continuity within an entire district. Administrators who are not in direct contact with classrooms can still maintain a good feel for what goes on in classrooms. Teachers are to have autonomy over instructional activities. There is presently too much diversity among teachers' instruc- tional styles. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 137 Individual teacher activities need to be coordinated more than they are. District-wide coordination of learning activities is important to teacher success. Those educators outside the classroom are in a better position to learn about innovations in teaching than are teachers. Student achievement test scores are the best way to measure teacher effectiveness. The most important thing teachers can do is to treat students with personal respect. Building positive student social attitudes is an important goal for teachers. There is too much emphasis placed on the cognitive aspect of learning and not enough on the affective. Teachers who concern themselves with humanistic approaches to instruction are more effective than those who concern themselves with measurable outcomes. By developing students' respect and liking for one another, teachers have then accomplished the major classroom goal. Positive relations between teachers and students are more impor- tant than achievement on standardized tests. The important thing in classrooms is how students behave in class with respect to others. The most important element in assessing teacher effectiveness is to observe the way students behave in the classroom. APPENDIX D DIRECTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE Q-SORT APPENDIX D DIRECTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE Q-SORT Make sure your materials include the following items: a. Nine (9) envelopes with a colored card attached to each; b. A stack of forty-seven (47) cards with written statements on each; (please disregard the number in the right-hand corner of each card--they are for coding purposes only); c. Rubber bands; and d. One (l) large manila envelope. You will need a table or desk to work on. The stack of forty—seven (47) cards with statements (items) written on them represent assumptions about learning, teaching, and classroom practices. I would like to know to what extent you agree or disagree with each statement. (See next page for Sorting Procedure.) I38 139 .oogmo -mwo apouogoooe ooxgos ooopo>co on» op mogoo Amy x_m mowomosog o:p coo mooopo>oo onu cw ocvo mcwoposog o:p mo woo gum: oogmomwo apmcogum so» Amv ooggu ooopo moogmomwo xpmoogum >go> ooxgos ooopo>co o5 E 5.; oogmompo omo.: so» :o>o_o o5 mo aoo 3V o5 9:33 .oZo $5 ootzo -oom oco Aspwz oogmomwo omoe so» omosuv ozmwg goo» co meow? AFPV oo>opo oo xooum o:p oxou uxoz .o .ooo~o>=o coco or oooopo on coo mogoo zoos so; so» oovsog mogoo oogo—oo on» :o mgoo53= ooh "whoz .oogmo apoaogooos ooxgoe ooo_o>co o:p ow mogoo Amy xwm mowcwosog on» new moogmo a—moogum ooxgos ooopo>oo o:p cw oomo momomoEog o:p mo poo gap: oogmo xpmoogum so» Amv oogcu ooopo moogmo apmoogom xgo> ooxgos ooopo>co o:p cw sow: oogmo zpmoogum umos no» =o>opo o:p mo poo ANV o:p o:p mowoopo opwo mono oow>wouoom gogogoo .Agopz oogmo woos so» omospv poop one :o xooom gag?» o:p morgue .m A.o:woo mpg» on mooopo>co o:p oowmop oooopo no mowguozv «appooggoo oouoooo o>o; so» ogom om .opooms o:p ow mogoo Ammv o>wmuxucozo mcmomosog o:p ooo—o ooouuugmwg goo» co Eon» ooopo coo cum: oogmommo “mos 3o» Poo; so» msouw A_PV co>opo oooulomop goo» co soon oooFo coo sum: oogmo omos so» Poom so» Appv =o>opo poopom coo mogoo =o>omuzugo$ mo gooum o:p smooggu goo; .N N . . g m . . o o . . o m . . g m . . g m . . g o . . o m . . * N . . * oogmomwo oogmomwo oogm< xpmoogum oogmomwo oogmomwo oogmompo go: oogm< oogm< oogm< oogm< xpmoogum xgo> apmcogum apouogoooz appgmppm gogpwoz xpagmppm apopogoooz apmoogum ago> “woosomooggo mcpzoppoo ogu ow Eon» compo .pgmwg op woo— Eogm mowcowmoo ooo sosu co mogoo oogopoo o:p ;u_3 mooo~o>=o Amv oopo on“ oxo» .p ogooooogo mopugom 140 .oo» goon» .hmomuc mzh awhmgozou hmaa u> .zmoomm he: on mmzm mzp ooo :ooo ocoogo,o=oo goooog o ooopo .o .ooo_o>:o gooo ow mogoo mo goosoc uooggoo o:p cup: on ooo ow ogom oo poo .ogoo gopoomugoo o oo cowowmoo on» omoogo ooo xooo om op oogm poom omoopo msouw mcwogom o_wzz "ouoz .ooopo>:o oogmomwo zpucmppm o:p or Amv oompo mowoonog o:p ooo ooo~o>oo o:p ow sup: oogmomwo go: oogmo goguwo: so» Au—v ooopoo>om mcwcwosog o:p mo woo Amy oomo ooopo moogmo xpungPm ooxgoe ooopo>oo o:p cw sop: oogmo x~ozmwpm so» o>Ponzaoozu o:p mo poo meow? Amy ugmwo ooo_o ooo Ammv msouw o>mouzooozu mo xoopm opoows o:p oxou .xppmoo .o APPENDIX E INTERCORRELATION MATRIX MMp NM Mo MM po oN Mo Mo oM pM MM Mo MM MN oM MM MM Mo oN MN MM MM Mp NM NM NN Mo NM MM NM Mp NM MMp NM MM Mo MM No oM MM NN MM Mo Mo pM MM MM MM oN Mo MM No Mo po po NM MM Mo pM Mo NM M Mo NM MMp MM MM MM NM oM MN MN NM MM Mo NM pM NM No Mp pM MM No NM MN No Mo Mp Mo MN NN MM pp MM MM MM MMp MM oM Mo po MM MN Mo MN S S N MN Mo NM MM NN 3 pM MM Mo pM MN oM NN MM MM Np W po Mo MM MM MMp MN NM MM po MN po MN MM pM NN S No po Mo MN MN MM MN po pM Np Mo Np pM MN Mp m oN MM MM oM MN MMp MM MN Mp NN No NN MN MM oM- NM MN Mp op op Mp MM- Np MM NM Mp- oM pM MM- MM- M mm Mo No NM Mo NM MM MMp MM MN MN MM po Mo pM NM NM oo pM oM MM MM MN pN MM No MM No MN NN NN M mw Mo oM oM po MM MN MM MMp MM MN oM Mo MM Mo Mo MN MM MM MM Mo Mo oM NN Mo Mo 3 Mo MM oN NM M m oM MM MN MM po Mp MN MM MMp Np Mo MN MN pM oM MN oM MM MM NM op Np oM- pN op MM oN NN pp MN pM m S NN MN MN MN NN MN MN Np MMp po MN MN Mo 3 MM MN MM- MM- Mp MN MM pM- pp 8 Mp- oM- 3 MM- Mp- Mp m MM MM NM Mo po No MM oM Mo po MMp po po No MN Mo Mo MN oM MN pN MN MN NN pN MM pM pN MM Mp MM Mo Mo MM MN MN NN po Mo MN MN po MMp NN Mo Mp pM MN MM MM oN MN oN Np MN MN oM MN MN MM Mp M MM Mo Mo pM MM MN Mo MM MN MN po NN MMp pM pM oM MM pN MM Mp pM NM MN op MN NM NN pM Mp NN N MN pM NM pM pM MM pM Mo pM MM No Mo pM MMp MN Np Mp MM pM- MN oN MM- MM Mp MM op- pp MM- MM MM- o oM MM pM oN NN oM- NM Mo oM oM MN Mp pM MN MMp Mp Mo Np op MM MM Mp Mp NM MM pN po Mo NM MM p MM MM NM MN pM NM NM MN MN MM Mo pM oM Np Mp MMp NM MM Mo NM MN po MN MN MN pM NM MN NN MN Mp MM MM No Mo No MN oo MM oM MN Mo MN MM Mp Mo NM MMp MN pM NM NM NM MM MM No pM Mo MM No MM NN Mo oN Mp NM po Mp pM MM MM MM- MN MM NN MM Np MM MN MMp oN MN Mp MN MN pM po Mp oN MN MN pN NM MM Mo pM NN Mo op oM MM MM MM- oM MM MM pM- op Mo pM oN MMp MM pM MM Mo Mo oo Mo MM po Mo po NN “u MN MM MM NN MN op MM Mo NM Mp MN oN Mp MN MM NM NM MN MM MMp MM Mo MN MM Mo Mo MM MM Mo MN Np mm MM No No oM MN Mp MM Mo op MN pN MN S N Mo MN NM Mp pM MM MMp MM Mo MM Mo NN 3 Mo Mo oo 8 W MM Mo NM pM MM MM- MN oM Np MM MN oN MM MM- Mp po NM MN MM Mo MM MMp MM Mo NM MM Mo po Mo po MM .A Mp po MN MM MN Np pN NN oM- pM- MN Np MN MM Mp MN MM MN Mo MN Mo MM MMp Mo Mo MN oM MN MM No op mm NM po No Mo po MM MM Mo pN pp NN NN op Mp NM MN MM pM Mo MM MM Mo Mo MMp MM oM MM MM pM oM MN mm NM NM Mo pM pM NM No Mo op 8 N MN MN MM MM MN No po oo Mo Mo NM Mo MM MMp oo pM Mo 3 NM MN m NN MM Mp MN Np MM- oM oM MM Mp- MM oM NM op- pN pM pM Mp Mo Mo NN MM MN oM oo MMp oM pM Mo pM MN .3 Mo Mo Mo oM Mo oM No Mo oN oM- pM MN NN pp po NM Mo oN MM MM oM Mo oM MM pM oM MMp oM NM MM MN NM pM MN NN Np .pM MN MM NN oM pN MN pM MM- Mo MN MM MN po MM Mo po MN MM Mo pM oM MMp MM po MN MM Mo NN MM pM NM- NN oN pp MM- MM MM Mp MM NM NN MM MN Mo Mo oM Mo MM pM oM Mo NM MM MMp MM Mp NM NM MM MM MN MM- NN NM MN Mp- Mp Mp NN MM- MM MN MM pN po MN oo po No oM NM pM MM po MM MMp oN Mp M pp Np Mp M M M pM Mp MM M N o p Mp NN NM NN Np pN MM op MN MN MN MN MN Mp oN muoooooomog muoooooomom .pMcpooop gouoop .3 26.3 53 55:. toga—top 283 3 mgouoguMpopoao po xpgpoa Spuopoggougouop-fipu opoop u xpMszMpp 141 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Alexis, Marcus, and Wilson, Charles Z. Organizational Decision-Making. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967. Ashby, W. Ross. An Introduction to Cybernetics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1963. Chin, Robert. "The Utility of Systems Models and Developmental Models for Practitioners." In The Planning of Change: Readings in the Applied Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D. Benne, and Robert Chin. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, l96l. Chrudent, Herbert J., and Sherman, Arthur W., Jr. Personnel Manage- ment. 5th ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western Publishing Co., l976. Churchman, C. West. The Systems Approach. New York: Delarante Press, 1968. Clealand, David 1., and King, William R. Management: A Systems Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1972. Cook, Desmond C. Educationgl Project Mana ement. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 971. Drucker, Peter F. The Practice of Management. New York: Harper and Brothers. 1954. Ellis, Allen B. The Use and Misuse of Computers in Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1974. Emery, F. E. Systems Thinking, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, Ltd., Harmondsworth, T969. Geofferey, William, and Smith, Louis M. The Cgmplexities of an Urban Classroom: An Analysis Toward a General Theory of Teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., l968. Goodlad, John I. Behind the Classrogm Door. Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 1970. 142 143 . School Curriculum and the Individual. Waltham, Mass.: BlaisdellPublishing Co., 1966. Gorman, Alfred H. Teachers and Leavers: The Interactive Process. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1969. Grinker, R. P. Toward a Unified Theory of Human Behavior. New York: Basic Books, Publishers, 1956. Hartley, Harry J. Educational Planning, Programmingg_Budgeting; A %ystems Approach. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 968. Hillary, George A., Jr. Communal Organizations: A Study of Local Societies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968. Hovey, Harold A. The Planning, Programmin , BudggtingAApproach to Government Decision-Makipg, New or : Frederick A. Praeger, Publisher, 1968. Immegart, Glen L., and Pilecki, Francis J. An Introduction to Systems for the Educational Administrator. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1973. Jackson, Philip W. Life in Classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1968. Knezevich, Stephen J. Administrative Technology and the School Executive. Washington, D.C.: American Association of School Administrators, 1975. Lewin, Kurt. "Quasi-Stationary Social Equilibrium and the Problem of Permanent Change." In The Planning of Change: Reading; in the Applied Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Warren G. Bennis, Kennethgb. Benne, and Robert Chin. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. Lortie, Dan C. Schoolteacher: A Sociolo ical Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 197 . Lott, Richard W. Basic Systems Analysis. New York: Confield Press, 1971. Moder, Joseph J., and Phillips, Cecil. PrpjectMpgagement With CPM and PERT. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corp., 1964. Montello, Paul A., and Wimberly, Charles A. Manpgement Systems in Education. Professional Publications, 1975. Morrish, Ivor. Aspects of_Educationa1 Chapgg, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1976. 144 Odiorne, George S. MBO: A System of Manpgerial Leadership. New York: Pitman Publishing Corp., 1965. Patten, Thomas H., Jr. Pay; Employee Compensation and Incegtive Plans. London: The Free Press, Collier-MacMillan Publishers, 1977. Riggs, James L., and Inorie, Michael S. Introduction to Operations Research and Management Science. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975. Schmuck, Richard A., and Schmuck, Patricia. Group Processes in the Classroom. 2nd ed. Iowa: um. C. Brown Co., 1975. Sroller, David S. Operations Research: Process and Strategy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1964. Stephenson, William. A Study of Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. Strang, Ruth. Group Work in Education. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1958. ' Wiener, Norbert. Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1948. . The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society. Boston: Houghton—Mifflin, 1954. Witt, Paul W. Technology and the Curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1968. Periodicals Ackoff, Russell L. "Management Information Systems." Management Science (December 1967). Bain, Helen. "Self Governance Must Come First, Then Accountability." Phi Delta Kappan 51 (April 1970). Hall, Arthur D., and Fagen, Robert E. "Definition of System." General Systems 1 (1956). Jones, Philip G. "How One School Board Judges, Rewards and Penal- izes Its Superintendent on the Basis of His Performance." The American School Board Journal 161 (February 1974). 145 Levy, F. K.; Thompson, G. L.; and West, J. D. "The ABC's of the Critical Path Method." Harvard Business Review 4 (September- October 1963). Schramm, Wilbur L. "Programmed Instruction." Today and Tomorrow. (November 1962). ' Unpublished Materials Casagrada, Leroy. "Perspective." A Newsletter of the School Plan- ning, Evaluation and Communication System, Fall 1974. For further elaboration on SPECS contact Dr. John Nagle, Program Director, SPECS, Center for Educational Policy and Management. Connor, Walter B. The Wisdom of the Body. Cited in Harvey Bleecher, “The Authoritativeness ofMichigan's Educational Accounta- bility Program." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1975. Janesick, Valerie. "An Ethnographic Study of a Teacher's Classroom Perspective." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. Martin, William H. "A Participant Observation Study of an Outdoor Educational Experimental Curriculum Operating in a Public Secondary School." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1977. Perrone, Veto. "Does Accountability Count Without Teacher Support?" An Assessment of the Kalamazoo Public Schools' Accountability System From the Perspective of Teachers. August 1976. Tiller, Harvey B. "Quality Belief Patterns in Secondary Education." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 1969.