O O Iflllllllzlgljllllllllljllglllllljlfllflll Linux? This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MATCHED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AND STUDENT SATISFACTION IN A COMPETENCY BASED TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM presented by David L. Amundsen has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Student Teaching and Professional Development Major essor Date' ‘2 1 /777 / 0-7639 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. 'THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MATCHED LEARNING :ENVIRONMENTS AND STUDENT SATISFACTION IN A (COMPETENCY BASED TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM By David L. Amundsen A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Ijepartment of Student Teaching and Professional Development 1979 ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MATCHED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AND STUDENT SATISFACTION IN A COMPETENCY BASED TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM By David L. Amundsen The effect of matching or mismatching of pre-service teachers' accessibility channels with the CBTE learning intervention environment was examined as related to post CBTE lab satisfaction and post student teaching satisfaction. The pre—service teacher's Conceptual Level was the independ- ent variable. Dependent variables included: value orientation, mot ivational orientation , post CBTE lab satisfaction, and post student teaching satisfaction of the pre-service teacher. Two populations, of 57 and 38 pre-service teachers respectively, were studied, (1) To determine which access- ibility channels of the pre-service teacher were matched or mismatched with the CBTE learning intervention environment when grouped by Conceptual Level, and (2) To determine the effect of a pre—service teacher's accessibility channels as grouped by Conceptual Level when they were matched or mis- matched with the CBTE learning intervention environment on the post CBTE lab satisfaction and the post student teaching satisfaction. David L. Amundsen Findings showed that: (1) all respondents' value (Irixentations when grouped by Conceptual Level were mismatched “Kitti the projected value system of the program in Population TI, \Nhile all respondents were matched in Population II; (23) all respondents' motivational orientations when grouped bur Conceptual Level were matched with the source of feedback tused in the program for Population I, whereas, all but one (Zonceptual Level group were matched for Population II; (3) with the exception of one Conceptual Level group in I?opulation I, all of Population II post CBTE lab means were liigher than Population I; (4) all Population I and Population II post student teaching satisfaction means were lower than the post CBTE lab satisfaction means; (5) the differences 'between post CBTE lab satisfaction and post student teaching satisfaction means for all Conceptual Level groups for IPopulation II are greater than the mean differences for any Conceptual Level group for Population I. Hypothesis I was accepted for Population I and Population II; all other hypotheses were rejected, however the data showed trends in the predicted directions. 44 ___. .,___"..—-————-—-—-...——__ ,___ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS John Cragun's waiting, questioning and encourage- rnent supported me to succeed throughout the degree program. Iiis depth, concern and friendship allowed a unique study, that was of interest to me. George Myers' humanism, guidance and friendship is appreciated. His encouragement gave me direction to pursue my own ideas and beliefs in study and practice. John Suehr helped me focus my perceptions of what schools should be and how to perceive myself. Melvin Buschman's support gave the whole process meaning and clarity. Barbara, my wife, whose needling, support and commitment to my studies was the inspiration I required. In our talks, discussions and arguments her strength and love for me was always evident. Marti and Keel, my children, have paid the big price in their ”little” big way. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES Chapter I. PRESENTATION OF THE STUDY Introduction . Purpose of the Study . Hypotheses to be Tested Assumptions and Limitations Definition of Terms Importance of the Study Overview of Thesis II. RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH Introduction Historical Development . Application of the Conceptual Level Matching Model. . . . . . . . . Degree of Structure . Measurement of Degree of Structure Accessibility Channels Matching Summary III. METHODOLOGY Introduction . Hypotheses to be Tested Selection of the Population Selection and Development of the Questionnaires. The Pilot Study for the Questionnaires: Measurement of Conceptual Level: Paragraph Completion Method Measurement of Value Orientation: Teacher Practices Inventory Measurement of Motivational Orientation Measurements of Satisfaction. Collection and Analysis of Data Summary iii oqmw H 10 13 15 15 22 25 29 49 52 53 53 55 55 56 56 61 67 69 b9 72 Chapter IV. PR V. CO APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX BIBLIOGR ESENTATION OF FINDINGS Introduction . . Chapter Organization Instruments . . . . . . . . . . Determination of Conceptual Level Match/Mismatch Criteria . Description of the Populations Independent Variable Dependent Variables Analysis of the Data Dependent Variables Hypotheses as Tested Summary . . . NCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction Findings Conclusions Recommendations . . . . . Recommendations for Action . Recommendations for Future Study Summary A ASSESSMENT OF CONCEPTUAL LEVEL: PARAGRAPH COMPLETION METHOD B VALUE ORIENTATION QUESTIONNAIRE: TEACHER PRACTICES INVENTORY C MOTIVATIONAL ORIENTATION QUESTIONNAIRE D POST CBTE LAB SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE E POST STUDENT TEACHING SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE F HUNT, D.E., et. a1. “ASSESSMENT OF CONCEPTUAL LEVEL: PARAGRAPH COMPLETION METHOD (PCM)." G NORMS FOR LEARNING STYLE - ADULT SAMPLE APHY iv 74 74 74 75 76 77 78 94 102 117 119 119 120 122 129 129 130 132 133 140 145 149 153 180 182 Table \l 001 tbOJNl—J £000 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. LIST OF TABLES Contemporaneous Matching Model Optimal Training Environments Stage Specific Matched Environments Structure as Determined by the Source of Control Variations in Environmental Structure Classification of Models by Amount of Structure Model for Coordinating Learner Characteristics with Educational Approaches Parameters for Determining Conceptual Level Population 1 Students Grouped by Conceptual Level Population II Students Grouped by Conceptual Level . . Population I N and Range of .Scores for Each Instrument . Population II N and Range of Scores for Each Instrument . . Population I Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges of Scores for First Standard Deviation + from the Mean for Value Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . Population II Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges of Scores for First Standard Deviation I from the Mean for Value Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . Population I Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges of Scores for First Standard Deviation + from the Mean for Motivational Orientation I . Population II Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges of Scores for First Standard Deviations + from the Mean for Motivational Orientation I Population I Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges of Scores for First Standard Deviation : from the Mean for Motivational Orientation II V7 19 23 28 29 30 41 71 77 78 79 79 8O 82 85 87 9O Table 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Population II Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges of Scores for First Standard Deviation + from the Mean for Motivational Orientation II . Population I Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges of Scores for First Standard Deviation + from the Mean for Post CBTE Lab Satisfaction Population II Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges of Scores for First Standard Deviation + from the Mean for Post CBTE Lab Satisfaction Population I Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges of Scores for First Standard Deviation + from the Mean for Post Student Teaching Satisfaction Population II Means, Standard Deviations and Ranges of Scores for First Standard Deviation + from the Mean for Post Student Teaching Satisfaction Population I Correlation Coefficients Relating Post CBTE Lab Satisfaction with Value Orientation . Population II Correlation Coefficients Relating Post CBTE Lab Satisfaction with Value Orientation Population I Correlation Coefficients Relating Post CBTE Lab Satisfaction with Motivational Orientation I . Population I Correlation Coefficients Relating Post CBTE Lab Satisfaction with Motivational Orientation II Population II Correlation Coefficients Relating Post CBTE Lab Satisfaction with Motivational Orientation I Population II Correlation Coefficients Relating Post CBTE Lab Satisfaction with Motivational Orientation II . . Population I Satisfaction Means for Post CBTE and Post Student Teaching Population II Satisfaction Means for Post CBTE and Post Student Teaching . Population I Standard Deviations for Post CBTE and Post Student Teaching Satisfaction Population II Standard Deviations for Post CBTE and Post Student Teaching Satisfaction Population I Correlation Coefficients for. Post CBTE Lab Satisfaction and Post Student Teaching Satisfaction vi 92 95 97 99 101 105 107 108 109 110 110 111 112 113 114 115 Table 34. 35. 36. Population II Correlation Coefficients for Post CBTE Lab Satisfaction and Post Student Teaching Satisfaction Norms for Learning Style by Grade . Norms for Learning Style — Adult Sample vii 116 178 180 CHAPTER I PRESENTATION OF THE STUDY Introduction ” . . . different people learn different things in different ways; thus, the planning and design of any educa— tional program, including the training of teachers, should provide differential alternatives . . .“1 to accommodate in- dividual learner differences. To achieve this implied goal of teacher education, Hunt suggests, "A teacher training program, which provides alternative experiences modulated to trainee differences, is not only more likely to produce an efficient direct effect, but it will also be indirectly beneficial in providing the teacher trainee with an experimental example of what is meant by individualizing instruction and 'meeting the needs of the student'.”2 If educators would take into account how students learn (Learning Styles) within the Competency Based Teacher Education Model they could devise instructional activities, 1David E. hunt, Matching Models in Education. Mono- graph Series, No. 10 (Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1971), p. 68. 21bid, p. 67. 2 materials and strategies that would be Optimal for the student's individual learning style. “’Every student (or trainee) is unique' and 'Because of his uniqueness, every student must be treated differently' . . .“1 The Competency Based Teacher Education Model (CBTE) is an attempt at meeting the individual needs of the student, but often the deveIOpers overlook the student’s learning style. By utilizing learning style research in the CBTE Model a student should learn more efficiently and a more effective approach to instruction could be developed. Within most Competency Based Teacher Education Models educators have considered rate of learning, affect- ive and cognitive domain, alternative instructional strate— gies, emotional and physical climate, but not the student’s learning style. If the Competency Based Teacher Education Model could match its intervention with the student’s learning style an optimal learning environment could be provided. By chance, there are some ”matches” between the student's learning style and the learning intervention. These chance matches provide an optimal learning environ- ment for a few students but not all. As educators, we should be eliminating the chance element and work toward pro— viding an optimal educational environment for all students. 1Bruce Joyce and Marsha Weil, ed., Perspectives for Reform in Teacher Education (Lnglewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-hall, Inc., 1972) p. 54. 3 . we want to organize teacher education so that the individual differences of the teacher candidates are optimally matched to training methods and interpersonal climates so that learn- ing will be comfortable and effective. Ideally, the climate of teacher education should modulate to the teacher candidates, so that a variety of conditions can meet the needs of the individuals.1 This can be accomplished by matching the student's learning style with the instructional intervention; thereby, education should become more effective, efficient and rele- vant to the student. Isn't this part of most educators' goals? Purpose of the Study Current teacher education procedures include the learning of specific teaching skills that are fundamental to all forms of instruction. Teacher educators generally agree with the concept of teaching these basic competencies to teacher candidates because of their inherent value to the act of teaching. The purpose of this study is to deter- mine the effect of the match/mismatch of the accessibility channels and the degree of structure of the CBTE interven— tion on the satisfaction of student teachers with the CBTE lab and with their student teaching experiences. The mode of instruction in Competency Based Teacher Education (CBTE) is by individualized learning modules. These modules are constructed with performance objectives and stated performance criteria; included are a pretest to Ibid, p. 49. 4 determine entry behavior and to prescribe one's learning activities, and a post-test to determine one's performance or evaluation. The modules are basically self-taught experiences, which will allow the learner to demonstrate the desired skills when completed. The modules let one learn at his own rate, and if the student does not meet the performance criteria he is directed to repeat certain activities until the learned teaching competency can be demonstrated. The learning activities are varied depending on the objective, but they generally include prescribed learning sequence and/or learning activity, observation (live and T.V.), participation by means of T.V., reading, and active participation in the classroom. CBTE is an individualized program in terms of entry behavior, or an entry assessment of teaching performance; weaknesses and the rate of learning can be determined by the student. Within this individualized program, however, is an organized prescribed structure which provides an effi— cient means for implementation, but not necessarily for effective learning. For the purpose of this study the structure of Michigan State University's Competency Based Teacher Education Program will be designated as a moderately—high structure by this author. The rationale follows from the discussion of the degree of structure. (See Chapter II). This CBTE program prescribes the learning activities, states ‘ the goal, content, procedures, performance criteria, and 5 reward/feedback system, all of which have been described as being part of a high structure intervention. As a result of the program design, two options are available that can be used to determine a moderately—high structure. These two options provide that, (1) a student can avoid taking a module by utilizing his past experience and education to meet the performance criteria without partici- pating in the CBTE learning intervention, and (2) the stu- dent can choose among several learning activities to learn the prescribed competency. As a result of the two options the structure can be defined as moderately-high structure. The importance of the structure and learning style (Conceptual Level) of the learning intervention has been demonstrated by Hunt. Conceptual Level (CL) is defined as, . a person characteristic, indexing both cognitive complexity (differentiation, discri- mination, and integration) as well as interper- sonal maturity (increasing self responsibility). A person at a higher Conceptual Level is more structurally complex, more capable of responsible actions, and, most important, more capable of adapting to a changing environment than a person at a lower Conceptual Level. The Conceptual Level (CL) Matching Model with respect to the degree of structure is best explained by Table l. 1David E. Hunt, ”Person-Environment Interaction: A Challenge Found Wanting Before It Was Tried,” Review of Educational Research 45 (Spring 1975): 217. 6 Table l. Contemporaneous Matching Model Learning Style needs much structure needs little structure Conceptual level \/ W Low High Degree of Structure High Low SOURCE: Hunt, "Person—Environment Interaction," p. 220. Degree of structure or degree of organization is provided by the learning environment. In high structure, the environment is largely determined by the teacher, and the student himself has little responsibility, whereas in low struc- ture, the student is much more responsible for organizing the environment. Given the character- istics of low CL persons (dependent on external standards and incapable of generating their own concepts), they should profit more from a highly structured approach. Given the characteristics of the high CL persons (capable of generating new concepts and holding internal standards), they should either profit more from low struc— ture, or be unaffected by variations in struc— ture. The basic matching principle is summarized as, “low CL learners profiting more from high structure and high CL learners profiting more from low structure, or in some cases, being 1 less affected by the variation in structure”. Using this theory we can assume that the CBTE structure will accommodate some of the CL and admixture students, but not all, because different CL students will process information differently. Therefore, in CBTE there are no alternatives for the mismatched CL and admixtures 1Hunt, Matching Models in Education, pp. 219-20. 7 to learn the prescribed teaching competencies; the effec- tive value of the learned competency will not be the same for all, nor will the learning be as effective as possible. There are other matches/mismatches in the use of accessibility channels to define the appropriate environ- ment for learning the prescribed competencies. First, value orientation identifies whether the ideas/competen- cies are within the latitude of acceptance of the student. If they are, he will see value in the intervention's com— petency; if they aren't, he will not value the competency and will not incorporate it into his teaching style; therefore, these mismatched students learn competencies for pragmatic reasons. Second, motivational orientation is the form of feedback/reward from evaluation preferred by the student for motivation. Third, sensory orientation will not be considered in this study because the student has the choice of several modes of instruction when he selects a learning activity. Hypotheses to be Tested Satisfaction was chosen as a dependent variable as a result of the CBTE performance evaluation. The original purpose proposed for this study was to measure the effect of the match/mismatch of the accessibility channels and the degree of structure of the learning intervention on the performance of learned competencies. However, no statis- tical analysis could be done because the performance was 8 measured with pass/fail criteria. It is important to evaluate how well students demonstrate a teaching compe— tency (not only that they ”pass”); since pass/fail would not give any data on the degree of excellence in demonstra- ting a given competency, performance was not an acceptable dependent variable. As a consequence, satisfaction was chosen as a dependent variable, because the degree of satisfaction could be measured. Other dependent variables are the pre—student teacher's value orientation and moti— vational orientation. The independent variable is the pre-student teacher's Conceptual Level (CL). From reviewing the literature and the above dis- cussion the following hypotheses are appropriate. Hypotheses I. There is a positive correlation between the pre-service student teacher value orientation and the post CBTE lab satisfaction when there is a match between the CL and the structure of the CBTE instructional intervention. 2. There is a negative correlation between the pre-service student teacher value orientation and the post CBTE lab satisfaction when there is a mismatch between the CL and the structure of the CBTE instructional intervention. 3. There is a positive correlation between the pre—service student teacher motivational orientation and the post CBTE lab satisfaction when there is a match between 9 the CL and the structure of the CBTE instructional inter— vention. 4. There is a negative correlation between the pre-service student teacher motivational orientation and the post CBTE lab satisfaction when there is a mismatch between CL and the structure of the CBTE instructional intervention. 5. There is a positive correlation between the student's post CBTE lab satisfaction and the post student teaching satisfaction when there is a mismatch between the CL and the structure of the CBTE instructional intervention. Assumptions and Limitations Assumptions 1. This group of students is representative of typical Competency Based Teacher Education students. 2. The test to measure a student's Conceptual Level is reliable and valid. 3. The questionnaire to measure a student's value orientation is reliable and valid. 4. The questionnaire to measure a student's sat- isfaction with student teaching will be reliable and valid as developed for this study. 5. The questionnaire to measure a student's sat- isfaction with Competency Based Teacher Education will be reliable and valid as developed for this study. 6. If a student is satisfied with Competency Based Teacher Education, he will use the acquired skills; 10 if he is dissatisfied with Competency Based Teacher Educa— tion, he will not use the competencies. Limitations 1. The sample studied cannot be of random selec- tion, because it is the student's option whether or not to take the CBTE Program. 2. This group is not representative of all teach- ing majors. 3. The reliability and validity of the Paragraph Completion Method (PCM) is not as high as traditional para- metric measures because this is a subjective test. 4. Value orientation, motivational orientation, and satisfaction are less than perfectly measured by questionnaire responses. Definition of Terms Accessibility Channels are the " . . . trainee's Ml aptitudes, of cognitive orientation, motivational orienta- tion, value orientation, and sensory orientation. Cognitive Orientation indicates how a student will organize and interpret experience into useful knowledge.2 Competency Based Teacher Education (CBTE) is appropriately defined by Lindsey as, 1Joyce and Weil, ed., Perspectives for Reform in Teacher Education, p. 50. 21bid, pp. 55-56. 11 The process of designing a competency-based program of initial teacher education (which) requires specifying in advance expected out- comes in terms of competencies to be demon- strated by graduates of the program, develop- ing learning opportunities and environments expected to facilitate students' progress toward specified outcomes, and constructing and using evaluating procedures and instruments directly relevant to the stated competencies. In a well designed program, the result of these steps is a system where feedback channels are busy conveying evidence on the functioning and effect of the system. Conceptual Level (CL) is the degree of abstractness of an individual in processing information in an environ— mental experience.2 9' Conceptual System is, a schema that provides the basis by which the individual relates to the environ- mental events he experiences."3 Intervention is a training procedure which utilizes a student's accessibility channels and skill level.4 Latitude of Acceptance determines the parameters of acceptance of divergent beliefs.5 1Margaret Lindsey, “Performance-based Teacher Edu- cation: Examination of a Slogan,” Journal of Teacher Edu— cation, 24 (Fall 1973): 181—82. 2David E. Hunt and Edmund V. Sullivan, Between Psychology and Education (Hinsdale, Illinois: The Dryden Press, 1974), pp. 221—22. 3Hunt, Matching Models in Education, p. 18. 4151a, p. 73. 5Joyce and Weil, ed., Perspectives for Reform in Teacher Education, p. 60. 12 Learning Style is a synonym of Conceptual Level (CL). Matching is the appropriateness of a particular program characteristic for an individual, with respect to Conceptual Level, motivational orientation and value orien— tation.1 Mismatch is the lack of appropriateness of a pro- gram's characteristics for an individual, with respect to Conceptual Level, motivational orientation and/or value orientation.2 Motivational Orientation affects preference for and reaction to different forms of feedback and reward.3 Structure is the degree of external control over an individual's learning environment.4 Value Orientation determines whether a student will be likely to learn skills designed as intervention proce- dures which will achieve objectives which are disagreed with.5 lBruce Joyce and Marsha Weil, Models of Teaching (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972), pp. 297-98. 0 “Ibid. 3Joyce and Weil, ed., Perspectives for Reform in Teacher Education, p. 56. 4Bruce Joyce, Marsha Weil, and Rhoada Wald, Basic Teaching Skills (Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1972), pp. 27-30. 5Joyce and Weil, ed., Perspectives for Reform in Teacher Education, p. 56. 13 Importance of the Study One of the problems of education has been the lack of psychological research being utilized by education. By utilizing the Conceptual Level from psychology and applying it to education, an appropriate educational model could be developed. This Conceptual Level Matching Model essentially prescribes different intervention structure, value content, and feedback/reward systems for different learners' charac- teristics. From this one could design an educational program that is not modal, but comes closer to individualizing than a modal approach. Specifically, as CBTE becomes the stan— dard, some consideration must be given to the student's accessibility channels to learning if CBTE is to be effec- tive. This suggests a multitude of tracks to reach the same behavioral teaching objectives. When these option tracks are provided, as suggested by this study, a more effective, efficient, relevant teacher education program could and should be implemented. Overview of Thesis This study is divided into five chapters. In this chapter, Chapter I, the basic problem has been introduced and outlined. The terms are identified and the scope of the study has been defined. In Chapter II, a review of the literature on struc— ture, Conceptual Level and matching is given. It contains 14 two sections: (1) Historical Development, and (2) Appli- cation of the Conceptual Level Matching Model. The operationalizing of definitions is discussed in the first portion of Chapter III. Methods used in the data collection and analysis are considered in the final section of the chapter. Chapter IV contains an analysis of the Paragraph Completion Test and questionnaire data to determine the match/mismatch of the students and the CBTE intervention and the resulting effect on the subjects' satisfaction. Chapter V provides conclusions drawn from the research and consideration of the types of problems and issues which should be considered in future efforts to apply the Concep- tual Level Matching Model. CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH Introduction The review of Related Literature and Research focuses on structure, Conceptual Level and matching. It contains two sections: (1) Historical Development, and (2) Application of the Conceptual Level Matching Model. This review serves several purposes: (1) it serves as a conceptual and theoretical frame of reference for this study, (2) it selectively samples descriptions of research findings related to this study, and (3) it guides and sub- stantiates the research methods used in this study. Education has espoused the “ . . . importance of originality, flexibility and creativity while using proce— dures (e.g., teaching machines) and methods of evaluation (e.g., machine-scored objective tests) which reward mecha- "1 This approach to instruction is nistic stereotypy now being used in many of the teacher education programs. These programs, now called Competency Based Teacher Educa- tion, are individualized instruction where one may attain competency in specific teaching skills. One way to indi- 1O.J. Harvey, ed., Experience, Structure and Adapt- ability (New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc., 1966), p. 290. y...) o: 16 vidualize Competency Based Teacher Education is to utilize individual differences as represented by learning styles. The individual’s learning style is best utilized when the educational intervention is adaptable to how a student learns (learning style). “For example, some learn better by listening to the teacher, some by discussions, and others by working on their own."1 One's learning style can also prescribe the most efficient, and therefore effective, educational intervention structure. If a student does not learn best in a Competency Based Teacher Education struc— tured sequential intervention, then the learning will appear to be of little relevance to him. Teacher education programs must also adapt to indi— vidual differences because of the variance in skill level and personality, but programs like most Competency Based Teacher Education (CBTE) provide few options and are design- ed for the average student. "A teacher training program, which provides alternative experiences modulated to trainee differences, is not only more likely to produce an efficient direct effect, but it will also be indirectly beneficial in providing the teacher trainee with an experimental example of what is meant by individualizing instruction and 'meet- ing the needs of the student'."2 1hunt and Sullivan, Between Psychology and Education, p. 264. 2Hunt, Matching Models in Education, p. 67. 17 One way of individualizing would be ” . . . a system for coordinating differences in educational environ- ments (or training intervention) with trainee characteris- tics. We will use the concept of matching to describe the appropriateness of a particular training intervention, for an individual trainee, to accomplish a specific training objective."l Student characteristics which have been matched with learning environment include age-group, ability groups, social adjustment, and teachability. The purpose of this study is to investigate another system for matching, Conceptual Level, which determines one's learning style (Conceptual Level/cognitive orienta— tion). This is appropriate if one goal of education is, " . . . to provide the conditions to produce more abstract ”2 Another major goal, as conceptual structure Harvey, Hunt and Schroder state is, " . . . the process of growth and progression, which should be the major goal of education."3 I also submit that, ”growth and progression" is a major goal of teacher education. Conceptual Level Matching Model is presented as the theoretical basis for utilization of the learning style lIbid. 21bid, p. 23. 3O.J. Harvey, D.E. Hunt, and H.M. Schroder, Con— ceptual Systems and Personality Organization (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1961), p. 340. 18 model. Learning style, or cognitive orientation, is a com- ponent of the Conceptual Level Model. Therefore, if the Conceptual Level Model can be justified by research, the use of Conceptual Level as a means of matching would also be inferred, and, in fact, is only a slight modification of what Hunt calls cognitive orientation. Historical Development Conceptual Level Model was derived by application of the Conceptual System Theory of personality development and organization of Harvey, Hunt, and Schroder, and a revision of Schroder, Driver, and Streufert's, "Four Levels "1 From this theoretical frame- of Integrative Complexity. work, Hunt derived the current form of the Conceptual Level Matching Model, which applies these theories to education. In the Conceptual Level Model development is view- ed as having both the dimensions of increasing conceptual complexity and interpersonal maturity. Thus, the stages of the Conceptual Level Model are a combination of both the Conceptual Level and integrative complexity. Therefore, Hunt's Conceptual Level Model can best be understood by summarizing stages with matched optimal training environ— ments as shown in Table 2. Conceptual Level is a person characteristic, indexing both cognitive complexity (differ- entiation, discrimination, and integration) as well as interpersonal maturity (increasing self-responsibility). A person at a higher 1Joyce and Weil, Models of Teaching, p. 30. 19 Table 2. Optimal Training Environments Stage Characteristics Cmminnl Environment I Individual uses fixed patterns of Environment needs to be response, sees things in terms of well-structured, support- rights and wrongs, categorizes the ive, fairly controlling world in terms of sterotypes, pre— with stress on self-delin- fers hierarchical social relation— eation and negotiation. ships and distorts information to fit it into existing categories. II Individual breaking away frcm rigid Environment needs to empha— rules and beliefs, actively resists size negotiation in inter— authority and control, tends to personal relations and di- dichotomize the environment, has vergence in the develop- difficulty seeing other points of ment of rules and concepts. view and balancing task orien- tation with interpersonal relations. III Individual develops concern wdth Environment should interpersonal relations, has some strengthen re-established difficulty maintining task orien- interpersonal relations, tation, begins to balance alter— with an emphasis also plac- natives and to build concepts which ed on tasks of the indivi— bridge differing points of View. dual as a member of a group. IV Individual maintains a balanced Environment should be in- perspective between task orien- tation and interpersonal relatons, can build new constructs and beliefs, can negotiate with others the rules to govern behavior and negotiate conceptual systems for approaching abstract problems . terdependent, information— oriented, complex. SOURCE: Joyce and Weil, Models of Teaching, pp. 303-305. 20 Conceptual Level is more structurally complex, more capable of responsible actions, and, most important, more capable of adapting to a changing environment than a person at a lower Conceptual Level.1 Under ideal conditions, by advancing one's CL, a person will develop, ” . . . from a low level of conceptual organization in which he is cognitively simple, dependent and not capable of generating his own concepts, to a higher level in which he is more cognitively complex, independent, and capable of generating his own concepts."2 From the theoretical framework of Harvey, Hunt, and Schroder, Hunt derived the current form of the Concep- tual Level Matching Theory. One of the first revisions made in developing the Conceptual Level derivative was to note the occurrence of a form of conceptual organi- zation not anticipated earlier; because this represented the lowest point on the CL dimen- sions, it was initially referred to as a 'Sub I stage' (Hunt, 1966a) and, more recently, it is considered in continuous terms as very low in CL. Next, on the basis of cross-sectional investigations in the 12-to lB-years age range, the motivational orientation hypothesized to characterize the hypothetically 'superior' stage III persons (mutuality and affiliation) did not occur more frequently in older than younger children as might have been expected. Further, persons with stage IV characteristics were essentially non—existent. Therefore, the CL derivative extended the dimension lower (a step that in turn led to a reconsideration 1Hunt, “Person-Environment Interaction,” pp. 217— 218. 2Peter D. Tomlinson and David E. Hunt, “Differential Effects of Rule-Example Order as a Function of Learner Conceptual Level,” Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 3 (1971): 238. 21 and redefinition of the 'negative independence' in Stage II, with this high CL group being recon— ceptualized as more conceptually complex and independent), and seriously questioned the use- fulness of the motivationally based system -- Specific characteristics of Stage III and Stage IV. In sum, the CL derivative views personality organization as a continuous dimension, with very general anchor points at what we have referred to earlier as Sub I Stage, Stage I, and Stage II, which are hierarchically ordered. Most of our work described here is based on persons in the 12 to 18 years age range so that the reser— vations expressed about the usefulness or occurrence of patterns above Stage II should be considered in terms of the samples studied and the methods used, i.e., it is possible that higher levels may occur in older samples. This change in model from stage specific classifi— cations to the high-low CL continuum has many implications for CBTE. Given the characteristics of low CL learners - categorical, dependent on external standards, and not capable of generating their own con- cepts - the prediction follows that they will profit more from educational approaches providing a high degree of structure. Given the character- istics of high CL learners - capable of generating new concepts, having a greater degree of inter- nal standards, and being capable of taking on different perspectives - either they should profit more from approaches that are low in structure, or degree of structure may not affect their performance.2 To utilize the CL model in an educational setting Hunt expanded the model to incorporate other characteris— tics of the individual. These characteristics, which will 1David E. Hunt, "A Conceptual Level Matching Model for Coordinating Learner Characteristics with Educational Approaches,” Interchange 1 (1970): 70. 2Ibid, p. 76. 22 be defined later, are cognitive orientation, motivational orientation, value orientation, and sensory orientation. Application of the Conceptual Level Matching Model If one of the purposes of pre-service teacher education is to foster growth in students as teachers, then it follows that the same approach should be used in their training. Maintaining a developmental perspective becomes very important in implementing person—environ- ment matching because a teacher should not only take account of a student's contemporaneous needs by providing whatever structure he present- ly requires, but also view his present need for structure on a developmental continuum along which growth toward independence and less need for structure is the long term objective (Hunt and Sullivan, 1974).1 One of the solutions in providing for contemporan- eous needs of the student has been proposed by Hunt as the Conceptual Level Matching Model. This Conceptual Level matching model hypothesizes a relation between structure of presentation and CL on the basis that the low CL person will need more structure because of his relative incapacity to generate concepts, while the high CL person should require less structure since he is capable of generating his own concepts.“ By use of this Conceptual Level Matching Model, the emphasis will be on progression, therefore one must concen- 1Hunt and Sullivan, Between Psychology and Education, P- 208. cited by Hunt, "Person—Environment Interaction,” p. 221. f) ‘Tomlinson and Hunt, ”Differential Effects of Rule- Example Order,” p. 238. 23 trate on the optimal educational environment. "From the Conceptual Level matching viewpoint, the crucial question is, 'Given this kind of person, which method is better for certain objectives?”l Hunt states that if and only if the environment produces progression are the student and the environment matched, whereas if it causes arrestation, this is a mis- match. Hunt's revised Matching Model contains only two extremes on a continuum, low and high, instead of four separate and distinct stages. Table 3 best summarizes the necessary environment for progression. Table 3. Stage Specific Matched Environments 'Desired Development Matched Environment Stage A - B (i.e., Low CL) Highly structured, clear, and consistent. Stage B — C (i.e., High CL) Moderately structured, encour- aging self-expression. SOURCE: Hunt and Sullivan, Between Psychology and Education, p. 211. This implies that matched environments are educa- tionally relevant and can be achieved. ”Once learner characteristics have been specified and measured, the edu— lJohn F.C. McLachlan and David E. Hunt, "Differen- tial Effects of Discovery Learning as a Function of Student Conceptual Level,” Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 5 (1973): 152. 24 cational objectives should be stated explicitly and atten- tion devoted to developing theoretical ways of coordinating these two factors with the planning of more effective edu- . . l cat1onal env1ronments.” The educational relevance of the Conceptual Level Matching Model is developed from Hunt's research as well as from Cross, Noy and Hunt, and McLachlan and Hunt.2 ”Thus, the heart of the CL matching model is a generally inverse relation between CL and degree of structure: Low CL learn- ers profiting more from high structure and high CL learners profiting more from low structure or, in some cases, being less affected by variations in structure."3 The generic dimension of the educational environ- ment in the CL matching model is degree of struc- ture, . . . Degree of structure may take the form of variations in rule-example sequencing in which example-only would be regarded as low structure while rule-example would be high structure. It may also be represented by variations from the low structure of a discovery approach to the high structure of a lecture approach, from in- 1David E. hunt, ”Adolescence: Cultural Deprivation, Poverty, and the Dropout,” Review of Educational Research 36 (1966): 470. 2H.J. Cross, ”The Relation of Parental Training Conditions to Conceptual Level in Adolescent Boys," Journal of Personality 34 (1966): 348-365; Joyce E. Noy and David E. Hunt, ”Student-Directed Learning From Biographical Infor- mation Systems,“ Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 4 (1972): 54-63; McLachlan and Hunt, "Differential Effects of Discovery Learning as a Function of Student Conceptual Level." '3 0Hunt, Matching Models in Education, p. 44. 25 dependent study to highly organized study, and from student-centered approaches to teacher-cen- tered approaches. Degree of Structure Degree of structure tends to be ambiguous, and ill- defined; each researcher uses his own terminology, i.e., teaching style, leadership-style, student centered, student constructed, and teacher directed. All of these, however, have some characteristics in common. Therefore, it seems advisable to look at several approaches so that a frame of reference can be obtained for the meaning of low structure and high structure. The basic dimension of environmental variation is degree of structure. In high structure, the environment is largely determined by the train— ing agent (parent, teacher), while the person himself (child, student) has little responsibility for what happens in the environment. In low struc- ture, by contrast, the person experiencing the environment is at least as important in deter- mining the environment as the training agent. From Hunt's general statement one develops an understanding of the parameters of degree of structure. Joyce, Weil and Wald identify structuring as, ” . . . varying the source and degree of control over be— havior in the learning environment through the organization lHunt, "A Conceptual Level Matching Model for Coor- dinating Learner Characteristics with Educational Approach— es,” p. 75. 2Hunt and Sullivan, Between Psychology and Educa- tion, pp. 213-214. of the learning activity."1 Hunt clarifies that degree of structure to include both the structured-flexible dimension, or the degree that the student can interact with the material and the degree of organizational complexity of the intervention.2 Degree of structure refers to the amount of organization or clarity of expectations the person encounters. In low structure, there is little organization, and the responsibility for clarifying and organizing is placed on the person himself. In high structure, the organi- zation is clear, well organized, and more often determined by a training agent than by the person himself.3 Hunt specifies low structure as, . exemplified by student-centered approaches, discovery learning and presentation of examples before presentation of the principle (inductive teaching). In all these cases the student is primarily responsible for organizing the material. High structure is exemplified by teacher- centered approaches, learning through lecture, and presenting the rule or principle before the examples. Here the responsibility lies with the teacher. Joyce and Weil expand Hunt's definition of less structure to include, “ . . . roles, relationships, norms, and activities become less prescribed or externally imposed, lJoyce, Weil, and Wald, Basic Teaching Skills, p. 5. 2Hunt, Matching Models in Education, p. 74. 3McLachlan and Hunt, ”Differential Effects of Dis— covery Learning as a Function of Student Conceptual Level,” p. 153. 4Hunt and Sullivan, Between Psychology and Educa- tion, p. 214. 27 and more emergent and within the students' control . . .“1 Joyce, Weil and Wald generalize degree of structure into three models, teacher-directed structure, negotiated, and student-constructed structure. These structuring techniques can be summarized as follows. 1. Teacher-directed structure a. No student options available b. No negotiating of activities c. Teacher selects goals, activities, content and procedures d. Teacher expects his plan will be followed e Teacher control 2. Negotiated structure a. Some negotiation through options available to students b. Students make decisions within a context structured by the teacher c. Teacher presents several ideas and students select d. Teacher may plan general activity but students work out specific plans 3. Student-constructed structure a. All options concerning goals, activity, content, and procedures lie with the student b. Student decisions are relatively free of external structure 0 c. Teacher acts as an advisor and participant“ "The question of structure, therefore, is best phrased, 'Within the prescribed subject matter how many of these organizational options are available to the student?‘ When we tabulate this we can characterize the structure.”3 Table 4 identifies the rough configurations. 1Joyce and Weil, Models of Teaching, p. 15. 2Joyce, Weil, and Wald, ”Basic Teaching Skills, pp. 29-30. 3151a, p. 28. Table 4. Structure as Determined by the Source of Control Type of Structure Organizational Teacher— Negotiated Student- Element Directed Constructed Goal Teacher Teacher Student selected selected selected Content Teacher Teacher Student determined determined determined Student determined Activity Teacher Student Student determined determined determined Teuimr demamnned Procedures Teacher Student Student responsible responsible responsible andrmcei andrmcai andrmcai SOURCE: Joyce, Weil, and Wald, Basic Teaching Skills, p. 28. Structure of the learning intervention has been exemplified by other generalization methods also. Cross study, interdependent conditions are low structure. summarized by Hunt and Sullivan in Table 5. In the unilateral conditions are high structure, and These are 29 Table 5. Variations in Environmental Structure Low Ifigh Examples Interdependent Unilateral Student-Centered Teacher-Centered Discovery Lecture Ifiummledade Ihde—emmmfle SOURCE: Hunt and Sullivan, Between Psychology and Education, p. 214. Noy and Hunt also have defined two learning condi- tions, student-directed and system-directed. In the student-directed condition, subjects were free to ask whatever questions they wished after which they would be provided with appro- priate information. In the system-directed condition, each student was yoked with a stu- dent in the student-directed treatment so that he obtained exactly the same material in exactly the same order as his yoked part- ner but asked no questions. One extensive analysis of structure with teaching models was done by Joyce and Weil, Table 6 also indicates appropriate Conceptual Level (CL) of the learner as well as the teaching model and degree of structure. Measurement of Degree of Structure The definitions and examples of degree of structure determine the next problem which is how the degree of struc- ture is measured. Objective measures are: The Program 1Noy and Hunt, "Student-Directed Learning From Biographical Information Systems,” p. 55. 30 Table 6. Classification of Models by Amount of Structure IName of Model Amount of Appropriate Structure Conceptual Level 1. Inductive (Taba) Moderate Mbderate 2. Inquiry Training (Suclman) High Low 3. Science Industry Model (Schwab) Moderate Moderate 4. Jurisprudential Teacher (Oliver High Low szsmnmm) 5. Concept Attainment (Bruner) Moderate Moderate 6. Developmental (Piaget) Can vary fron low low1x>hhfii (usually high) 7. Advance Organizer (Ausubel) High Low 8. Group Investigation (Thelen) Low High 9. Social Inquiry (Massialas & Cox) MOderate Mbderate 10. Laboratory Method (National The T—Group is High Tranflnglebdmurmy) ll. NOn-Directive Teaching (Rogers) 12. Classrocm Meeting (Glasser) l3. Synetics (Gordon) 14. Awareness Training (Shutz) 15. Conceptual Systems (Hunt) 16. Operant Conditioning (Skinner) emceafinghylow structure while the exercises an1bermflbnflxfly stnxnmred low Maknate lkflemue Ifigh MafiaateJfigh Maknatedfigh Moderate to Low High Varies frcm Low toifigh Ifigh low SOURCE: Joyce and Weil, Models of Teaching, p. 305. 31 Climate Questionnaire (Hunt and Hardt, 1967), and the Col- lege Characteristics Index (Stern, 1970). Both measure the subjective interpretation of the environment.1 Other systems are: environmental complexity (Schroder, Driver, and Streufert, 1967); structured — flexible programs (Hunt and Hardt, 1967); and reflective environments (Hunt and Joyce, 1967).2 Hunt suggests three other methods for indexing the degree of structure,” . . . by asking the student ('Do students have a chance to determine what goes on?'), asking the teacher ('Who is responsible for determining proce- dures?'), or by observation."3 There are several studies that indicate or can be interpreted to show the validity of structure on learning. Those studies that indicate a relationship between struc- ture and learning, as reported by Brophy and Good include: 1D.E. Hunt and R.H. Hardt, ”Characterization of 1966 Summer Upward Bound Program," 1967, Syracuse Univer- sity York Development Center, cited by Hunt and Sullivan, Between Psychology and Education, p. 99; G.G. Stern, People in Context: Measuring Person Environment Congru- ence in Business and Industry (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1970). 2Harold M. Schroder, Michael J. Driver, and Siegfried Streufert, Human Information Processing (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967); Hunt and Hardt, "Characterization of 1966 Summer Upward Bound Pro- gram;” David E. Hunt and Bruce R. Joyce, "Teacher Trainee Personality and Initial Teaching Style,” American Educa- tional Research Journal 4 (May 1967): 253-259. 3Hunt and Sullivan, Between Psychology and Education, p. 214. 32 Zussman and Pascal, (1973); Tuckerman, (1969); and Feitler, Wierner, and Blumberg, (1970).1 Studies that show a relationship between CL and structure are summarized as follows. McLachlan and Hunt (1973) investigated the effects of learner CL and variations in structure, discovery (low structure) versus lecture (high structure). Results indicated that low CL students peitformed significantly better with high structure than with 10“; structure. (P less than .05).2 Heck (1968) found that high CL trainees profited moxre from the unstructured form of sensitivity training, whi.le low CL trainees profited more from a structured human- re]_ations training. Bundy (1963) found that high CL edu— Ca1:ional administrators were adversely affected by a struc— tntred guide, while those lower in CL tended to profit from 1D. Zussman and C. Pascal, ”The Interaction of Di— vergence and Convergence of Students and Teachers with Per— sonality and Instructional Variables Affecting Educational Outcomes," paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1973; B. Tuckerman, “Study of the Interactive Effects of Teaching StYleand Student Personality,“ American Psychological ASScxflation, Proceedings of the 77th Annual Convention (4969); F. Feitler, W. Wierner, and A. Blumberg, "The Rela- tlfixnship Between Interpersonal Relations and Preferred 12lssroom Physical Settings," paper presented at the annual meei‘ting of the American Educational Research Association, 197IL all cited by Jere E. Brophy and Thomas L. Good, Effiicher-Student Relationships (New York: Holt, Reinhart, anchinston, Inc., 1974), pp. 246-249. 2McLachlan and Hunt, ”Differential Effects of Dis- COvery Learning as a Function of Student Conceptual Level." 33 the structured guide.1 Several studies show that the high CL or abstract students do significantly better in low structure inter- ventions, whereas low CL or concrete students do signifi— cantly better in highly structured interventions.2 This suggests that low CL students will do better in the high structure of CBTE whereas high CL students will do better in some alternative. Tomlinson and Hunt investigated the differential effects of rule-example order as a function of learner Conceptual Level. Analysis of the results indicated a highly significant CL x treatment effect and the expected pattern was borne out when comparing mean scores. Under low and moderate structure, the low CL were significantly lower than high CL. The low CL groups under low and moder— ate structure were also significantly lower than the low CL 1E.J. Heck, ”A Study Concerning the Differential Effectiveness of Two Approaches to Human Relationship Train- ing in Facilitating Change in Interpersonal Communication Skill and Style of Interpersonal Perception,” (Ph.D. dis- sertation, Syracuse University, 1968); R.F. Bundy, "An In- vestigation into the Use of a Programmed Guide on the Effectiveness of Problem Analysis Behavior in Public School Administrators,” (Ph.D. dissertation, Syracuse University, 1968), both cited by Hunt, MatchingyModels in Education, p. 76. 2Hunt, Matching Models in Education, p. 67; Hunt and Sullivan, Between Psychology and Education, p. 215; and Brophy and Good, Teacher-Student Relationships, pp. 312-313. _ . 1.. AW, 1_ _ 34 group under high structure. (P less than .05).1 and The present study investigated the effect of varying orders of rule and example (e.g., rule- example, example-rule) upon different kinds of learners. To present the learner with the rule before he receives examples of the rule would represent generically the advance organizer approach advocated by Ausubel (1968), while the example—first procedure may be considered generically similar to the discovery approach advocated by Bruner (1966). These two treat- ments may also be considered to vary on a dimen— sion of degree of structure from low (example- first) to high structure (rule-first). Three treatment variations thought to vary in degree of structure were devised: (1) low structure in which the examples were presented first and the rule or principle was presented some time later; (2) intermediate structure in which the examples were presented first followed almost immediately by the rule or principle; and (3) high structure in which the rule, or principle, was presented before the examples in the material. Hunt determined that the relationship between CL structure of the intervention, . would be a teacher (or intervention) who is slightly more abstract than the student rather than an extremely abstract teacher. The rationale here is that the latter teacher might be too far removed from and too incomprehensible to the student, and therefore less effective in advancing his development toward greater abstract- ness than would a teacher who was closer to the student's present level and therefore perhaps more comprehensible to him.3 1Tomlinson and Hunt, "Differential Effects of Rule— Example Order as a Function of Learner Conceptual Level," PP- 237—245. 21bid, pp. 137-239. 3BrOphy and Good, Teacher-Student Relationships, p. 266. 35 Joyce and Hodges found that the teacher who can exhibit a wide variety of teaching styles is potentially able to accomplish more than a teacher whose repertoire is relatively limited.1 Since it is known (Hughes, 1963; Travers, and others, 1961) that the most infrequent teaching pattern is what we will call reflective, or one which utilizes the learners frame of reference to encourage questioning, hypothesizing; and further, since providing this reflective envir- onment is also theoretically relevant (Hunt, 1964), we focus on the reflective teaching style. Hunt and Joyce identified a ”reflective” teaching style as, " . . . one which utilizes the learner's frame of reference to encourage questioning, hypothesizing." This "reflective teaching pattern” was assessed using Joyce's “Manual for Coding Teacher Communications Relevant to Con- ceptual Systems Theory,” and the subject's CL was assessed using PCM. They hypothesized that, " . . . for new teacher trainees, the occurrance of reflective teaching pattern is lBruce Joyce and Richard Hodges, "Instructional Flexibility Training,” Journal of Teacher Education 17 (Winter 1966): 409-16. “Marie M. Hughes, "Utah Study of the Assessment of Teaching," Theory and Research on Teaching, ed. A.A. Ballack (New York: Teachers College, 1963), pp. 25-36; U.S. Depart- ment of Health, Education and Welfare, Measured Needs of Teachers and Their Behavior in the Classroom, by Robert M. W. Travers, et. al., Final Report, Office of Education No. 444 (University of Utah, 1961); David E. Hunt, ”A Conceptual Systems Change Model and its Application to Education," paper presented at Office of Naval Research Symposium, Boulder, Colorado, 1964, all cited by Hunt and Joyce, ”Teacher Trainee Personality and Initial Teaching Style,“ p. 254. 36 directly related to the trainee‘s conceptual level; i.e. 2 the higher the CL the greater the occurance of the reflec- tive pattern.H1 Results indicated that "the correlation between trainee CL and reflective index were found to be .578 (df = 12, p (.05) which supports the hypothesis. scores for these subjects on the National Teacher Examina- tion were correlated with both CL and reflective index. In both cases the relation was exactly zero indicating that intelligence probably does not account for the reported , O relation.““ '1 ., if a teacher trainee can radiate a reflec- tive environment, he is also likely to be capable of radiat- ing a structured environment since this latter is by far the most frequently occurring teaching pattern."3 The problem of how to induce the capacity to radiate a reflective environment in low CL teacher trainees is a formidable one, but one which it is hoped can be attacked more system- atically in light of the present results. We have tentatively assumed that a high reflective index indicates a capacity to radiate a wider variety of environments, but this assumption needs to be verified. . . it seems reasonable to conclude . . . that the relation between teacher trainee CL and the capacity to radiate-a reflective environment is established, at least in the initial phase of learning to teach. Rather than view this rela- 1Hunt and Joyce, ”Teacher Trainee Personality and Initial Teaching Style," pp. 257, 255. 21516, p. 256. 3Ibid, p. 254. 37 tion as setting limits upon potential effective- ness after teacher training . . . these results would help focus on procedures which might be differentially effective in inducing the capacity to radiate a wide variety of educational environ- ments in trainees in varying conceptual levels.1 Joyce and Weil identify a "skills component” in the development of instructional systems. At present three skills form the bulk of the component, but more will doubtless be added as our study continues. These skills are called structuring, modulating cognitive level, and focusing. The skill of structuring is concerned with varying the distribution of control in the relationship between teacher and students. Goals and procedures can be negotiated (when teacher and student share most decisions and responsibilities) or directed (when they are determined primarily by the teacher) or student-constructed (when students make the decisions and maintain the activity). Skill in structuring is defined as the ability to bring about these conditions.2 “If one views teaching patterns; e.g., a highly structured lesson plan, as differentially effective depend- ing upon the characteristics of the learner and the desired educational objective (Hunt, 1964), then one skill important for the effective teacher is the capacity to utilize a vari- ety of teaching patterns under appropriate circumstances."3 From these studies it seems appropriate to apply the lIbid, p. 257. 2Bruce B. Joyce and Marsha Weil, "The Teacher-Inno- vator: Models of Teaching as the Core of Teacher Educa- tion,” Interchange 4 (1973): 49. 3Hunt and Joyce, ”Teacher Trainee Personality and Initial Teaching Style,” p. 253. 38 CL Matching Model and structure to teacher education. “The structure of the presentation should be modulated to the trainee's conceptual complexity, or CL: the higher the trainee's CL, the more likely he is to be accessible through a more complex presentation or one which is interdependent; conversely, low CL trainees are likely to be more accessible through a more structured, less complex presentation."1 Hunt implies that if the trainee's CL is low, then the in- tervention should be simple and concrete, with use of tran- scripts and demonstrations which he can model. If the trainee's CL is high, the intervention should be abstract or theoretical with rationale for the procedure. Therefore, structure is important to teacher educa- tion, but, ”What matters most is who controls . . .," the organizational elements of goals, content, activities and procedures.2 Accessibility Channels ”In education practice, the term learning style is used to describe the student's CL and is defined in terms of how much structure a student needs in order to learn best."3 lHunt, Matching Models in Education, p. 75. 2Joyce, Weil, and Wald, Basic Teaching Skills, 3Hunt, ”Person-Environment Interaction,” p. 220. 39 The match that an educational intervention should strive for is between learning style (CL) and the structure of the intervention. If curriculums are designed (CBTE) to account for individual differences in learning style, then Hunt's model implies that students will be more efficient and effective in their learning. To make the CL Matching Model more useful in teacher education, an extended version is more appropriate. "The model has therefore been extended (Hunt, 1968) to include other possible person-environment combinations, and in this extended model the student is viewed in terms of 'access- ibility channels.”1 The ". . . 'accessibility characteristics' are directly translatable into specific forms of educational environments likely to be effective for the person's learn- ing or development.”2 The accessibility channels are pre- sented as a means of reaching the trainee, and described as follows: 1Hunt, "A Conceptual Matching Model for Coordinat- ing Learner Characteristics with Educational Approaches,” p. 78. 2Hunt, ”Person-Environment Interaction,” p. 219. 40 1. Cognitive orientation - how a trainee will organize and interpret his experience (learning style). 2. Motivational orientation - affects preference for and reaction to different forms of feedback and reward. 3. Value orientation - whether the trainees will be likely to learn skills designed as intervention proce- dures which will achieve objectives they do not believe in, or that they disagree with. 4. Sensory orientation - which form of intervention is preferred, visual, auditory, or both, to accomplish desired results.1 Taking account of "accessibility channels" is almost unavoidable when working with a physically handicapped student. Though less apparent, it seems equally important to consider any student in terms of channels of accessibility so that the form of educational approach can be most appro- priately "tuned in" to the student. The CL Matching Model gives an example of how the access— ibility channel, learner's cognitive orientation can be used to ”tune in“ by modulating the struc- ture of the presentation. The model . . . (see Table 7) extends this rationale to other orien- tations. . . . deals only with the coordination between the form of educational approach and the "accessibility channel," and is not concerned with the relation between learner's skill level and content of the presentation. lHunt, Matching Models in Education, pp. 71-72. 2Hunt, ”A Conceptual Level Matching Model for Coordinating Learner Characteristics with Educational Approaches," pp. 78-79. 41 Table 7. Model for Coordinating Learner Characteristics with Educational Approaches Accessibility Channels Fbmnxof Presentation 1. Cognitive orientation 1. Structure of presentation 2 . Motivational orientation 2. Form of feedback and reward 3. Value orientation 3. Value context of presentation 4. Sensory orientation 4. MOdality of presentation SOURCE: Hunt, "A Conceptual Level Matching Model for Coordinating Learner Characteristics with Educational Approaches,“ p. 79. In order to be useful for designing investiga— tions or contributing to educational decisions, these general relations must be translated into more specific forms comparable to the low CL - high structure prescription in the CL match— ing model. When matching motivational orienta- tions with form of feedback and reward, the hypothesis would be that learners with self- directed orientations are more likely to profit from intrinsic reward and self-anchored feedback while learners with more socially based (affili- ative) orientation are more likely to profit from extrinsic reward and normative feedback. When matching value orientation with value content of the presentation, the central hypothesis, would be that learners are more likely to profit from a presentation that is within the "latitude of acceptance” of their current value orientation, and less likely to profit from a presentation either identical to their present stand, or outside their "latitude of acceptance." Finally, when matching sensory orientation and modality of presentation, the quite obvious hypothesis is that when learners have a preferred modality, e.g., visual or auditory, they will profit more from a presentation in that modality. lIbid, p. 79. 42 From the development of the CL Matching Model and its accessibility channels, one can identify some specific implications for teacher education. Accessibility channels are the characteristics of the student that will be utilized in the Matching Model. These characteristics allow the intervention to prescribe how the content should be presented. This knowledge is important if it is to impact the student so the skills can be learned. It simply is how we "reach" the student. Cognitive Orientation According to Joyce and Weil, information-processing models of teaching, share an orientation toward the information- processing capability of the student and toward the systems that can be taught him so as to im- prove his information-processing capacity. In- formation processing refers to the ways people handle stimuli from the environment, organize the data, sense problems, generate concepts and solutions to problems, and employ verbal and nonverbal symbols. Once we know his CL and/or cognitive orientation, we can design the educational intervention with appropriate degree of structure, thereby utilizing his accessibility channels to reach the student. The intervention structure can range from unstructured (flexible) to structured (con- crete) in order to match the student's CL. High CL students will be accessible by complex intervention or interdepen- 1Joyce and Weil, ”The Teacher-Innovator: Models of Teaching as the Core of Teacher Education,” p. 48. 43 dent, whereas low CL students can best be reached by struc- tured, well defined, less complex intervention (as discuss— ed earlier in this chapter). This has been verified in two studies, Bundy, 1968, and Heck, 1968.1 Noy and Hunt show that persons high in CL are superior to those low in CL when the behavior is at a more complex level. Noy and Hunt also show that ”high CL stu- dents are, however, superior to low CL students at all levels, thus emphasizing the need to consider both the characteristics of the learner and the level of behavorial objective in evaluating instructional approaches.H2 Gardiner and Schroder report that, " . . . 88 (students) trained in multiple-concept thinking were scored significantly higher by trained raters using test referents than protocols written by Ss trained in single-concept thinking.”3 In support of the validity of the Paragraph Comple- tion Test to measure Conceptual Complexity, Gardiner and 1Bundy, "An Investigation into the use of a Program— med Guide on the Effectiveness of Problem Analysis Behavior in Public School Administrators," and Heck, "A Study Concern- ing the Differential Effectiveness of Two Approaches to Human Relationship Training in Facilitating Change in Inter- personal Communication Skill and Style of Interpersonal Perception,” both cited by Hunt, Matching Models in Educa- tion, p. 71. 2Noy and Hunt, "Student-Directed Learning from Biographical Information Systems,“ pp. 54. 3Gareth S. Gardiner and Harold M. Schroder, "Reli- ability and Validity of the Paragraph Completion Test: Theoretical and Empirical Notes,“ Psychological Reports 31 (1972): 961. 44 Schroder cite studies by ” . . . Schroder, et. al. (1967) and Schroder (1971), where . . ., groups of students having high scores showed less tendency to engage in bifurcated thinking, greater independence of judgment, greater toler- ance of ambiguity and conflict, greater ability to inter- relate (integrate) perspectives and less rigidity of judg- ments than groups of students having low scores," and a study by Schneider and Giambra (1971), where " . . . stu- dents high in complexity on the Paragraph Completion Test used a significantly greater variety of conceptual rules in identifying concepts than did students low in complexity."1 The reliability of the PCT is such that the struc- tural scoring referents for the test are sufficiently spec— ific that inter—rater reliabilities ranging from .80 to .95 can be established with approximately three days of train- ing.2 With a sample of 100 students, Bottenberg obtained an inter-rater reliability of .91 and a Spearman—Brown correlation of .75 between two approximately equal test 1Schroder, Driver and Streufert, Human Information Processing; Harold M. Schroder, "Conceptual Complexity and Personality Organization," in Personality Theory and Infor- mation Processing, ed. Harold M. Schroder and P. Suedfeld (New York: Ronald Press Co., 1971), pp. 240-273; and G.A. Schneider and L.M. Giambra, "Performance in Concept Identi- fication as a Function of Cognitive Complexity,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 19 (1971): 261-273, cited by Gardiner and Schroder, ”Reliability and Validity of the Paragraph Completion Test,” pp. 960-961. 2Schroder, Driver and Streufert, Human Information Processing, p. 190. 45 halves.l Pohl and Pervin defined cognitive styles in terms of performance on the Schroder Paragraph Completion Test. In this evaluation scores fall along a continuum, with low scores representing persons who are cognitively concrete and high scores persons who are cognitively abstract.2 Motivational Orientation Hunt cites studies that motivational orientation affects preference for and reaction to varying forms of feedback. Praise is more effective for "extroverts," while criticism is effective for ”under-achievers.” Also, persons in high affiliation motivation solve problems effectively and better with feeling-oriented feedback, whereas, persons in achievement orientation are more effective with task- oriented feedback. Persons that are other-directed work harder with experimenter-defined feedback, whereas inner- directed work better with self-defined feedback.3 Feedback can be received in several forms, such as self-viewing of video tape, or as reported by the trainer or other trainees. The most effective approach will then 1E.H. Bottenberg, “Instrumental Characteristics and Validity of the Paragraph Completion Test (PCT) as a Measure of Integrative Complexity," Psychological Reports 24 (1969): 437-438. 2R.L. Pohl and L.A. Pervin, ”Academic Performance as a Function of Task Requirements and Cognitive Style,” Psychological Reports 22 (1968): 1017-1020. 3Hunt, Matching Models in Education, p. 71. 46 depend on self-esteem as Salomon and McDonald (1970) report.1 Harvey reports that persons high in affiliation were more accessible through peer feedback, while authori— tarian were most affected by authority-based feedback.2 Stuempfig and Maehr report a study to determine how high school students of varying conceptual structure would respond to personal and impersonal feedback on a performance task. Students with abstract conceptual structures showed no difference in motivation under two feedback conditions: concrete students showed increased motivation when administered personal feedback. Among abstract students, the type of feedback ap- peared to have little effect on persistence. Furthermore, inspection of the data revealed that the strongest differ- ential effects occurred in the case of the most concrete students, ". . . it appears then that conceptual develop- ment, as viewed from the conceptual systems theory, does affect responses to feedback."3 lG. Salomon and F.J. McDonald, "Pretest and Post— test Reactions to Self-viewing One's Teaching Performance on Video Tape," Journal of Educational Psychology 61 (1970): 280-286. 20.J. Harvey, "Some Cognitive Determinants of Influencibility," Sociometry 27 (1964): 208-221. 3Daniel W. Stuempfig and Martin L. Maehr, "Persis- tence as a Function of Conceptual Structure and Quality of Feedback," Child Development 41 (1970): 1189. 47 Value Orientation Whether a student learns the prescribed skills will depend on his value orientation. If he values what is being taught he will more than likely learn the material. What is important in teacher education is that he has the characteristic of being open to information. The education will have to fall within his ”latitude of acceptance," but yet there should be a minimal disparity between his posi— tion and the learned position. This is necessary because if the learned position falls outside of his latitude he will not value it because it is threatening to his feelings of adequacy. Therefore, education must present a "gradual“ movement as the training deviates from the student's posi- tion as reported by Harvey, and supported by Harvey and Rutherford, and McClintock.1 In the gradual approach the one attempting influence strives to show the proximity of his stand to that of the person he is trying to persuade; then in small steps his evaluations are made to diverge from those of the recipient toward some desired end. In the absolute approach, one from the outset argues for the desired end point without 1O.J. Harvey, “Some Cognitive Determinants of Influencibility,” pp. 208-221; O.J. Harvey and Jeanne Rutherford, "Gradual and Absolute Approaches to Attitude Change,“ Sociometry 21 (1958): 61-68; and C.G. McClintock, "Personality Syndromes and Attitude Change,“ Journal of Personality 26 (1958): 479-493. 48 regard for the disparity between his stand and that of the person he would modify. Harvey and Rutherford confirmed the following hypotheses: A greater change will be effected in the weaker than in the stronger concept For the weaker concepts, greater change will be effected by the larger absolute discrepancy Greatest change will be effected in the weak concept by the large and absolute discrepancy A greater frequency of contrast will occur under the larger discrepancies among individuals with stronger concepts who have previously experienced smaller dis- crepancies. Sensory Orientation The mode of presentation or sensory orientation depends on the student's preference. The Option should be available to receive the presentation in the preferred sensory mode. This is supported by Snow, Tiffin, and Seibert,2 and by Koran, McDonald, and Snow.3 As a consequence of matching the student's accessi- bility channels with the intervention, it would follow that 1Harvey and Rutherford, ”Gradual and Absolute Approaches to Attitude Change," pp. 67-68. 2Richard E. Snow, Joseph Tiffin, and Warren F. Seibert, "Individual Differences and Instructional Film Effects,” Journal of Educational Psychology 56 (1965): 315-326. 3M.L. Koran, F.J. McDonald, and R.H. Snow, "The Effects of Individual Differences on Observational Learning in the Acquisition of a Teaching Skill,“ paper presented at American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, California, 1969, cited by Hunt, Matching Models in Lduca— tion, p. 77. 49 a more efficient and effective teacher education program could be developed. By use of the Matching Model in teacher education we can maximize any learning intervention. Thereby the program can be accountable, as well as allowing the student to meet his individual needs and skill defi- ciencies. Matching The value of using the CL Matching Model in providing matched interventions with student's CL can be documented. However, most of the research reported has been directed toward K—12 students rather than college stu- dents; therefore, the application to teacher education is by inference. Brophy and Good suggest that, ” . . . information and skill training will be relatively ineffective until students are ready to learn the material.”1 This can be influenced by their satisfaction with the intervention. From this material it seems appropriate to suggest the use of matching CL and intervention in order that the interven- tions will be effective, produce satisfaction and promote growth and progression from a low CL to a higher one. Tuckman's findings indicate that high CL stu- dents when matched with highly structured teachers rated lBrophy and Good, Teacher-Student Relationships, p. 326. 50 these teachers low and were less satisfied then when CL and structure were inversely matched.1 Joyce and Weil observe that teacher trainees were more easily able to master the models of teaching if they possessed certain types of skills with students and subject matter. Of these skills, the skill of modulating cognitive level is relevant. The skill of modulating is concerned with the way in which data or content is handled in the class- room. Three levels of cognitive activity - factual, conceptual, theoretical - are described as being along a continuum beginning with the identifica— tion of data and extending to the building of cog— cepts and to the theoretical processing of data. In a second study on sophomore students enrolled in a methods of teaching course, Hunt and Joyce report that, " the results seem to provide fairly good evidence in support of the hypothesized relation between personality and teaching pattern. (However) . . . it should be empha- sized . . . that they should not be considered to imply that these teaching patterns cannot be changed through train- ing."3 1B.W. Tuckman, "A Study of the Effectiveness of Directive vs. Nondirective Vocational Teachers as a Func- tion of Student Characteristics and Course Format,“ U.S. Office of Education Final Report 1968, cited in Hunt and Sullivan, Between Psychology and Education, p. 219. 2Joyce and Weil, ”The Teacher-Innovator: Models of Teaching as the Core of Teacher Education,“ p. 49. 3Hunt and Joyce, "Teacher Trainee Personality and Initial Teaching Style,“ p. 257. 51 This is also supported by Fuller,1 and Katz,2 who report that teachers develop from immature survival skills to more mature teaching concerns, which shows growth from low CL to higher CL. This growth is important for teachers, as shown by Harvey, White, Prather, Alter, and Hoffmeister. They classified teachers as abstract (high CL) and concrete (low CL) and found that abstract teachers were warmer; more perceptive to wishes and needs, flexible in meeting inter- ests and needs; more encouraging of responsibility, free expression of feelings, and creativity; showed greater in— genuity and improvisation; invoked unexplained rules less frequently; were less rule oriented; less need of structure; less punitive; less anxious about being observed.3 If these characteristics can be enhanced by matching CL and appropriate intervention, then it seems that teacher educa- tion should try to promote this growth. 1F. Fuller, "Concerns of Teachers: A Developmental Conceptualization,“ American Educational Research Journal 6 (1969): 207—266. 2L. Katz, "Developmental Stages of Preschool Teachers,” Elementary School Journal 73 (1972): 50—54. 30. Harvey, et. al., "Teachers' Belief Systems and Preschool Atmospheres,” Journal of Educational Psychology 57 (1966): 373-381. 52 Summary This review of literature indicates that it is possible to improve a student teacher's satisfaction with the student teaching education when the learning environ- ment provides the individual with an optimal learning inter- vention. This Optimal learning intervention can access a student through the identified accessibility channels (i.e., cognitive orientation, value orientation, motivational orientation, and sensory orientation). The literature suggests that when a student's accessibility channels and learning environment are matched the student teacher's satisfaction will be higher than when the learning intervention does not match the accessibility channels. This higher level performance is the goal of any pre-service teacher education program, as well as supporting the purpose of this study. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of the present study is to determine the effect of the match/mismatch of the accessibility chan— nels and the degree of structure of the CBTE intervention on the satisfaction of student teachers with the CBTE lab and with their student teaching experiences. Chapter III will deal with the dependent and independent variables, the hypotheses, selection of the population, selection and develOpment of the questionnaires, and collection and analy- sis of the data. Hypotheses to be Tested The original purpose proposed for this study was to measure the effect of the match/mismatch of the accessibi- lity channels and the degree of structure of the learning intervention on the performance of learned competencies. However, no statistical analysis could be done because stu- dent teacher performance was measured with pass/fail cri- teria. It seems important to evaluate how well students demonstrate a teaching competency (not only that they ”pass"); since pass/fail would not give any data on the degree of excellence in demonstrating a given competency, 53 54 performance was not an acceptable dependent variable. As a consequence, satisfaction was chosen as the dependent variable, because the degree of satisfaction could be measured. Other dependent variables are pre-student teacher value orientation and motivational orientation. The independent variable is the pre-student teacher Conceptual Level (CL). From reviewing the literature and the above discus- sion the following hypotheses were formulated. Hypotheses 1. There is a positive correlation between the pre- service student teacher value orientation and the post CBTE lab satisfaction when there is a match between the CL and the structure of the CBTE instructional intervention. 2. There is a negative correlation between the pre— service student teacher value orientation and the post CBTE lab satisfaction when there is a mismatch between the CL and the structure of the CTBE instructional intervention. 3. There is a positive correlation between the pre- service student teacher motivational orientation and the post CBTE lab satisfaction when there is a match between the CL and the structure of the CBTE instructional inter- vention. 4. There is a negative correlation between the pre- service student teacher motivational orientation and the post CBTE lab satisfaction when there is a mismatch between 55 CL and the structure of the CBTE instructional intervention. 5. There is a positive correlation between the stu- dent's post CBTE lab satisfaction and the post student teaching satisfaction when there is a mismatch between the CL and the structure of the CBTE instructional intervention. Selection of the Population Michigan State University offers many different programs which any education major may choose in order to complete degree requirements for teacher certification. It was not possible to select a random sample of students because the number in any given term would not be large enough for statistical analysis. Therefore, the students chosen for this study were the population of pre-service teachers who chose the Competency Based Teacher Education option in a given term. Questionnaires were given to the CBTE option popu— lation in winter and spring terms 1976. However, the small number of students (58) in this population who com- pleted all of the questionnaires did not provide enough data for adequate analysis of the hypotheses. Therefore, a second population was evaluated in fall and winter terms 1978-79. These two populations are designated as P0pula- tion I and Population II respectively. Selection and Development of the Questionnaires Selection of instruments for this study was diffi- cult because strict psychometric measures are not generally 56 available or adequate. Questionnaires were selected to measure the Conceptual Level and the value orientation of the students. Questionnaires were developed to measure the student motivational orientation, the post CBTE lab satis- faction and post student teaching satisfaction. The Pilot Study for the Questionnaires During the selection and the development of the questionnaires for this study, a small trial of instruments was conducted with 25 students in CBTE lab in fall term 1975. The selection of instruments was determined using results of the pilot study in consultation with a research statistician. Measurement of Conceptual Level: Paragraph Completion Method Conceptual Level Theory suggests that persons at a higher CL are expected to be more flexible, more capable of using alternative solutions, and more stress tolerant. Con- siderable evidence on construct validity supports this ex- pectation.1 The students' Conceptual Levels were determined in order to assign them as a match or mismatch with the struc- ture of Michigan State University's CBTE Program. Michigan State University's CBTE Program has been previously desig- lSchroder, Driver and Streufert, Human Information Processing, and David E. Hunt, ”Adaptability of Interper- sonal Communication Among Training Agents,” Merrill Palmer Quarterly 16 (1970): 325-344. 57 nated as a moderately—high structure program because it prescribes the learning activities, states the goal, con- tent, procedures, performance criteria, provides a reward/ feedback system, and provides two options for students. These options are: (1) that a student can use his past experience and education to meet the performance criteria, and thus avoid taking a module, and (2) that a student can choose among several learning activities to learn the pre- scribed competency. The Generic Competency Based Teacher Education Program at MSU is representative of the thrust of CBTE in Pre—Service Teacher Education. It also purports to, allow for differences among student learning styles and provide for the individ- ualization of learning activities to accomodate [sion these differences with a focus by all teacher candidates on the attainment of mastery for the designated competencies. One of the foci of MSU's CBTE program is on learn- ing style and individualization. This emphasis is central to this study; if a student's learning style (accessibility channels) and appropriate structure of the intervention are taken into consideration then the student's satisfaction and the utilization of the learned competencies will be actualized. This notion is supported by the MSU definition 1School of Teacher Education, Michigan State Uni- versity and Lansing School District, ”Development of a Com- petency Based Teacher Education Program Focusing on the Directed Teaching Experience,” Final Report, Competency Based Teacher Education Grant, (Michigan Department of Edu- cation, 1976) p. 2. ‘v A 58 of CBTE. In general the instructional system referred to as "Competency Based Teacher Education" should provide several key elements. These include: explicitly stated objectives, evaluation criteria for each objective, allowance for differences among student learning styles, Opportunities for individualization of learning activities and independent study, and the feedback and field experience Opportunities necessary for students to attain mastery of the competencies at the desired level of performance in actual class- room situations. Further dimensions of such an instructional I system are: deriving the competencies from a * realistic base, the cooperative process of decision making, and the manner in which program revisions are carried out. These practices are possible through complete cooperation among the program faculty who represent both the university and the public school and through in-service training workshops which provide faculty members with the expertise to carry out their functions. The CL Matching Model as previously presented is also supported by the program's definition of a competency. A competency represents a statement Of an objective that is a major skill or task used by a teacher in carrying out his/her responsibilities. Normally a competency represents several specific skills, attitudes, and/or basic knowledge related to the necessary performance of the competency. These more specific skills, attitudes, etc. are called enabling objectives and serve as the focus for instruction while the more general or broader competency statement serves as the bagis for evaluating a candidate's performance. These statements from the MSU program speak direct- ly to the concerns of this study, i.e., learning style = Conceptual Level; the feedback . . . experience Opportuni- ties = motivational orientation; attitudes = value orienta- lIbid, p. 3. 2Ibid. 59 tion; and explicitly stated objectives and evaluation cri- teria = structure of the intervention. Therefore, the MSU CBTE program is an appropriate source for applying the CL Matching Model for research purposes. The measure Of Conceptual Level (CL) that was selected is the ”Paragraph Completion Method.” The PCM is a semi-projective test which requires scoring by a trained rater. A person's response is considered to be a sample of how he thinks, and the scoring procedure is aimed to index his thinking on the CL dimension. The six topics were selected in order to obtain a sample of how he handles conflict or uncertainty ("Criticism", ”Not Sure", or "Don't Agree") and how he thinks about rule structure and authority relations ("Rules", Parents", "Told"). It would be more convenient if it were possible to assess CL through an Objective test which could be easily scored. Although numerous attempts have been made to devise Objective measures, none of them have proven satisfactory, partly because they are susceptible to faking and partly because they deal with content, not how a person thinks. Gardiner and Schroder did extensive work on the reliability and validity of the Paragraph Completion Test (PCT) which is similar in design and intent to the Para- graph Completion Method. Their studies show that "The validity of this test has been established in a variety of experimental contexts . . . the test has consistently pre- dicted behavioral performances congruent with theoretical expectations. Most of these studies, it must be noted, 1David E. Hunt, et. al., "Assessment Of Conceptual Level: Paragraph Completion Method (PCM),” The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1973 (Mimeographed), pp. l-2. (see Appendix F) —v 7‘ _ mm. m w 60 have used experimental task settings containing an inter- personal component."1 The Paragraph Completion Test is designed to measure complex integrative thinking. It has been used in over 100 studies in the past 10 yr., but relatively little has been published about its psychometric characteristics. . The test was designed to provide a ”content free" mea— sure of integrative complexity primarigy in the general area of interpersonal affairs. Gardiner and Schroder also state that, ” . . . 88 (subjects) trained in multiple-concept thinking were scored significantly higher by trained raters using test referents than protocols written by Ss trained in single-concept thinking.” Students showing high complexity on the PCT were found to use significantly more conceptual rules in identifying concepts than students with low complexity. ” . . . groups Of 85 having high scores showed less ten- dency to engage in bifurcated thinking, greater indepen— dence of judgment, greater tolerance of ambiguity and con- flict, greater ability to interrelate (integrate) perspec- tives and less rigidity of judgment than groups of Ss hav— ing low scores."3 Gardiner and Schroder support the reliability of the PCT. "The structural scoring referents for the test are sufficiently specific that inter-rater reliabilities lGardiner and Schroder, “Reliability and Validity of the Paragraph Completion Test, p. 960. 2Ibid, p. 959. 3Ibid, p. 960-61. 61 ranging from .80 to .95 can be established with approxi- mately three days of training."1 Bottenberg obtained an inter-rater reliability of .91 and a Spearman-Brown cor- relation of .75 between two approximately equal test halves with a sample of 100 students.2 Scores for this study were obtained for the Concept- ual Level by means of a trained rater scoring the protocols according to the manual provided by Hunt, et. al.3 (see Appendix F). The rater's reliability was determined by a Pearson product-moment correlation between the training manual's scored practice protocols and how the rater scored the same questions. The Pearson product-moment correlation for the rater was .86. The PCM test is presented in Appendix A. Measurement Of Value Orientation: Teacher Practices Inventory In order to arrive at a value orientation (VO) that represents a student's "latitude of acceptance" a decision was made as to what educational value system was repre- sented by the MSU CBTE Program. If a value or belief system that the program projects can be determined, one 1Ibid, p. 961. zBottenberg, "Instrumental Characteristics and Validity of the Paragraph Completion Test (PCT) as a Measure of Integrative Complexity,” pp. 437-438. 3Hunt, et. al., "Assessment Of Conceptual Level: Paragraph Completion Method (PCM). 62 can compare how a student reacts to the program and/or what belief system the program stands for. A program, in this case MSU CBTE, cannot have a value or belief system, but through its approach, methods and consideration for the individual and material, the program can represent a belief system of the developers or the adoption of an edu- cational belief system. A Board of Experts was selected from faculty mem» bers in the Student Teaching and Professional Development Department, College of Education, Michigan State University. The Board Of Experts agreed that the characteristics of the MSU CBTE Program are based on generic competencies which reflect ”good teaching practices.” Brown provides a documented resource to measure ” . . . what people believe is good teaching,"1 based on Dewey's experimentalism. Therefore, if the MSU CBTE Pro- gram represents “good teaching practices,” and if we can determine what the student believes is good teaching, a match can be defined. In the measure of the tenets of good teaching Brown collects responses based on Dewey's seven main fea- tures of experimentalism. Many of the questions represent the seven main features of what Dewey advocates as an edu- cational experience which requires good teaching. The 1Bob Burton Brown, The Experimental Mind in Educa- tion (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), p. 88. ‘p'.p , ..»b~ u! E .a— (I) (1» (1‘ (I) (h (I) r). 63 remaining questions reflect the direct opposite, or ”evils in education."1 What is important here is the relationship of these seven main features and CBTE. The features are defined by Brown, and their relation to CBTE is identified. 1. Situations of Experience - ”A process which is begun by giving pupils something to do which calls for the noting of connections between their doing and its conse— quence."2 This is readily seen in CBTE programs when E learned competencies are tried out in the field and with - students. 2. Development of Challenging Problems - " . . . [- deliberately confront pupils with problematic situations which require them to make choices, ask questions concerned that the problem be what the pupil sees as a genuine problem rather than the teacher's or textbook's problem."3 In CBTE this is seen in the use of generic com— petencies to isolate problems which are threatening to stu- dent teachers in the actual classroom. 3. Generation of Ideas - ” . . . creative stage of thinking, . . . encouraged to catch hold of ideas and 'run with them' . . ."4 In a CBTE program trying out the learn— lIbid. 2Ibid. 3Ibid, p. 89. 4 Ibid, p. 90. 'F st 64 ed competencies and the way each student teacher applies them to the classroom shows compatibility with the genera— tion of ideas. 4. Observation and Collection of Data — ” pupil should look for detailed facts and information needed to deal with the problem he faces, or that the best kind of subject matter is that which the student has to adapt and apply to the question for himself."1 In CBTE the feedback and evaluation of the performance of a competency generates an attitude of looking for the best answer. 5. Development of Reasoned Hypotheses - ” Dewey's recommendations to the effect that teachers, if they accept pupils' guesses at possible answers, should insist that they follow up their guesses by checking them against all available evidence.”2 In CBTE certain com— petencies have to be modified in order to be effective for the whole class; the student teacher is encouraged to try out competencies in order to become more effective. 6. Experimental Application and Testing — ” take a stand upon one hypothesis or proposal and carry through with it to see what happens."3 CBTE stresses that a student should become competent with a given generic competency; therefore, failure results in persistence until llbid. 21bid, p. 91. 3Ihid. 65 competency is attained. The student takes a stand and works at being competent. 7. Evaluation and Judgment - ” . . . encouraged to view the results of their experiments dispassionately, to accept failure as one of the calculated risks of trying."1 Again, in the process of becoming competent, failure is expected; the student must continually pursue and practice the generic competencies in order to be judged competent. Brown's measure of the tenets of good teaching, the Teacher Practices Inventory (TPI), was selected in order to determine the students' value orientations. The Teacher Practices Inventory (TPI) measures the predisposition towards classroom activity that is in agreement or dis- agreement with good teaching. Since CBTE represents some of the competencies that make up good teaching, the TPI should be applicable to CBTE. As a result of using the TPI and through item analysis, Brown developed two forms of the TPI. When either form of the TPI is administered, the positive re- sponses are in agreement with Brown's definition of good teaching, and the negative responses are in conflict with Brown's definition of good teaching. Each form of the TPI contains an equal number Of positive and negative responses. In the TPI (see Appendix B), questions 8, 9, 21, n 32, 35 are, ” . . . items involving situations of experi- Ibid, p. 92. 66 ence." Questions 23, 25, 29 measure, ” . . . the develop- ment of challenging problems"; questions 13, 18, 31, " generation of ideas"; question 1 measures, " . . . the Ob— servation and collection of data"; questions 11 and 26 mea- sure, " . . . development of reasoned hypotheses"; questions 7, 14, 30 measure ” . . . experimental applications and testing”; and question 38, " . . . evaluation and judgment of results."1 The Teacher Practices Inventory (TPI) gives a perspective on how student teachers react to a test that may or may not represent their own values on teaching. It is through this approach that one can make a guess as to what the student value position is. The big problem is whether a student reacts to it positively because of pre— vious training or whether the student reacts because of the student's value orientation. Brown reports that the TPI produced a reliability of .69. ”A reliability of .80 or higher may be demanded for tests of mental ability or achievement, but consider- ably more latitude is granted measures of attitudes, person- ality, and values."2 During the pilot for the question- naires a coefficient