GROUP EXPLORATION OF EDUCATIONAL BELIEFS; VALUES AND INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS-HIPS: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY A Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. I MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY WILLIAM R. NICHOLAS 1972 9 - . . .c—vLowvuu-qmfiwv‘ ' LIB'RA. R. Y Michigan State This is to certify that the thesis entitled I GROUP EXPLORATION OF EDUCATIONAL BELIEFS, VALUES AND INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY I presented by WILLIAM R. NICHOLAS .-- I has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for __RI:L.D..__degree in JDLLCAIIQN. L V. «W U n in. “vat-omv 0-7639 ABSTRACT GROUP EXPLORATION OF EDUCATIONAL BELIEFS, VALUES AND INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY BY William R. Nicholas The purpose of this study was to provide a group of individuals, who have an interest in the field of education, with the opportunity to create an environment in which they could: I. explore interaction and increase the participants' awareness of their function in establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships. 2. investigate the depth and direction of the par- ticipant's system of educational beliefs and values. The investigation was also designed to: l. ascertain the nature and degree of behavioral change which members may exhibit in their inter- personal interactions as a result of the group experience. 2. gain information on how friends and colleagues of the participants perceive them and their growth. William R. Nicholas Further, the author would be provided with a personal growth experience in which he would: 1. reflect upon his functioning with a group. 2. improve upon or modify his strategies for working with people. Methods and Techniques The pOpulation for this study consisted of students having some interest in or doing course work through the area of curriculum at Michigan State University during the fall term of 1971. A self-selecting sample of eleven indi- viduals was derived from that population. The individuals who chose to participate in this investigation agreed to attend a series of group meetings. These meetings were held, one each week, for ten weeks. During the initial group sessions, the author functioned as the group facilitator. The facilitator controlled the interpersonal interaction. The objectives of this control were to develOp in the participants feelings of psychologi- cal safety and group membership. Once those objectives were met, the authority to direct and regulate the interpersonal interaction within the group was relinquished by the facili- tator and it became a function of the participants. Attempts were made to gather data that might indi— cate what effects, if any, the group experiences had upon the participants. The techniques utilized to collect infor— mation were: William R. Nicholas The Educational Values Questionnaire, a nationally standardized testing instrument designed to measure fourteen value areas that have been determined to have an effect on an individual's interpersonal rela- tionships within education, was taken by the group members during their first meeting and again three months after the group experiences had terminated. Behavior profiles, having as their focus interpersonal involvement as measured through observable behavior, were sent to friends and colleagues of the group par— ticipants. The profiles were completed and returned to the author shortly after the study began. Interviews were conducted. Each participant was interviewed approximately three months after the termination of the group sessions. The interviews were designed to ascertain how they felt about the group experience and what changes, if any, they had noted in themselves, which they could attribute to having taken part in this study. Friends and col- leagues of the group members were also interviewed around the same time. These interviews were designed to determine what sorts of philosophical or beha— vioral changes they may have noted in the group participants since the start of the study. Inde— pendent judges were utilized to evaluate the content of these interviews. William R. Nicholas Major Finding The major finding of this study is that the group interaction provided the participants with what they per- ceived to be a positive and productive growth experience. GROUP EXPLORATION OF EDUCATIONAL BELIEFS, VALUES AND INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY BY '1 William thNicholas A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum I972 DEDICATION To my wife, Margaret. To want is the first step to love. To give is the last. Stepping done, stand as one. Peter McWilliams ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the members of my guidance committee, Dr. John Suehr, Dr. William Force, and Dr. Pat Rode, for the latitude of exploration and expression, along with the support, which they have allowed me in the past two years. To my major professor, Dale Alam, I simply want to thank you for allowing me to share a portion of your life space. I wish to acknowledge the love and understanding of my parents, William and Mildred; for all the time, for all the care, thank you. iii LIST OF LIST OF LIST OF Chapter I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES. . . . . . FIGURES . . . APPENDICES. . . . THE PROBLEM . . . Introduction. . The Need for the Study. . . . . . . Purpose of the Study. . . . . . . . Assumptions . . Limitations . . Overview. . . . RESEARCH METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . The Population. The Instruments The Procedure . Summary . . . . ANALYSIS OF GROUP Introduction. . O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O INTERACTION . . . . Purposes and Assumptions. . . . . . Group Interaction . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction. . The VAL-ED Test Personality Profiles. . . . . . . . Judges' Reactions . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . iv Page vi vii viii |._J \lqmtfiNI-J ll l6 19 20 20 20 22 35 36 36 36 42 45 48 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, Introduction. Summary Conclusions Implications. Recommendations . Author‘s Reflections. BIBLIOGRAPHY. APPENDICES. AND AUTHOR'S IMPLICATIONS, REFLECTIONS Page 50 50 SO 52 54 56 57 61 63 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Profile Data Sheet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2. Interview Evaluation Results. . . . . . . . . . . 46 vi LIST OF FIGURES Aspects of the Proposed Experience Sample of a Behavior Profile . Group VAL-ED Results Supporting Affection. Group VAL-ED Results Rejecting Control Judge's Evaluation Sheet vii Page 10 13 38 39 47 Appendix A. B. LIST OF APPENDICES PARTICIPANTS' PERSONAL DATA SHEET VAL-ED TEST SCALE NAMES AND THEIR DESIGNATIONS VAL-ED TEST RAW SCORE STATISTICS EDUCATIONAL VALUES QUESTIONNAIRE. PROFILE FORMS . . . . . . . . . . PARTICIPANTS' INTERVIEW GUIDE PARTICIPANTS' RESPONSES . . . . . SECONDARY OBSERVERS' INTERVIEW GUIDE SECONDARY OBSERVERS' RESPONSES. . JUDGES' PERSONAL DATA SHEET . . . "FIRST NAMES, FIRST IMPRESSIONS" THIRTY CLARIFYING RESPONSES . . . GROUP PROCESS PAPER . . . . . . . THE ISLAND GAME . . . . . . . . . viii EXERCISE Page 64 66 73 83 112 152 154 157 160 164 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction On the whole, American education minimizes the impor- tance of interpersonal relationships and maximizes the impor- tance of a nearly mechanical transmission and acquisition of cognitive materials. This study is based on the assumption that a view of the situation reveals that teachers, students, administrators, parents, and other educationally concerned individuals are interconnected in an intricate web of inter— personal relationships. The nature of these relationships has a profound impact on what actually takes place within the social institution of the school. The author feels that many of the people involved in the educational process have little understanding of either the value and belief base upon which they operate or their function in establishing and maintaining interpersonal rela- tionships. This lack of understanding handicaps them in their attempts to create new and viable instructional environ— ments. The Need for the Study Modern education is people -- lots of people, closely interwoven into an intricate collage of interpersonal rela- tionships. Through most of man's tenure here on earth, education has been a passing on of knowledge from one indi- vidual to another. This transfer of knowledge tended to be utilitarian and highly personal in nature. This is no longer true. Students go to schools, where they learn from teach- ers. The students identify as members of a class. The lessons presented by the teacher to the class tend to be theoretical and idyllic in nature. The student, the teacher, and the class are all ele- ments in a formal interpersonal structure that is referred to as school. The most common organizational pattern for interpersonal relationships within American schools is one of "pyramidal responsibility." The structure can be visual- ized as a pyramid. Individuals at the tOp of the pyramid hold the power and are responsible for making decisions for the masses below. The masses, in turn, are responsible for actualizing these decisions and reporting results to the people at the top. The pyramidal type of interpersonal structure lends itself to one-way communication. Action messages, that is messages designed to elicit particular responses, flow from the top of the pyramid to the base. Noninitiating messages, designed to report present status, generally flow from the base to the top. Within a school, structured along the lines of pyra- midal responsibility, the principal may be seen as occupying the tOp position, the staff the middle, and the students the base. The principal sets individual school policies, the staff enacts them, and the students respond. At any time the principal may be informed by either staff or students about how well his policy decisions are being implemented. Modern public schools state as some of their goals and objectives such things as: "the development of the skills of creative, constructive and critical thinking, the development of a positive self-image, learning to value human differences and the ability to apply rational intellectual processes to the identification, consideration and solution of problems."1 A pyramidal structure for institutionalized interpersonal relationships is a real, valid, and workable organizational pattern. It does have some interesting rami- fications when it is imposed as the organizational pattern for a learning institution. Within a structure of this type, the author feels, the aforementioned goals are considered prized possessions by those at the top. Acquisition of same, beyond a token degree, by people further down the pyramid is intentionally discouraged, if not violently suppressed. If educators come to realize that the present inter- personal structure of their schools is in direct contradiction 1Michigan Department of Education, "Common Goals of Michigan Education," Michigan Department of Education, 1971, pp. 5-6. to their stated goals and objectives, they will be faced with the proposition of either: 1. disregarding the inconsistency, 2. restating their goals and objectives in such a way that they reflect the true nature of the institution, or 3. attempting to alter the formal structure of the interpersonal relationships within their institu- tion. Disregarding the inconsistencies and restating the goals and objectives are both actions that can be carried out with relative ease. The third of the aforementioned actions would require the creation of new, open, and dynamic inter- personal structures. At best, it would be a complex and difficult task. If one subscribes to the assumption that every indi- vidual engaged in the educational environment is intercon- nected in an intricate web of interpersonal relationships, and further, that the nature of these relationships has a profound impact on what actually takes place within the social institution of the school, then the author believes it is evident that educators who choose to change the formal interpersonal structure can be assisted by the availability of research already conducted in the fields of group dynamics and human relations training. Unfortunately, little of this research speaks directly to educators. Also, all too often the studies done in these areas attempt to be highly objective in nature. They are often limited to analysis of specific types of group process or the testing of theories of group interaction. If educators choose consciously to alter the formal interpersonal structure of their schools, they need to begin to grasp some of the dimensions of what may transpire as peOple begin actively to investigate the depths and direc- tions of their beliefs and values and their function in initi- ating and maintaining interpersonal relationships. There is a need to collect more subjective data concerning: 1. how individuals feel about group involvement. 2. how individuals feel about their own searching out of new growth directions and what they per- ceive this process to be. 3. what dimensions of new beliefs and behaviors individual participants carry with them, out of the group, into the everyday world in which they exist. 4. the perceptions and reactions of friends and colleagues to any alteractions in group partici- pants. This study will attempt to provide educators with some of these data. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to provide a group of individuals, who have an interest in the field of education, with the opportunity to create an environment in which they could: l. explore interaction and increase the participants' awareness of their function in establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships. 2. investigate the depth and direction of the par— ticipant's system of educational beliefs and values. The investigation was also designed to: l. ascertain the nature and degree of behavioral change which members may exhibit in their inter- personal interactions as a result of the group experience. 2. gain information on how friends and colleagues of the participants perceive them and their growth. Further, the author would be provided with a personal growth experience in which he would: 1. reflect upon his functioning with a group. 2. improve upon or modify his strategies for working with people. Assumptions 1. Participants in this investigation were informed that their specific contributions would be treated in a con— fidential manner. It is therefore assumed that these con— tributions are factual and honestly represent the feelings and views of the contributors. 2. It is assumed that the participants in the group experience were internally motivated to participate in this study, and that they were not motivated primarily by the acquisition of extrinsic rewards. Limitations 1. Participants knew of the study and its general nature prior to joining it. Therefore, the "halo effect" had an impact upon the nature and extent of the findings and conclusions. 2. The composition of the participant group did not reflect a cross section of the beliefs and values held by the entire educational community. 3. The brevity of time between the termination of the group experiences and the follow—up limited this study. 4. Written instruments were utilized only in an attempt to indicate directions of individual growth. 5. The findings and conclusions of this study are not objective in nature, due to the bias of the investigator and his subjective processing of the data presented. 6. Interviews with persons not directly involved in the group sessions were conducted once. Therefore, the trust factor between the interviewer and the person interviewed was not exceptionally high. 7. The process that developed was a product of the interaction within the group. It was situational as to time and place, and unique to this group of participants. Therefore, a presentation of a review of the related litera— ture is not included in the text of this study. Overview Chapter I contained an introduction to the study, including a discussion of the need for the study, the purpose of the study, assumptions, and limitations. A discussion of the research methodology used in the study, including a description of the population, an examination of the instruments used, and the procedure employed to collect the data, is contained in Chapter II. Included in Chapter III is an analysis of the group interaction, delineating the purposes for and the assump- tions upon which the sessions were constituted, and relating selected elements of the group interaction. Chapter IV is composed of a presentation and analy— sis of the statistical data collected during the course of the investigation. Chapter V is devoted to a summary of the study, conclusions, implications, and recommendations for further study. CHAPTER II RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The Population The pOpulation consisted of students having some interest in or doing course work through the area of curric- ulum at Michigan State University during the fall term of 1971. A self-selecting sample of eleven individuals was derived from this population. A Personal Data Sheet, per— taining to the sample members, can be found in Appendix A. The investigator entered three on-campus graduate level curriculum classes during their first scheduled meet- ings. A total of eighty-six peOple had enrolled for these courses. The investigator distributed written materials that described aspects of the proposed experience (see Figure 1). He explained to each group the expectations and purposes of the proposed study, and then responded to indi— vidual questions and concerns. Based upon the information provided, nine people chose, as an alternative to their scheduled class experience, to participate in the study. Two more people joined the group as a result of having heard about the prOposed inves— tigation from friends and upon indicating to the investigator their interest in participating in a group of that nature. 9 10 ASPECTS OF PROPOSED EXPERIENCE AN ALTERNATIVE WHAT AM I LOOKING FOR? Ten or so educators who have some interest in looking at themselves and how they relate with others. Further, they should have some interest in clarifying their educational beliefs and values and generally checking out the consistency that exists between what they say and what they do. WHAT WILL THE GROUP DO? Have at least ten meetings of about three hours dura— tion each. The structure for these group meetings will key on the elements mentioned in "WHAT AM I LOOKING FOR?" Specific human relations types of devices or experi— ences will be provided or created to meet what the facili— tator and/or the group perceives as needs at a particular point in time. For that reason, it is impossible for me to say what we will do in each of the ten meetings. WHAT WILL I DO? I will meet with the group during each of its meet- ings. I will meet with some people with whom group members work, in an attempt to ascertain what sort of educators they are perceived as being. I will meet with group members individually, and attempt to find any effects that they per- ceived the group experience had upon them. Further, if effects were noted, how they were dealt with by the individ— ual. I will give the group members two written test instru- ments aimed at measuring any change in their educational values between the start of the study and its termination. I will keep a record of each group meeting. Fig. l.--Aspects of the proposed experience. 11 The Instruments Educational Values Questionnaire (VAL—ED) The Educational Values Questionnaire (VAL-ED) is a nationally standardized testing instrument. It was designed to measure fourteen value areas that have been determined to have an effect on an individual's interpersonal relations within education. Eleven of these areas are grouped around four relationships: 1. Teacher-Community: TCm 2. Administrator-Teacher: AT 3. Administrator-Community: ACm 4. Teacher-Child: TC Within the first three relationships, the elements of Inclu- sion (I), Control (C), and Affection (A) from FIRO theory constitute the variable factors. Only the variable factors of Control (C) and Affection (A) are utilized with the Teacher-Child relationship. The three remaining value areas concentrate on aspects of educational values besides the interpersonal ones. Their focus is ". . . the importance of the school's attempt to develop a child's own abilities and whether the proper focus of the school is on developing the whole child or just developing his mind."1 Each of the fourteen value areas has its own scale, which can be utilized to measure the respondent's commitment 1William C. Schutz, The FIRO Scales: Manual (Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., 1967. 12 to a predetermined designating statement within that value area. The Educational Values Questionnaire, its designat— ing statements, and scale titles can be found in Appendix B. Behavior Profiles In an attempt to synthesize individual behaviors and gain some insight into the functioning of the group participants, three separate behavior profiles were devised. The profiles have as their focus interpersonal involvement, as measured through observable behavior, within primary occupational roles. One profile is designed for school administrators, the second for teachers, and the third for full-time undergraduate and graduate stu— dents. The instruments are meant to function as indicators. Specific behaviors are presented and the respondent is asked to record his perception on a continuum. In this manner, the questions elicit general trends in behavior. A pattern of basic behaviors can be constructed for an individual by having a number of people who know and interact with him respond to the questions in the profile. For an example of a profile, see Figure 2. The three complete profile forms can be found in Appendix C. 13 .maflwoum Hofl>mcmn m mo mHmEmmII.N m m n m m w m m H A L _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ m m h o m e m m H e at I A. _ _ A A. L A m m h w m v m m H m e e (a _ 4. _ I _ _ omum >um> wmum >Hmumuw©oz wwuw xaunmeam wmuw >um> uoz m m n w m e m N a q _ _ _ _ a» _ _ _ I Hemp uwmum 4 UQSOEm mumumpoe 4 ucsosm ucmflam < wcoc >Hamoeuowum m m h w m v m m a m LI _ L _ _ I e _ [a Home uwwum a ucsoEm mumumpoe fl uCSOEm unmflam < eco: xaamofluomum m m n m m e m m H N 4‘ L a _ fl _ I :4 _ m>m3am umosad cmuwo mmefluweom >Hmumm “DI m n m m e m m a a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ m>m3am umOEH< cwuwo mmEHumEom >Hmumm Coz EmUH mmEmHnoum Hmcomuwm Mama» .0 mmnmuume Hoonom owamcmomco: .n mxuo3 Hanna Suez pmumHUOmmm mEmHnouQ .0 spaces a“: on xamu on amen mucmcsum 0c emum 30: mmucmpsum mm nmwoosm Hews» ca cmummuwucw ma m: umnu Hmmm mucwpsum man 06 none 30: mmucmnsum was CH m>mc on meow unsuu can mocwcflmcoo none 30: mmucmpsum we: on m>fluuommsm can >chwfluw we ou xwmm m: meow cmumo 30m mm>fluuommsm can >H©Gmfluw mm :0» >9 :wmm uofi>mcmn was we cmuuo 30m .mumwuumn mm mmcwa HmOAuHm> ecu mo xCHnu no: on ..m.fi “umnuo map um mEmuuxm ecu ou paw mco um wEmuuxm ms» Eouw Edscflucoo m mm mafia HmucoNHHon some n xv mafia ucmmmud man an mumsam>w ou pmxmm cmmn w>wn 30> umcu cOmumd may mo mnofl>mcwn can mmmflamn .mcofluom ecu mwnflnommp .wocwfiumWXm HBO» cfl .noH23 ucflom map um =x= cm woman mmmmam .Emuw some zoawn mmcfla may no ammue .A3oc mmmodma 4 m0 quhomm uucmccommmu Mom mcofluosuumcH 14 Interview Guides Two separate interview guides were utilized in this study. One guide was aimed at the individuals who had par- ticipated in the group experiences (see Appendix D). The second guide was designed for people who were friends or colleagues of the individuals who participated in the group experiences (see Appendix E). The interview guide for the group participants was designed to elicit responses relevant to the individual's feelings about: 1. his participation in the group. 2. the participation of others within the group. 3. his increased awareness in the areas of: a. educational beliefs and values he holds. b. behavior changes he has exhibited. c. his function in establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships. The interview guide designed for friends and col— leagues focused on: 1. the length and depth of his relationship with the group participant. 2. how he depicts the group participant. 3. changes he has noted in beliefs, values, or behaviors exhibited by the group participant since the start of the study. 15 4. changes he has noted in interpersonal interaction on the part of the group participant since the start of the study. Although the guides were generally followed, enough leeway was given to the interviewer so that questions could be phrased to best fit the individual respondent. Judge's Evaluation Sheet The author devised a Judge's Evaluation Sheet to be used by three independent judges who would read and then respond to the transcriptions of the interviews that the investigator had conducted. The instrument is so constructed that the judge records his reactions to nine question items on nine separate continuums, each of which has a scale of from one to five. Depending on the question, if a judge feels that the inter— views indicate negative change or little growth, his response would fall toward the "one" end of the continuum. If he feels that the interviews indicate positive change or a great deal of growth, his response would fall toward the "five" end of the continuum. The evaluation sheet is aimed at ascertaining the judges' reactions to the interviews in two general areas: 1. The participant's attitudes, perceptions, and reactions toward the group experience, awareness in beliefs and values, functioning in establishing 16 and maintaining interpersonal relationships, and general changes in behavior. 2. Secondary observers' perceptions of attitudinal and behavioral changes in the primary group par- ticipants. The evaluation sheet is reproduced in Chapter IV. The Procedure The eleven individuals who volunteered to participate in the study agreed to attend ten separate group meetings. These meetings took place on consecutive Monday evenings, and ranged in length from three to four and one-half hours. With the knowledge and consent of the participants, a tape recording was made of each of these sessions. The tape provided the investigator with a record of the group's verbal interaction. Initially, the author would function as the group facilitator. Structured attempts would be made to develop in the participants feelings of psychological safety and mem- bership in the group. The individual participants had pre- viously stated a desire to look at themselves, explore the depth and direction of their educational beliefs and values, and try to assist each other in ascertaining how they devel- oped and maintained interpersonal relationships. As a result, the author felt that the participants would most nearly ful- fill their expectations if, ultimately, the authority to direct the group interaction was shared by all the group 17 members. So the procedure called for the facilitator to withdraw as the primary guiding force within the group as soon as he felt his initial two goals had been met. At that point the group would assume responsibility for its own con- trol and direction. The author would continue to participate in the interpersonal interaction as an equal among peers. The Educational Values Questionnaire (VAL—ED) was administered to each participant during the first group meet— ing. The VAL—ED was utilized at that time to measure the participant's individual educational values as he began the experience. Each participant was asked to identify one or more friends or colleagues with whom he was presently maintaining an interpersonal relationship. Participants were then asked to personally contact the individuals on their lists, explain to them the general nature of the study, and request that they assist the author in his investigation. A total of twenty-eight peOple consented to assist in the study. Their role was that of secondary observers. They agreed to share with the investigator their perceptions of their friends or colleagues who were actually participat- ing in the group experiences. After the second group meeting, profile question- naires were mailed to each of the secondary observers. Once collected, these data gave the author an indication of how others were perceiving individual group members near the beginning of the study. The content of the profiles also 18 gave the secondary observers further insight into the behav- ioral areas the study was designed to investigate. Three months after the termination of the group meet- ings, a follow-up investigation was conducted. This inves- tigation consisted of three basic thrusts: l. Interviewing individual group members. 2. Having the group participants take a VAL—ED post-test. 3. Interviewing the secondary observers. During the course of the follow-up investigation, the author conducted thirty-nine interviews. These interviews generated a great deal of information. In order to reduce the level of subjective bias in analyzing these data, the investigator enlisted the assistance of three independent judges, who were selected on the basis of having: 1. done advanced graduate work in the field of education, 2. participated as a member in more than one group experience, 3. functioned as a group facilitator, 4. had at least five years of professional teaching experience, and 5. taught at at least two educational levels. Also, they had to be perceived by the author as warm, Open, and sensitive human beings. The Judge's Personal Data Sheet can be found in Appendix F. 19 The judges were given identical copies of the tran— scribed interviews. They were also provided with Judge's Evaluation Sheets. Their task was to read the interviews and then respond to the nine questions on the evaluation sheet. Summary Contained in this chapter was a discussion of the research methodology used in the study. Included were a description of the population, an examination of the instru- ments used, and the procedure employed to collect the data. Chapter III is devoted to an analysis of the group interaction. CHAPTER III ANALYSIS OF GROUP INTERACTION Introduction During the early phases of this investigation, the primary participants engaged in ten group sessions. This section of the study contains an analysis of those sessions. The analysis consists of two major thrusts: 1. Delineating the purposes for and the assumptions upon which the sessions were constituted. 2. Relating selected elements of the group inter— action. Purposes and Assumptions Prior to formation of the group, prospective par— ticipants were informed about the general nature and purpose of the proposed experience. They were aware that attempts would be made to: 1. use the group environment as a laboratory for the exploration and further develOpment of educa- tional beliefs and values. 2. use the group experience as a vehicle to investi- gate how one creates and maintains interpersonal relationships. 20 3. 21 ascertain what effect, if any, the group experi— ence had upon individual behavior. The group sessions were constituted around a number of assumptions: 1. Individuals who did opt to participate in this study understood its general nature and purpose. Individuals who have expressed an interest in pursuing education as a field of study will use educational concerns as a focus for their inter— action within the context of the group sessions. The facilitator would need to control the struc- ture of the initial group sessions, in an attempt to develop in the participants feelings of psy— chological safety and membership in the group. Given the general scope and confines of the study, participants would most nearly fulfill their expectations if ultimately the authority to direct the group interaction was shared by all of the participants. The process that developed would be discernible. The process that developed would be a product of the interaction within the group; therefore, it would be situational as to time and place, and unique to this group of participants. 22 Group Interaction The author's analysis of the group interaction is subjective in nature. It is based upon his feelings and perceptions while functioning as the group facilitator, and his impressions while listening to tape recordings of the group sessions, five months after their termination. In an attempt to simplify and maintain some conti— nuity in the analysis of the group sessions, the author sought to delineate some general elements related to group interaction. The elements selected and statements of clari- fication are as follows: 1. Setting: A brief description of the physical environ— ment in which the group met. 2. Role of the Facilitator: The function assumed by the group facilitator during the individual sessions. 3. Control: The authority to direct or regulate the interpersonal interaction within the group. 4. Degree: The extent or amount of verbal interaction. 5. Depth: The intensity of the interpersonal inter— action. 6. Direction: The line in which the group's movement was going. Session 1 The initial group session was held in a private dining room on the Michigan State University campus. The 23 session was conducted with a degree of privacy and without outside interruption. Prior to the end of the session, group members expressed a dislike for the physical environment. They said, "It's too much like a restaurant." Plans were made to move the next meeting to an off—campus apartment. During this session, the facilitator assumed the role of coordinator. After restating the goals of the study, he led the group members through a "First Names, First Impres- sions"l human relations exercise (see Appendix G). Control was in the hands of the facilitator. He introduced, directed, and critiqued the various group tasks. He established himself as the group leader and set the direc— tion and tone for this session. The degree of verbal interpersonal interaction was high. All the participants expressed opinions on a variety of topics. The depth of interpersonal interaction was rather superficial. Individuals talked at each other and they intel— lectualized a great deal. Feelings and emotions were effec— tively masked. The direction for this session, as set by the facilitator, was toward assisting the participants in develop- ing a feeling of psychological safety and membership in a group. 1J. W. Pfeiffer and J. E. Jones, A Handbook of Struc— tured Experiences for Human Relations Training, II (Iowa City, Iowa: University Associates Press, 1970), pp. 95-96. 24 Session 2 The second group session was held in the apartment of one of the female group participants. The living room was primarily utilized. Members sat informally on the carpeted floor. The environment provided privacy and freedom from outside interruption; it also provided an air of informality and warmth. During this session, the facilitator once again played the role of coordinator. A list of "clarifying responses"1 was distributed and discussed (Appendix H). A paper on "group process" was handed out (Appendix I). The participants read the paper and then responded to the open— ended questions in triads. Later, the facilitator raised the question, "How will we make decisions in this group?" The remainder of the session was spent discussing that question. As in the first meeting, control was in the hands of the facilitator. He did mention that he felt control should become a function of the group. The degree of verbal interaction was quite low during the first hour of the session. During this period the facili- tator did most of the talking. The second hour consisted primarily of the participants engaging in structured group exercises. During this period interaction picked up. The 1Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin, and Sidney B. Simon, Values and Teaching (Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing Company, 1966), pp. 260-61. 25 third hour developed into an open discussion on the topic of decision making. The level of interaction was high. The depth of interaction fluctuated. At first, it was shallow, but a pattern developed toward deeper and deeper interaction. By the end of the evening, a few peOple had exposed feelings they were having about the group and the direction the sessions seemed to be taking. For the most part, those who exposed themselves met with reactions of ridicule, hostility, and indifference from their fellow group members. The direction was initially set by the facilitator. It continued to be one of developing feelings of psychologi— cal safety and membership in the group. Later, this direc- tion got lost in a discussion of decision making. The session terminated on a note of little or no direction. Session 3 The third session was conducted in the same environ- ment as the second session. The general environment, seating patterns, utilization of space, and atmosphere were basically the same. During this session, the facilitator initially played a detached, nondirective role. He was challenged about his lack of directiveness. He stated that he no longer felt a~ need to direct the group. Discussion followed, and the other group members stated they wanted him to join the group as a nonfacilitator member. He took on that role. Control was not formally allocated during this ses- sion. The facilitator and two other group members seemed to direct, regulate, and dominate the total group interaction. The authority to do this was seized by these three, as opposed to having been allocated to them by some overt process on the part of all the participants. The degree of verbal interaction was very limited. The facilitator and two other group members engaged in a three-way conversation. This interaction dominated most of the session. The depth of interaction was rather shallow. PeOple talked at each other or past each other, and little real listening took place. Only twice did participants attempt to express their inner feelings. Both instances were basic- ally ignored by the group. People who had attempted to express some of their deeper concerns the preceding week either were absent from this session or sat back and quietly observed. The entire group seemed nonverbally and informally to set the direction for this session. It was one of avoid- ing personal confrontations. There was a great deal of talk about schools, "out there." A few group members articulated a need to move the group toward functioning as a psychologi- cal support group. 27 Session 4 The fourth session was conducted in the same apart- ment as the previous two sessions. The general environment remained constant. During this meeting the facilitator assumed a group membership role. His functioning as a group member was quiet, attentive, nondirective, and geared mostly to process observation and opinion sharing. Once more, control was not formally allocated. Indi- viduals would draw the focus of the group upon themselves by relating some problem they were having or some observation they wished to make about the public schools. Discipline, expectations, manipulation, and administration/staff rela— tions were all discussed. The degree of verbal interaction was moderate. Five or six participants did most of the talking. There were a few periods of extended silence. The depth of interaction fluctuated. Much of it was simple discussions of educational issues. A portion of the session centered on the feelings some of the people were gen— erating within the group about the group. Two people, at separate times, called the other group members to task for not recognizing and dealing with them and the way they were feeling right at that instant. For the first time, the group tried to help one of these individuals process his feelings. The direction set by this meeting was to reconsider whether we were, in fact, a group. Some members questioned 28 whether the group was ready to deal effectively with educa— tional issues. They felt that we had failed, thus far, to establish a total group feeling of trust and psychological safety. The feeling was still strong that we should attempt to create some sort of a support group. Session 5 The fifth session was conducted in the same physical setting as the preceding three sessions. During the first half of this meeting the facilitator functioned in a nondirective, clarifying, and process role. His interaction with others was as a fellow group member; it was an interaction among peers. About half way through the session he assumed a leadership stance. He acknowledged the polarization that had taken place between those who wished to deal with the "here and now" and those who wished to dis— cuss educational issues. The group split up. Eight members and the facilitator moved to the kitchen and worked on group process. Three members remained in the living room and dis— cussed educational issues. The first half of this session was dominated by two of the participants. They were basically trying to move the rest of the group toward looking at: 1. process -- what's going on in the group at this moment; and 2. educational issues —- a discussion of what is taking place in the schools. 29 After about an hour and a half of individual confrontations, the facilitator tried to seize control and steer the group in the process direction. This action physically split the group. Control became a function of two separate subgroups. The degree of verbal interaction was quite high. All the group members expressed themselves repeatedly throughout the evening. As for the relative depth of interaction, this was the deepest session to date. Feelings of anger, hostility, compassion, and confusion were all expressed. There was a great deal of talk about feelings. But, unlike previous ses— sions, the participants interspersed the intellectual concept of feelings with actual expressions of their frustrations, fears, trust, etc. The direction found in this session was one of con— frontation and fragmentation. The group split into two camps. There develOped an atmosphere of "we" and "they." Session 6 The sixth session was conducted in the same physical environment as the preceding four sessions. The facilitator initially functioned in a nondirective role. The group members expressed a desire to pull back together the two subgroups that had formed the preceding week. The view was expressed that we had gone over the preliminaries of group building too quickly. The feeling was that the group members still didn't know and trust each other. At that point, 30 the facilitator began to function in a more directive manner. He proposed and ran the group through a value-revealing exercise (Appendix J). Initially, control was in the hands of the entire group. As an informal consensus to reunify the group began to emerge, they began to look toward the facilitator to gen- erate some tasks that might help them accomplish their goal. At that point, he took on the authority role. He set the general direction for interaction, delineated the tasks to be performed, and supervised the processing at the termina- tion of the session. The degree of verbal interaction was very high. All of the group members expressed themselves repeatedly through- out the evening. The relative depth of the interaction was at least as deep as the preceding week's, although the quality of interaction was markedly different. The elements of hos— tility, fear, and anger that had been present in the previous week's interaction were not as evident. People seemed to be working harder at eliminating the feelings of confusion and lack of trust by listening to and trying to understand what the other group members were saying. The line of direction for this session was one of group reunification. 31 Session 7 This session was conducted in a new setting -— the apartment of one of the group's male participants. The apartment was part of a converted, stately older home. The atmosphere was informal and very warm. For the most part, the living room area was utilized for this session. The area itself was relatively small, so group members were forced into closer physical proximity than in the other sessions. During this session the facilitator took on a non- directive, sharing role. At one point, he related aspects of interpersonal tensions he had been dealing with during the preceding few weeks. The group listened and then helped him process those feelings. Control, once again, was relinquished by the facili— tator; it became a function of the group. As a member felt the need, he would express himself and attempt to influence the direction of the interaction. In most cases, these attempts were aimed at focusing the interaction on them— selves. A member would relate feelings or problems that he was having. The group members would then attempt to help him process his experience or feelings. At first, the amount of verbal interaction was less than in the past few sessions. Generally, one person spoke at a time, others listened, and then they responded one at a time. Later in the session, this pattern broke down and numerous conversations erupted simultaneously. The depth of interaction shifted during the course of the session. Initially, the group projected a serious mood. Most of the group members exhibited a great deal of sharing, contemplation, introspection, and empathy. Through the first half of the session, this interaction produced a great deal of psychological pressure. Group members began to withdraw from the interaction. They reverted to talking about educational and social issues in small subgroups. The over-all intensity of the interaction diminished. During this session, the group direction moved from working on processing feelings to talking about issues. Session 8 The eighth session was held in the same physical environment as the seventh session. During the major portion of this meeting, the facili- tator functioned in the role of fellow group member. The only time he tried to seize control and give direction to the entire group was when he asked the question, "Where will we meet next week?" The remainder of the time, he drifted with the general flow set by other group members. Control seemed almost to float through the group. No one individual or subgroup tried to grab control and influence the over-all direction of the session. One participant asked the entire group to deal with whether we should meet one or two more times. The group focused on that issue for perhaps fifteen minutes. In the last twenty minutes, another 33 participant tried to direct the group toward processing the evening's experience. Through indifference, the group rejected that direction. The degree of verbal interaction was very high. The group fractured into a number of subgroups. Lots of verbal interaction took place in these subgroups. The relative depth of interaction varied from subgroup to subgroup. Some subgroups talked about the weather and sports. At least one subgroup focused on encountering others on the feeling level. The direction of this session was for the group mem- bers to find a few other people they could be comfortable with, and reject anything that might invade that feeling of comfort. Session 9 The ninth session was held in the same physical envi— ronment as the eighth meeting. During this session, the facilitator played the role of a group member. Throughout this meeting, he drifted with the general flow of interaction. No one individual or subgroup took on the authority within the group to direct or regulate the interaction. The total group seemed to have arrived at a nonverbal consensus aimed at avoiding anything that might generate discomfort, be it physical or psychological. 34 The degree of interaction was very high. Every individual repeatedly interacted verbally. The intensity of interpersonal interaction was extremely shallow. The depth of involvement was analogous to a cocktail party. It was an evening of social chatter, polite conversation, and lots of subgroup mixing. The direction for this session was one of having a pleasant time. There were no confrontations. The group never took a look as its own process. Individuals exposed few, if any, real feelings or emotions. Session 10 The tenth and final group session was held in the same physical environment as the ninth meeting. During this session, the facilitator assumed the role of a group member. His approach was nondirective. He shared perceptions and experiences with the total group and sub- groups as they seemed appropriate. The degree of interaction was very high. Individuals repeatedly interacted verbally. Once again, the participants arranged themselves in a number of subgroups. The intensity of their interpersonal interactions varied. Some subgroups engaged in confrontation, evaluation, and process. Other subgroups engaged in polite social chatter. There was little mixing. Once individuals informally identified with a subgroup, they tended to stick together throughout the remainder of the session. 35 The direction for this session was one of smoothing over some bad feelings and saying good—bye. During some of the early sessions, some people had encountered others. There seemed to be some one-on—one attempts by individuals to smooth over, if not resolve, the feelings or issues that had brought on these conflicts. Summary This chapter contained an analysis of the group interaction sessions and a discussion of the purposes for and assumptions upon which the sessions were constituted. In the next chapter, the statistical data collected during the investigation are presented and analyzed. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction This section of the study is designed to present and analyze the data that were collected during the course of the investigation. Pertinent information was gathered through: 1. the analysis of the group interaction. 2. the computation of the statistical results of both the pre and post VAL-ED tests. 3. the secondary observers' responses to the per— sonality profiles. 4. the reactions of three judges to the recorded interviews of both the group participants and the secondary observers. Chapter III provided an analysis of the group interaction. Therefore, the latter three sources of data will be expanded upon in this chapter. The VAL-ED Test Results Each participant took the VAL-ED Test twice, once at the beginning of the group experiences and again three months 36 37 after their termination. The pre-test and post-test data will be presented in two ways. The raw score statistics can be found in Appendix B. In the text, a graphical comparison will be made relative to how close the group mean scores came to reaching the first standard deviations in the Teacher— Community, Administrator—Teacher, Administrator-Community, and Teacher—Child areas of this test on both the Affection and the Control scales. The VAL—ED questionnaire is so constructed, that within any one scale, nine is the maximum possible raw score. The closer the raw score is to nine, the more inclined the respondent would be to support a designating statement which the test authors have constructed to correspond with that scale. The closer the score is to zero, the more inclined he would be to reject the statement. The abbreviations for the scales, their names, and their designating statements are found in Appendix B. The pre— and post—test statistical data pertaining to the indi— vidual raw scores, group totals, and group means, along with information on standardized means, standard deviations, and reproducibility, can also be found in Appendix B. For the purpose of comparative analysis, the author ”chose the test scales of Affection (A) and Control (C). They were selected because their designating statements were so clearly Opposite. The data are graphically depicted in Figure 3, Affection, and Figure 4, Control. N \l O W mrI'Sl-“O'U (D' N N O \\\\\;l v 3‘6 \\\\\\\N (D I" \D O :SDJOZ \\\\\\\\\\\\ TCm: AT: ACm: Interpersonal Relationship TCm:=Teacher-Community E21 AT: =Administrator—Teacher I ACm:=Administrator-Community TC: =Teacher-Chi1d [:3 One Standard Deviation Pre-test Results Post-test Results Fig. 3.--Group VAL-ED results supporting Affection. mfi’DH-O'U N as O 2 Chem w S‘r-B N O O (D scum 3 .60 .50 f TCm: AT: ACm: TC: Interpersonal Relationships TCm:=Teacher-Community Z: One Standard Deviation AT: =Administrator-Teacher I: Pre-test Results ACm:=Administrator-Community TC: =Teacher—Child D: Post-test Results Fig. 4.—-Group VAL-ED results rejecting Control. 40 The figures utilize standard deviation as their base of measurement. Figure 3 encompasses a portion of the posi— tive half of the standard deviation curve. The measurements are of the degree to which the group accepted four desig— nating statements in the areas of Teacher-Community:Affection, Administrator—Teacher:Affection, Administrator-Community: Affection, and Teacher—Child:Affection. Figure 4 encompasses a portion of the negative half of the standard deviation curve. The measurements are of the degree to which the group rejected four designating statements in the areas of Teacher- CommunityzControl, Administrator-Teacher:Control, Administrator—Community:Control, and Teacher-Child:Control. The designating statements for Figure 3 are: l. TCm: Teacher—Community - The teacher and people in the community should be personally friendly with each other. 2. AT: Administrator-Teacher = The administrator should be personally close with teachers and express his feelings openly. 3. ACm: Administrator-Community = The administrator and the peOple in the community should be personally friendly with each other. 4. TC: Teacher—Child = The teacher should be per- sonally friendly and warm toward the I children. The designating statements for Figure 4 are: 41 l. TCm: Teacher-Community - The teacher should con- form to the dominant values of the community. 2. AT: Administrator-Teacher = The administrator should control the activities of the teachers, both in the classroom and in the community. 3. ACm: Administrator-Community = The desires of the community should determine school policy. 4. TC: The teacher should regulate completely class- room lessons and activities. The four areas did not have the same standard devia- tion. For that reason, the author placed a bar on the chart to illustrate the standard deviation for each of the areas. Analysis An analysis of the VAL—ED pre- and post-test results indicates that there were no statistically significant fluc- tuations in the participants' values, as measured by this instrument. Both the pre- and post—test results show that the group of participants scored in the positive half of the standard deviation curve in the area of Affection and in the negative half of the standard deviation curve in the area of Control. The results tend to indicate that within the areas of Teacher-Community, Administrator-Teacher, and Teacher— Child relative to the variables of Affection and Control, the participants continued to grow in the direction of 42 wanting to improve on a set of values encompassing: 1. their giving affection to and accepting affec- tion from others, and 2. minimizing their control over others and others' control over them. The data showed a slight shift in that the partici- pants felt, at the conclusion of the investigation, admin— istrators should be controlled more by, and should show and receive less affection from, the community. Personality Profiles Results Early in the group experiences, the author asked each participant to identify one or more friends or colleagues who would consent to function as secondary observers. After they had been identified, the investigator asked them to respond to a personality profile questionnaire. Each questionnaire was designed to get the secondary observers to reveal some of the perceptions they had formulated about the individual group participant through the course of their interpersonal relationship. Three basic profiles had been created. One was designed around the functioning of a school administrator, the second around the functioning of a school teacher, and the third around the functioning of an individual not directly involved in the professional end of education at the present time. The profile forms can be found in Appendix C. 43 The questionnaires were sent to the secondary observ— ers, based upon the occupational role of the individual group participant who had asked them to assist in the study. Ques- tionnaires were mailed to twenty—eight secondary observers. All twenty-eight questionnaires were filled out and returned to the author. The author separated the completed profiles according to the group participant they represented. A scale of one to nine was then utilized to average the secondary observers' responses on each of the twenty items on the questionnaire. Due to the statistical inaccuracy of the instruments, the mean averages were calculated as either whole or half numbers. Table 1 reports these averages. Utilizing Table 1, one can refer to the appropriate profile in Appendix C and ascertain how secondary observers perceived one or more of the group members at the beginning of the study. For example, participant 1, an administrator, had an average rating of 8.5 given by secondary observers who were asked to rate him on question 1. Question 1 on the Profile of an Administrator was: "How much confidence and trust do you have in him?" An average response of 8.5 places him high in the top, "A Great Deal," range of the continuum. The Profile Data Sheet also provides information about the degree of similarity or difference among the par- ticipants. Due to the fact that the questions vary from basic profile to basic profile, it is not possible to make 1 an across-the-board comparison of all the participants. But, TABLE l.--Profile Data Sheet. 44 Profile Title ADMINISTRATOR TEACHER PERSON Participant # 1 2 3 4 5 7 6 8 9 10 11 1 8.5 8.0 7.5 7.0 8.0 7.5 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 2 7.5 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.5 8 0 7.0 7.5 7.0 7.0 6.5 3 8.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 7 0 7.0 9.0 7.5 9.0 7.0 4 8.0 7.0 7.5 8 0 7 5 7.0 8.0 8.0 7.5 4.0 4.0 Q 5 7.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 6 5 7.0 7.0 5.5 6.0 5.0 6.0 2 6 8.0 7.0 6.5 7.0 6.5 8 O 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.5 6.5 : 7 7.5 5.0 7.0 6 5 6.0 8 0 7.0 8.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 O 8 9.0 5.0 8.0 4.0 5.5 6 0 8.0 6.5 6.5 8.0 6.0 n 9 7.0 5.5 7.0 5 5 6.5 7 O 8.0 7.5 6.5 8.0 7.0 L 10 7.0 5.5 8.0 6.0 6.0 7 0 7.5 9.0 5.5 7.5 7.0 i 11 6.5 6.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 7 5 6.5 3.5 5.5 6.0 5.5 N 12 7.0 6.5 8.0 8 5 7.5 7 5 6.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 g 13 6.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8 0 7.0 7.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 2 14 7.0 7.0 8.0 9 O 7.0 7 0 6.5 6.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 r 15 8.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.5 7 5 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 16 7.5 5.0 7.5 6.5 7.5 6.5 6.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 17 8.0 5.0 7.0 6.0 6 5 6.5 3.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 18 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.0 2.5 4.5 6.0 5.0 19 7.5 6.0 6.5 8.5 6.0 6.5 6.0 4.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 20 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.5 5.0 5.5 8.0 5.0 6.0 3.5 45 within any one basic profile group, it is possible to compare participants. The data indicate that: 1. Only twice did the high score and low score for any one item number vary more than 2.5 on the Teacher Profiles. The mean variation was 1.73. 2. Five times the high score and low score on the Person Profiles varied more than 3.0. The mean variation was 2.2. Analysis The profile results basically indicate two things about the group participants at the onset Of this investiga- tion. They are: 1. Within the framework of their basic profiles, they interacted and projected themselves to others in very similar ways. 2. Friends and colleagues saw them as being Open, honest, caring, warm, respected, and risk-taking types of people. Judges' Reactions The author conducted separate interviews with the eleven individuals who participated in the group experiences and with twenty-eight Of their friends and colleagues. The transcriptions Of those interviews can be found in Appendices D and E. Three independent judges were selected by the author. They were requested to read the interview transcriptions and 46 then respond to a nine-item evaluation sheet. The Judge's Evaluation Sheet is presented in Figure 5. The judges' responses to the nine questions were recorded on separate continuums. Each continuum had a whole number range Of from one to five. Depending on the question, if a judge felt that the interviewees had indicated negative change or little growth, his response fell toward the "one" end of the continuum. If he felt that the interviewees' responses indicated positive change or a great deal of growth, his response fell toward the "five" end Of the con- tinuum. Table 2 reports the three judges' ratings Of the nine items on the evaluation sheet. TABLE 2.—-Interview evaluation results. Judges' Responses Item Mean Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 l 4.0 4.0 4.0 2 3.0 3.0 4.0 3 3.8 4.0 3.5 4.0 4 4.0 3.5 4.0 5 4.3 5.0 4.0 4.0 6 3.5 3.0 4.0 7 4.0 4.0 4.0 8 3.0 3.5 3.0 9 4.0 4.0 4.0 Totals 34.5 32.5 35.0 Mean of Totals 34.0 Individual Item Mean 3.8 47 JUDGE'S EVALUATION SHEET Instructions for respondent: On the lines below each item, please place an "X" at the point which, in your esti- mation, describes the actions, beliefs or behaviors of the groups of people that you have been asked to evaluate. Treat each horizontal line as a continuum from the extreme at one end to the extreme at the other. Item # . . . What was the general attitude of Bite IZTezgggiigzze thzrlt the participants toward the 'like it mucH rou sessions? 9 P 1 / / / / l 2 3 4 5 What degree of increased awareness do the participants attribute to the group experience in the areas of: Practically A moderate A great a. the beliefs and values they hold? 2 none amount deal / / / / / l 2 3 4 S b. their function in establishing and maintaining interpersonal / / / / / relationships? 3 l 2 3 4 5 What degree Of change, in the way Practically A moderate A great they interact with others, do the none amount deal participants attribute to having / / / / / participated in this study? 4 l 2 3 4 5 How do the participants perceive them- Less NO More selves interacting with others now, as accepting change accepting opposed to when this study began? 5 / / / l 2 3 4 5 What degree of change have the secon- Practically A moderate A great dary Observers noted in the way the none amount deal group participants interact with / / / / / others, since the start of this study? 6 l 2 3 4 5 What direction do the secondary Less NO More Observers perceive the group par— accepting change accepting ticipants' interaction to have / / taken? 7 l 2 3 4 5 What degree of alteration have the Practically A moderate A great secondary observers noted in the none amount deal system of beliefs and values which / / / / / the group participants hold, since 1 2 3 4 5 the start of this study? 8 What direction have the secondary . Observers noted in the relationship Less NO More that exists between the system of consistent change consistent beliefs and values which the group / / / / / participants hold and the behavior 9 l 2 3 4 5 they exhibit? Fig. 5.--Judge's evaluation sheet. 48 Analysis The judges' reactions to the interviews, as recorded on the Judge's Evaluation Sheet, were very similar. Within any one item number, the greatest variation was one full point out Of a possible four. Their totals varied by only 2.5 points out of a possible variation Of thirty-six. This would tend to indicate that the degree and direction of change and growth have been accurately determined and assessed by the judges. The results indicate that the participants saw the group experience as enjoyable. It increased their levels Of awareness in the areas Of beliefs and values which they hold and their functioning in establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships. Further, the participants have altered the way in which they interact with others, and this alteration has been in the direction of being more accepting of others. This behavioral change was viewed by friends and colleagues as being more in line with the beliefs and values which the participants express. Summar This chapter contained a presentation and analysis of the data gathered through the pre and post VAL-ED Tests, the secondary observers' responses to the personality pro— files, and the judges' reactions to the recorded interviews of the group participants and secondary Observers. 49 Chapter V contains a summary and conclusions of the study, implications, and recommendations for further study. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND AUTHOR'S REFLECTIONS Introduction This section of the study is designed to bring into focus the various areas and aspects Of the investigation. The procedure for doing so has four major thrusts: l. A summary of the study, 2. A presentation of conclusions drawn from the investigation, 3. A statement of the implications that this study holds for the author and other educationally interested individuals, and 4. A list Of recommendations for further investi— gation. Summary This study was initiated with the intent of helping a group of educationally interested individuals to form. The formally stated goals for the group were to: l. investigate group interaction and increase the participants' awareness of their function in 50 51 establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships. 2. allow the participants to explore the depth and direction of their system of educational beliefs and values. 3. ascertain the nature and degree of behavioral change which the participants may exhibit in their interpersonal interactions as a result of the group experience. 4. provide a personal growth experience for the author. A self—selecting group of eleven individuals was formed. The members Of this group all expressed an interest in working within the general framework Of the stated goals of the study. The participants chose to meet once a week for ten weeks. The meetings ranged in length from three to four and one—half hours each. Initially, the author facilitated these sessions in an attempt to develop in the participants feelings of psychological safety and group membership. After he felt those Objectives had been met, the participants assumed the authority for directing and regulating the inter- personal interaction within the group. During the course Of the investigation, the author gathered data concerning the stated goals. This was done by: l. delineating some general elements related to group interaction and then subjectively applying them to the group's process. 52 2. measuring the depth and direction Of the par- ticipants' educational beliefs and values, both at the start of the group experiences and again three months after their termination, by utiliz- ing the Educational Values Questionnaire. 3. gathering the perceptions friends and colleagues had formulated about the participants prior to their group involvement, utilizing both a per- sonality profile questionnaire and a post- experience interview. 4. utilizing a Judge's Evaluation Sheet to synthe- size the reactions of three independent judges to a series of interviews that were separately conducted with both the group participants and their friends or colleagues three months after the termination of the group experience. The time span frOm the first group experience to the post-experience interview conducted with the last secondary Observer covered a period Of seven months. Conclusions The author has arrived at a number Of conclusions based upon the data which were generated during the course of this investigation. An analysis of the conclusions indicates that they tend to fall into six major categories. The conclusions and the categories which they reflect are as follows: 53 Environment The group participants were able to create and main- tain an environment in which they were able to explore the formal Objectives outlined in the purpose of this study. The process that developed within that environment was situational as to time and place, and was unique to this group of partici- pants. The participants enjoyed their group experience, and saw it as a place in which tO receive psychological support. In addition, they were able to meet, to some degree, the per- sonal expectations with which they entered the investigation. Interaction Awareness Within the group environment, which they created, the participants did explore group interaction, and the level of awareness which they held about their function in establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships was increased. Belief and Value Awareness Based upon the Observations of the secondary Observers, most of the group participants did exhibit new depths Of aware— ness and clarity as to the nature of their educational beliefs and values during the course of this investigation. Further, the participants' exhibited behaviors became more consistent with their expressed beliefs and values. Interaction Change The perceptions of the secondary observers and the participants themselves indicate that the group experience did produce a degree of change in the way group members 54 interact with other people. One aspect Of this change was their willingness to be more accepting of other peOple. Author Functioning The author was able to relinquish the role Of group facilitator and function as a group member. A group can function without a formal leader. When they perceived a need, the group participants would call upon a perceived authority for structure or process assistance. The author was not always seen as that authority. General Conclusion The group interaction provided the participants with what they perceived to be a positive and productive growth experience. Implications The author feels the findings of this study hold implications for individuals directly involved in or con- cerned with the field of education, for individuals inter- ested in group participation, and for individuals concerned with how one works with groups in a facilitating role. The conclusions Of this investigation imply that: 1. People should be given the Opportunity to create an interpersonal environment which would serve to meet their expectations and needs. 2. Those peOple who are presently in control of the formal interpersonal structure within a 55 school could bring that structure more into line with the goals and Objectives which the indi— viduals within that environment agree upon, if they would make available tO those individuals the Opportunity to create their own structure. The group participants will take on the respon- sibility for regulating and directing their interpersonal interaction if the group facilita— tor will relinquish his formal control over an experience. If people are receiving psychological support from at least one source, they will be inclined to take risks, change their behaviors, in areas of human involvement where support may be min— imal. Investigators should rely more on the perceptions of friends and colleagues when trying to ascer- tain the degree and direction of growth in group participants. There is a segment Of the educational community that is interested in looking at "self" and humanizing their interpersonal interaction. The individuals within this segment tend to be iso— lated, one from the other, but they are seeking ways and means to form linkages, share their concerns, and grow psychologically. 56 Recommendations As a result of having completed this investigation, the author makes the following recommendations: 1. Further research should be conducted. a. The secondary Observer responses received from administrators indicate some gaps in their understandings of what is going on in their schools. Further study should be devoted to ascertaining just how cognizant administrators are of what their teachers and students are really doing. More groups should be formed, utilizing the same goals and procedures of this study, in an attempt to gather a greater volume Of sub- jective perceptual data on group interaction and its effect on the interpersonal inter— action Of participants when they leave the group environment. A comparative study should be conducted, utilizing a self-selecting group, similar to the one used in this study, and a randomly selected group, in order to ascertain how much of a factor commitment to the stated, goals of this study had to do with its findings. 57 d. New and more effective ways need to be devel- Oped tO quantify or measure belief and value awareness alteration in individuals. 2. Actions should be initiated. a. Educators should attempt to reorder the formal interpersonal structures in their schools, utilizing the nondirective group model. b. Colleges Of education should provide for the formation of self-selecting psychological or philosophical support groups on a credit basis. c. School systems should encourage and provide for the formation Of psychological and philo- SOphical support groups. Author's Reflections This study provided the author with a personal growth experience. He was given the opportunity to: 1. reflect upon his functioning with a group. 2. improve upon and modify his strategies for working with people. The intent of this portion Of the dissertation is to provide him an Opportunity to relate some Of the feelings, perceptions, and changes in behavior that he has noted in himself as a result of having conducted this investigation. The experience Of having conducted an investigation of a group nature has generated a great deal Of personal growth data which the author now needs to synthesize, 58 assimilate, and utilize in the expansion of his own inter— personal awareness. This process can be as long or as short as the inves- tigator chooses to make it. So long as he views the continued exploration of the elements and dimensions of this particular group experience as producing personal growth benefits, he will reflect upon them. Let it suffice to say, at the time Of this writing, he is still processing the experience. Thus far, the author has extrapolated four general insights into his own growth and group awareness. They are: 1. One of the assumptions upon which the group exper— ience was constituted was, "The facilitator would need to control the structure of the initial group sessions, in an attempt tO develOp in the participants feelings Of psychologi— cal safety and membership in the group." Due to his impatience to move beyond these two goals and turn the control of the interpersonal interaction over to the entire group, the author misjudged the participants' feelings of safety and group mem— bership. This case of misjudgment played a part in the par- ticipants' seeming inability to coalesce into one group. An attempt was made during the sixth session to try again to build feelings Of group membership. But this seemed to turn into a case Of "TOO little-—tOO late." The attempt failed. As noted in the follow-up interviews with the participants, none of them tried overtly tO maintain contact with their fellow group members after the experience had terminated. 59 The author feels now that at least one extended group meeting, in the nature Of a twenty—four—hour marathon, during the first few weeks of the investigation may have proved very helpful in attaining his initial goals Of building feelings of psychological safety and group membership. 2. In working with various groups, the author has sensed his own need to identify with and be identified as a member of the group. In the past, he worked at maintaining his position and role as facilitator. During this experience, he actively worked at turning the responsibility for the inter— personal interaction over to all of the participants. The author found that he could relinquish his facilitator role and be accepted as a group member. This transition was made pos— sible to some extent by the investigator curbing his drive tO control the direction and nature Of the experiences others will be exposed to. The concept Of multiple roles and posi- tioning within the group provided the author with what he considered to be a very beneficial personal growth experience. 3. During the course of the fifth meeting, the group split into two subgroups. One subgroup wanted to look at "process"—-what was going on in the group at that moment. The other group wanted to discuss "educational issues"—-a discus- sion Of what was taking place in the public schools. The author helped precipitate the events which led to this split. When it took place, he simply let it happen. Now that he looks back on the situation, the actual split can be seen as a "cop-out," a way to avoid further and deeper 6O exploration, on the part of the participants, into why they were having trOuble forming one group with a common direction. In future dealings with groups, the author feels he will not be as inclined to find a quick and painless way out Of sticky interpersonal encounters. His intention would be to explore the underlying assumptions that people bring to conflict situations and see if, once exposed, they might be utilized in building feelings Of group membership and under- standing, rather than division. 4. Structured human relations types of exercises seemed to assist individuals in developing feelings Of psycho— logical safety and group membership during the initial phases of the group interaction. The use Of these exercises did raise the question, in the author's mind, about whether their utilization was, in fact, the most effective means to utilize in achieving his goals. The author's feeling is that the devices were helpful, given the context Of this particular group experience. To utilize simulations, human relations exercises, role play, etc., or simply to allow the group participants to work things through, utilizing data gathered from the here and now, must be a judgment decision made by a facilitator each time he works with a group of people. BIBLIOGRAPHY 61 BIBLIOGRAPHY Michigan Department Of Education. Common Goals Of Michigan Education. Michigan Department Of Education, 1971. Pasternak, Michael G. "An Exploration of the Educational Belief System Process as a Means for Helping Educa- tors Formulate Curriculum Decisions." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Pfeiffer, J. W., and Jones, J. E. A Handbook Of Structured Experiences for Human Relations Training, II, Iowa City, Iowa: University Associates Press, 1970. Raths, Louis E.; Harmin, Merrill; and Simon, Sidney B. Values and Teachigg. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing Company, 1966. Schutz, William C. The FIRO Scales: Manual. PalO Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., 1967. 62 APPENDICES 63 APPENDIX A PARTICIPANTS' PERSONAL DATA SHEET 64 PARTICIPANTS' PERSONAL DATA SHEET Participant Number 4 5 6 7 10 ll Sex: M=Male~ F=Female Marital Status: M=Married S=Single D=Separated Age: 38 32 37 38 28 24 25 19 28 25 24 Race: C=Caucasian Religion: P=Protestant C=Christian J=Jewish l93=Bachelor's Degree Total College Credits: 233 211 232 235 199 247 218 87 218 208 230 Present Occupation: T=Teacher A=Administrator U=Undergraduate Student G=Graduate Student Professional Years in Education: 14 10 Presently Teaching or Administrating: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NO Yes NO NO NO NO Employed Educator Last Year: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NO NO Yes NO Teaching Level: E=Elementary J=Junior High School S=Senior High School N=NO Teaching Level 65 APPENDIX B VAL-ED TEST SCALE NAMES AND THEIR DESIGNATIONS VAL-ED TEST RAW SCORE STATISTICS EDUCATIONAL VALUES QUESTIONNAIRE 66 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. VAL-ED TEST SCALE NAMES AND THEIR DESIGNATIONS Importance (Imp): Education has intrinsic value beyond its occupational advantages. Mind (Mind): The school should concern itself primarily with developing the mind of the student rather than with develOping his whole personality. School-Child: Control (SC:C): The school should help the child to realize and use his own abilities and judgment most effectively. Teacher-Child: Control (TC:C): The teacher should regu- late completely classroom lessons and activities. Teacher-Child: Affection (TC:A): The teacher should be personally friendly and warm toward the children. Teacher-Community: Inclusion (TCm:I): The teacher should participate in community activities and be encouraged to do so by community members. Teacher-Community: Control (TCm:C): The teacher should conform to the dominant values of the community. Teacher-Community: Affection (TszA): The teachers and peOple in the community should be personally friendly with each other. Administrator-Teacher: Inclusion (AT:I): The adminis— trator should take account Of teachers' Opinions when making policy decisions. Administrator-Teacher: Control (AT:C): The administrator should control the activities of the teachers, both in the classroom and in the community. Administrator-Teacher: Affection (AT:A): The adminis- trator should be personally close with teachers and express his feelings Openly. Administrator-Community: Inclusion (ACm:I): The admin— istrator and the peOple in the community should be involved jointly in school and community affairs. Administrator-Community: Control (ACm:C): The desires Of the community should determine school policy. Administrator-Community: Affection (AszA): The admin- istrator and the people in the community should be personally friendly with each other. 67 (58 mom. Nwm. 0mm. me. 0mm. mmw. mmm. NHm. mmw. «hm. how. vmm. mhm. vow. >UHHH£HU§UOHQ0¢ hm.N Hm.N mN.N vm.N vm.N mo.N mm.N Nm.N ©®.N Nm.N wv.N VN.N mm.N hm.N GOHHMH>OQ UHMUGMflm Nm.¢ mN.v Nm.m Hm.v hv.¢ Oh.m No...» mm.m hm.v mm.v Nm.v Nw.v mh.w hm.¢ mcmwz UONHUHMGGmum Nm.v oo.v mm.m hN.N mmoh Nh.m 001m wm.m vw.® mv.N mo.m oo.w mH.N oo.v mamwz UmOB mm vv hm mN mm mm mv mm mm 5N no we wN vv mHmuOE m m H m m m m m h m v m H m HH N m v m m m m m m N m m. m o OH N m m m h v. v. o H. w v m N v m m m w N m m m v m. H m m m v w w v N H w m w v w m N. m H N m. N. m N o N. m m m m H m H: N ¢ 0 m m m N m H m H n. N m m N N m o m N m m m N m v m m. m m m w w m m o m m m m m o m m N H m m N. N m m w v n m v m m m b N m m ¢ H m h m N m N m h N m H uuum 95 OCH: 0 a d O H 4 O H a. u H * acadHOHuumm OH. "Eve ".2 ”50H. EmmBlmmnm QMIH<> E59 mom. New. omm. How. com. mmm. mmm. NHm. mam. VNN. New. ems. NNN. vom. suHHHnHoseoummm Nm.N Hm.N mN.N am.N so.N mo.N mm.N Nm.N om.N Nm.N ov.N «N.N mm.N Nm.N coHumH>wo enmccmum Nm.v mN.¢ Nm.m Hm.v Ne.e ON.m No.v Hm.m Nm.v mm.v Nm.v Nm.v mN.H Nm.v mammz emanumecmum NH.v ae.¢ vm.N am.H HS.N ma.m oo.¢ Nm.m vm.N NH.N om.o NN.o NN.H oo.m meme: name we Hm NN NH am so ea Ne mm eN 0N as ON mm mHmuoe m m N H m m a m a N N m N o HH m m m m m o m o e N o v m H OH H m m N N m a N m m a m N m a v m m m N m H e m N m N N H m m m o H N m N m a m a N H N N N e H H N N m a m H e m N m e m m N o a N N m m N m e N H m e N N H m m m o a m m m N N v N m H o N m m m m o m H o m m m o m m N e e H m m m m N a N H e v H m S m m m m N m N m H ouom aeH ecHz o < < o H a o H a o H N acmmHoHunmm 09 “Eva use “E09 EmmBIBmOm DWIH<> PLEASE NOTE: Pages 70-72, "A Firo Scale",©1962 by William C. Schutz not microfilmed at request of author. Available for consultation at Michigan State University Library. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS. 70 V A L - E D A FIRO SCALE William C. Schutz, Ph.D. DIRECTIONS: People vary a great deal in their general atti- tudes and values about education. The following items are about your own personal attitudes toward various aspects of education. There are no right or wrong answers, so please be candid. Be sure you answer every question. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Name Group Date Age Sex TCm SC:C AT IMP ACm MIND TC CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGISTS PRESS, INC. 577 College Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94306 Copyright 1962 by William C. Schutz. Printed in the United States Of America. All rights reserved. The test, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without written permission of the publisher. For every item. place a number from I to 6 in the space next to the item. The numbers mean: I. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Mildly disagree I0. ll. ._l2. _.-.. l5. -..—..¢ l8. l3. I4. 16. I7. 4. Mildly agree 5. Agree 6. Strongly agree The aim of the school should be the development of the child‘s total personality, not only his mind. Education makes people doubt and question things that should be accepted on faith. The school, to be effective, does not have time for vocational courses like auto shop or short- hand. A college education causes people to become too critical of the American way of life. Nonacadcmic courses like band and homemak- ing are just as worthy of a portion of the school's time as are foreign languages. geometry, etc. The main value of an education is to help a per- son find a better job. Active involvement, like discussion, is a more effective way of producing learning than a lec- ture by the best of subject matter experts. A college education makes a person more aware of important world issues. The presentation of what children need to know by tcachcrs who are experts in their subjects pro- duccs the best learning. Women need as much education as men do. Today's schools need to devote some time to sub- jects other thanthc basic subjects (English. sci- ence. mathematics). Much of what is taught in schools is of little value because it is too far removed from real life. The best learning occurs when children are exposed to teachers who are masters of their subjects. Drive is much more important in getting ahead than the type of education one gets in school. The school should consider the personal and so- cial needs of the child and not only his mind. Education is valuable even if all it does is to help a person increase his knowledge of the world and people. If schools are to train the minds of children. they cannot devote time to nonacadcmic activities as well (e.g.. crafts. clubs, sewing). Experience is man's best teacher, and not schools and books. The school should help the child— , - I9. 20. .2]. - _22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. To trust his own judgment. To think for himself. To achieve as much as he can. To strive to excel. To learn the value of success. To have confidence in his own abilities. To be original. To have respect for the opinions of authorities. Always to try to win or be best. 71 A teacher should _.__28. __...__29. _.__30. _.__31. Let the children decide many classroom matters by majority decision. Be a personal friend to the students. Allow children great initiative. Not become emotionally involved with the children. Make sure that all children are kept busy with planned activities at all times. Express his feelings openly to children. Encourage children to make suggestions for new ways of conducting classes. Express affection toward the children. Always give complete directions. Not become personal‘with the children. Always be in charge of the children’s activities. Encourage children to confide their problems in him. - Plan all lessons. Always act warm and friendly to the children, even those he dislikes. Exercise firm discipline at all times. Get to know the children outside school. Let children try their own way even if they make mistakes. Not express personal feelings to the children. Stay out of community activities. Never give the appearance of nonconformity. Participate in community functions. Make sure his political activities are acceptable to the majority of the community. Be active in PTA (or parents' club). Be careful not to antagonize the important peo- ple in the community. Stick to teaching and not get involved in local affairs. Live his life any way he wishes once away from school. Be active in community affairs. Conform to the dominant values in the com- munity. , Not be too friendly with people in the commu- nity. Not drink or swear in public. Not share his personal life with members of the community. Make sure his personal life is beyond reproach. Choose some of his closest friends from the local community. Be a nonconformist if he feels like it. Live his personal life as he chooses. A school administrator should— - 65. 66. - 8ft. - 63. 64. _ 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. - 75. - 76. - 77. -. 78. - 79. 80. _ 8|. - 83. 84. 85. 87. . 88. 89. 90. 9|. _ 92. 93. Ask for the opinion of teachers on important administrative matters. Ignore a teacher's outside activities when con- sidering retention of the teacher. Express the affection he feels for teachers. Take account of all teachers' points of view on administrative matters. Allow a teacher to teach anything the teacher believes to be true, no matter how unpopular. Encourage a teacher to confide in him. Have teacher representation on all administra- tive committees. Allow the teacher the greatest freedom to teach the method or content he thinks best, no mat- ter how controversnal or unpopular. Encourage close and informal relations with teachers. Regularly consult teachers on policy matters. Require an adequate answer from any teacher against whom a serious charge has been made, whether or not it is substantiated. Not express his feelings openly to teachers. Handle most administrative matters without consulting teachers. Fire a teacher whose morality is questionable, even if it doesn‘t affect his classroom behavior. Be personal friends with teachers. Work relatively independently of teachers. Fire a teacher who teaches controversial ideas. Not become personal friends with teachers. Try to keep his decisions unbiased by teacher opinion. Control the outside activities of a teacher who does not adhere to the values of the community. Not become personally involved with teachers. Keep administrative matters separate from teaching. Retain complete authority over the activities of the teacher. Always behave impersonally toward teachers, even if he feels affectionate toward some of them. Make his decisions and then ask the teachers for their opinion. Fire a teacher for any reason he feels is suffi- cient. Be friendly but impersonal with teachers. Have community representation on major school committees. Follow the wishes of the community with re- gard to school programs. Take an active part in community affairs. (‘onsider the opinion of the community, but make his own final decisions. 72 __ 96. 97. 98. ___101. _102. _103. _._104. People in ___.105. _._106. _._l07. 108. __109. _110. _.__lll. _112. _113. _.__114. ___lIS. -__Il6. ___ll7. _.__118. _ll9. _120. m121. __122. ____ _123. _.__124. _.__125. _--_-_ l 26. 94. 95. 99. _._100. Invite the community often to see the school program. Seek the advice of the community but decide school problems for himself. Include the community in school activities. Accept invitations to visit parents. Determine the school program by himself and consider community opinion only if it is volun- teered. Get to know community people personally. Be sure the school program is acceptable to the community. Become friendly with people in the community. Never go ahead with an activity he suspects the community opposes. Choose some close friends from the commu- nity. Never do anything that a sizeable or important segment of the community is against. the community should— Seek out teacher participation in local activities. Invite teachers to their homes. Watch the administrators carefully and demand removal if dissatisfied. Invite teachers to participate in community affairs. Consider teachers as possible close friends. Take responsibility for the operation of the schools by granting or withholding money requested. Discourage teachers from participating in com- munity affairs. Invite school administrators to local organiza- tions. Keep a proper distance from school admin- istrators. Encourage teachers to stick to teaching and not get involved in civic activities. Invite school administrators to join civic com- mittees. Invite administrators to their homes. Not be too personal with teachers. Find out what's happening in the schools. Try to get to know the administrators per- sonally. Be free to confide their problems to teachers. Take an active interest in school activities. Not get too personal with the administrators. Keep a proper social distance from teachers. Include school administrators in community functions. Be friendly to administrators but not too per- sonally close. Try to get to know teachers personally. APPENDIX C PROFILE FORMS 73 74 m m h w m v m N H a_ _ _ a a _ _ __ m m h w m v m N H ma _ _ _ _ A _ __ m m h o m v m N H m7 _ 4 _ A _ _ 4_ omuw >um> mmum mamumumvoz ovum >Hu£owam menu >Ho> uoz m m h w m v m N .H a_ _ _ _ _ _ _ L_ ammo ummum m uCDOEo unnumUOE é uGDOEm unmem < ococ xaamoauomum m m n m m v m N H m4 _ E _ _ _ L ad Home umoum m uGDOEm mumumooe < uCSOEm unmflam 4 one: xaamofluomum m l@ h w m v m N A an _ a E E _ _ __ mmmzam umOEH< coumo mmEfluoEom xaoumm b m h o m v m N H H_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ m>m3am umOEad :mumo mmEHamEom xamumm Ioz EmuH mnfimdnoum anaconda Hflmnu .0 mmuouuma Hoonon oafidvnonco: .n mxuo3 wfiozu saw: wounfloommm nawanoum .n “050nm EM: ou xamu ou doom mucwvnun ow wmum.3om mnucmcnum mm mmoooam Hausa cw woummumucfl ma on unnn Hoom mucovsum ma: on 5055 30m mmucmcsum own cw o>ms on moon unnuu van mocmcflmaoo £095 30: Nmucocnum nan ou w>HuHommsm can hflwcowum on on goon on meow Guano 30: mo>auuommam can macaowum no so» an coon How>msoa ow: ow couwo 3o: .muowuuen no mocwa Hecauum> 05¢ mo xaflnu uoc ow ..o.w “Honuo on» no oEmuuxm on» on cam oeo on oEouuxm may Eonu Esscfiucoo n no mafia HouconHon some n xv mean ucommum ozu um mumsam>m on woxmm coon m>mn 50> unnu Gammon may no mHOM>nnmn can mmoflamn .mGOwuum onu monfluomon .mocoflummxo Mao» cw .QOan ucflom on» an ax: no woman mmmmam .Eouw some 3OHOQ mocwa on» GO undue .Azoc mmmu HHmz muHso HHoB >Hmumumvoz HHmB >Hm> uoz m m h w m e m N H E E E E E Ht E E H oumusoom mummsuoo mumudoumcH mumunoomcH m>m3Hm umOEH4 >HuHmm cmumo >HHmst m m h o m v m N H E E H E E E E H E 5098 >um> uH mxHH uH mxHH uH mum: pH oxHq >HHm9mD moEHuoEOm “uH mums mmEHuoeom m m n o m v m N H H E E H E E E E E m m n o m u m w H E E H, E E E E E E Home ummum < uCDOEm mumumwoe d uCDOEm ucmHHm < mcoc >HHmoHuowum m m n w m v m N H E E E E E E E E E m m n o m v m N H H E E E H E E E H mHucmsvmum >Hw> cmumo mmEHuoEom >Hmumm mxuos Hoonom HHonu :H mucopsum mH: an vmomm mEmHnoua onu .3ocx 0v Soon on moon HHo3 30m NEH: Na :0» cu co>Hm wumuuofi HMCOmHoQ Ho .Hoosom .mmMHo mcHoummou coHunEu0mcH mH muonsoom 30m mmmmHU was GHM3OQ mucwnflum mo mesuauum Hmamcmm one ma one: mmumuume Hoocum oHEooooncoc .Q mmuouume oHEocoom .m "ozone mucousum BoHHm on meow mom nose 30m mmoHuH>Huom unopsum .muco>o Hoonom .ocHHmHomHo we soon .muouune Hoonom UHEoomonco: .n mmxoon .UoHcsum on on muooflQSm .ucmucoo coupon we soon .muouuma oHEocnom .m “usonn mmooH .mucocsum mHz was new xmow on moon cmumo 30m 76 m m 2E _ m a E E m N H E E E mHucmsvon muo> coumo mmEHumEom >Hmumm m m b m m v m N H mE E E E E E E E E E mcHummoom mcHummuum mcHuQmoom mcHumooom HHo3 >Ho> HHw3 muHso HHo3 >kumumcoz >Hd> uoz m m n m m w m N H 2E E E E E H E W E Uo>Ho>cH muom oo>Ho>cE po>Ho>cH po>Ho>cH >Hucoswwum >um> mumm cmumo mumm moEHuoEom muom >Hmumm m n w m q m N H m SH E E E Homo ummum 4 uCSOEm mooanOE < E H uGSOEm ucmEHm 4 E. E E mco: NHHmoHuomum m m w m m v m N H sE E E E E E E E E E xuo3emou xuo3Enou m>Humum m>Humquooo xuo3Emou imooo mo ucsofim mo unsosm m>Eunuomooo =mHomEEc “0w HmHucmumnsm >uo> muon©OE d oHuuHH >Ho>HumEom :mE >uo>m: m m h m m v m N .lH mE E E E Ht E E E E E unsuu 0cm anon» one ounce moaovHucoo no mucoosum iHmcoo mo ooumop ucDOEm anm Eoum mocmumHU unsuumHo nmE: :uEz :oEuom iuoucH NHccoHum o>Hmcopxm suH3 :muwo wchuCHnE mHHmSm: “coHuomnoucH oumuocoz er—Ummfl «COHUUM iamucE oEquq one “cow £UH3 >HHmsms “coHuon iaoucE mEquq mmmeum on“ m0 anon on» ha coumouom NHHmuocom mmovH mHn one copmo so: No: mH wHQomm CH moocouomec mo mcHumooom 30m NmHHmwwm >UHGDEEOO CH on mH m>Huom 30m magnum EEEz Ema» pans mchoono cH o>ms mucocnum on Now none 30: .mommMHo mHn cH Name» m we >H0>Humummooo xuo3 mnemUSpm on no =MHomEHn now ems >um>o= uH mH .mommmHo mHn CH mmmmmnHo mHs :H coHuomuounH mo ucsoem can uwuomumco on» pH was; 77 m m n o m v m N H mE E E E E E E E E m m n o m w m N H FE E E E E E E E E m m n o m v m N H 0H E E E E E E E E >Hucmswouw Num> Cdpwo moEEuoEOm NHoumm m m n o m H m N H mE E _ E E E E E E m m n m m w m N H «E E E E E E E 7E m m n o m v m N H mE E E E E E E E E wouw Nuw> menu >Houmuo©oz mouw >HquEHm comm >uo> uoz m m h m m v m N H NE E E E E E E E E Home umoum 4 uCCOEm wumuoooe 4 ECCOEm uanHm 4 ococ >HHmoHuomum m m n o m v m N H HE E E E E E E E E Home umoum 4 uCCOEm oumuoooe 4 ECCOEm ucmEHm 4 mCOC >HHooHuowum .oz EouH mmuCoUCum .o mmumsowwu .n mmuouwuumHCHevm Hoguo .m “0» m>HuuomQ5m ocm >H©C0Huw on ou Nun on mmoc cwumo 30m mmEmHnouQ Hmcomuom uso> .o mmaouumfi Hoocom oHEwcmumCOC .n mxuo3 “30% Cqu omumEoommm meHnoum .m “usonm EH: 0u meu ou Homm so» on mean 30: mmuonommu mHC CH o>mn-oc moon Ewan» UCm moCoUHmCoo CODE 30: NEH: CH m>mc 50> 0U umCuu CCm oUC®UHmcoo CODE 3oz .mHmflHHMQ mm mGCHH HMOHflHQNV ME“ MO ECHCE uOC op ..o.H “Cacao on» up oeouuxo ecu Op ecu oCo um oEouuxo 0:» SOME ECCCHuCoo m we mCHH HmuCoNHMOC comm undue .E30C u xv wEHu ucmmoum on» up oumCHm>o ou poxmw coon m>mc 50> umcu COmumm may no muoH>mCon UCm mmoHHon .mCoHuom ecu mmnHuomoU .oonHummwo usoxlCH .Coch uCHom onu um =x= cm momHm mmmmHm .EwuH comm 30Hmn mmCHH on» C0 mOBmNmBmHzHEQEN Z4 .UHO MAHhomm "#CQUCOQmOH HON mCOflanDHumCH '78 0H mH «H NH NH HH 0H m m n o m w m N H E E E E E E E E E HHm3 >um> HHmB muHCO HHoB >Hmumuw©oz Hwa >uo> #02 m m N m m v m N H E E E E E E E E E cUCE >um> uH oxHH uH ocHH moEHuoEom EH mum: EH wcHH >HHmst “EH mumc mmEHuoEOm m m n w m w m N H E E E E E E E E E m m h o N H H H E E E m a m E E E E Homo umoum 4 uCCOEm mumuovoa 4 uCCOEm ucmHHm 4 oCOC >HHmoHuomum m m n w m w m N H E E E E E 1 E E E m m H o m E. m _N E n E E E E E H E E >Hqusvmum >um> Cwuwo mmEHuoEom >Hmumm m m n m m v m N H E E A E E E E E E E m m n o m H m N H E E E E E E E E E xHqusvmum >H®> cwumo wwEHquom NHoumm .mxuoz Hoocom “Hocu CH muocomou ch >3 poomw mEoHcoum ocu 3occ ou Boom mc mooc HHoB 3oz mHoocom chu CH mCquo3 CHMBOH mumcommu mo meouHuum Emaocmm on» mE has: mmumuume Hoocom uHEmUMUMCOC .Q mmHmUHME UHE®UMUM . w undone mewosum BoHHm oc mmoo New cone 30m mmuouuoe Hoocom OHEovmomCOC .n Nmuouume oHEoUmom .m "unocm quCCEEoo ocu Eoum mmocH om: pCm comm oc meow Cmumo 30: mmmHuH>Huom ucmvsum .mqu>m Hoocom .mCHHQHomHU mm cosm .muouumfi Hoocom UHEmUMUMCOC .c m.ouo .mcooc .vonuwmo on on momusou mm cosm .muouums OHEmcmom .o undone mooUH .muocomwu ch mm: @Cm comm mc mwoc Coumo 3oz 79 ON 0H NH NH EEEE E E E E >HuCosUmuw >uo> Cduwo moEHuoEow >Houmm EEcE E E E E mCHuamoom >uo> mCHumooom mCHumooom mCHunooom HHoB muHCO HHo3 >Houmuocoz >uo> uoz m m h o v m N H E E E E E E E E ®o>Ho>CH muom oo>Ho>CH po>Ho>CH U0>HO>CH >Hucosvmum >uo> muom cmuwo memo mOEHEOEOm muom >Houmm m m n o v m N H E E E E E E E E cHOBEmmu m>Humuo cuo3Emmu xuo3Enou =mHomEHc HOE imooo mo uCCOEm o>Humquooo m>Humuonoo an >uo>m= HnHquumch >uo> mo uCCOEm dunnoCOE 4 oEaaEE sEo>EumEmm mwwmum ecu mo pmmu ocu >2 wouaouom >HHmumcom mmoUH ch one cmuwo 30c mwc mH mHmomQ CH moucmuwmec mo mCHummoom 30c mmuHmwwm quCCEEoo CH dc mH m>Huom 30: mEmou n no >Ho>Humuomooo xuo3 muocumou on no :wHomEHc new CME >uo>m= uH wH .Hoocom ch CH 80 e w h w m v m N H mue>o Houucoo uo n E E H. E E E E E H ue30m mec ec eHmer .u m m h w m v m N H . wueem ch .n o E E E H E E E E E o NEEc ue>o Houucoo m % w H w w w % w W no ueBOQ cuH3 eHQoem .m . sou e>Huuommcm ece >HeceHuu >Hucecveuu >He> ceuwo meEHueEOm >Heuem ec ou xuu ec meoe ceumo 30: v E w H w E w E w E mmEeHcoum Hec0muem usox .c mxuo3 use» cuH3 m % w H w w W E w E eeueHoommm mEeHnouQ .m eeuw >ue> eeum >Heueueeoz eeuw >HucmHHm eeuw >ue> uoz "usone EHc cuHB meu Ou Heem 50% 0e eeuw 30: m m n m m w m N H N E .lE E. E E E E E. E meHmoem Hecuo CH e>ec ec meoe Heee umeum 4 ucsoee eueuoeoe 4 ucCOEe ucmHHm 4 ecoc >HHeoHuoeum umsuu ece eoceeHmcoo code 30: . E E E E E .- E E E 52...... umcuu ece euceeHmcoo coCE 3oz Heee ueeum 4 ucsoae eueueeOE 4 ucsoae ucmHHm 4 ecoc >HHeuHuomum .OZ Eeuu .mueHuumc we mecHH HeoHuue> ecu mo xchu uoc oe ..e.H Euecuo ecu um eEeuuxe ecu Ou ece eco um eEeuuxe ecu Eoum EsccHucoo e we eCHH HeuCONHuoc come umeue .Ezoc u xE eEHu ucemeu; ecu um eumsHm>e Ou eecme ceec e>ec 50> umcu comuea ecu wo muoH>ecen ece mweHHec .mcoHuoe ecu mecHuomee .eoceHuemxe ucox CH .coHcB uCHom ecu ue =x= Ce eoeHm emeeHm .EeuH come 30Hen meCHH ecu CO “uceecommeu MOM mCOHuUCHumCH ZOmmmm 4 m0 mHHmOmm 81 mH eH NH NH HH 0H 9 m b m m w m N tH E E E E E E E H E >Huce5weum >ue> ceuwo meEHueEom EHeumm m m. b m m w m N H E E E e E E E E E >Huceceeum mue> ceumo meEHueEom xHeuem m m c m m v m N H E E E E E E E E E @cHumeooe >ue> mcHuQeuoe mcHuaeooe mcHumeoue HHe3 euHCO HHe3 xHeueueeoz >ue> uoz m m h w m v m N H E E E E E E E E E ee>Ho>cH muem ee>Ho>cH ee>Ho>cH ee>HO>CH >Hucesveuw >He> muem ceuuo muem meEHueEom muom wHeuem m. m w m m v m m. H E E E E E E E E E >Hucesveuw >He> ceumo meEHueEom EHeuem m. m n w m w m N H H E E E E E E E E Heee ueeum 4 uCDOEe eueueeOE 4 0 .fi m E m E eueze >He> m E h E h E w E eueze HHeueueeoz w E uCCOEm ucmHHm 4 m E a E n E Hmee ueeue 4 ucsoee eueueeoe 4 uCCOEm ucmHHm 4 E... m eueBm >HucmHHm ecoc EHHeoHuomum m E E E eumze >ue> uoz N H E E ecoc NHHmoHuoeum mmcoHumcuHm mCHuuesz CH :eeHuueu: ecm eeuHuxeiHe>o uem Ou eceu ec meoe ceumo 30: mmuecuo xc eeumeoue NHHmuecem mmeeH ch eum Ceuuo 30m mec mH eHmer CH weoceuemee we mcHumeooe 304 mmuHemmm muHCCEEoo CH ec mH e>Huum 30m mmchmcoHueHeu Hecomuem emoHo uco xeem ou xuu ec meoe ceumo 30: mch ou eemommo mcoHcho cuHB eHQoem HOH e>ec ec meoe eocmueHou cuss 30m mmnecuo mo mmCHHeeH ecu mo ec mH eue3m 30$ mmeoe ec uec3 meoe ec mcz mo e>ec ec meoe mcHeceumueeCC cone 30m 82 ON mH wH NH oH m m h m m v m N .H E E E E E E E E E HHe3 >ue> HHe3 euHCO HHe3 >Heuuueeoz HHe3 >ue> uoz m m h m m v m N H E E E E E E E E E >Huce5eeuw >ue> ceuwo meEHueEom >Heuum m m h o m v m N H H E E E E E E E E >Huce5veuw >ue> ceumo meEHueEom xHeuum m m n m m w m N H H E E E E E E E E >Hucesveuw >ue> ceuwo meEHueEOm xHeuum m m n o m w m N H E E _ E E E E E E E >Hucesveum >ue> ceuuo meEHueEom >Heuum Ncomuem chu Bocx 30> uucu Heew 50» 0e HHe3 30m mmueea ec meHnCouu EcuE 30c ueuqu 0C cch zuum muHuHQm ch oe Ceuwo 30m mmueeH no mCOHuou 3eC euuoHeCH ou uaEeuuu ec meoe Ceuwo 3o: meHaoem Hecuo euuHCQchE ou >uu ec meoe ceumo 30m .mCOHuceuCH HuCHmHuo ch ou meHum ec .meHuuumco ecu ucumueHmcc ecu uHC0HMMHe He>e3om APPENDIX D PARTICIPANTS' INTERVIEW GUIDE PARTICIPANTS' RESPONSES 83 10. ll. 12. 13. PARTICIPANTS' INTERVIEW GUIDE Why did you join this study? How would you describe the group experiences to a person who had not taken part in them? What expectations did you have when you joined the study? Which of these expectations went unfulfilled? How was control exercised in the group sessions? How did you feel about that? What directions did you see the group experiences taking? Now that the meetings are over, how do you feel about having been a part of them? Do you see this experience as having been of value to you? Would you recommend that an experience of this nature be made a part of a teacher's professional preparation? What aspect of the group sessions had the greatest impact upon you? Describe how you perceived yourself as having operated within the group. Is there any difference in your answer to the last question and the way you generally relate with others? Given the opportunity to go back, would you have dealt with the group situation differently? 84 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 85 As a result of your participation in this study, are you any more cognizant of the beliefs and values which you hold? Have you noted any alterations in your beliefs and values in the past five months? What aspects of these alterations can you attribute to your participation in this study? Have you noted any changes in your behavior in relating with others, in the past five months? What aspects of these changes can you attribute to your participation in this study? As a result of having participated in this study, are you any more aware of how you establish and maintain interpersonal relationships? Have you maintained contact with any of the other group members? 86 WHY DID YOU JOIN THIS STUDY? 1. 10. You made the statement, or you asked, that the study was going to be one whereby we would see if we really lived up to or did what we held as values or such. I guess I wanted to see what I was doing, if this was really, if I was really, doing in actual practice what I believed was true. Sometimes I found "yes," sometimes I found ”no." I guess because I wanted to look at myself. After ten years of teaching, I felt it was time to have some self-evaluation. It sounded interesting. It just sounded interesting. It just really sounded interesting, and I wanted the experience. I guess the main reason I joined the study was to really share people. Not to just share myself but to learn about other peOple. It wasn't just to learn about teach— ers. I also joined the study so that I would have a chance to listen to peOple and get to know some people well. I wanted a group experience. Just to be part of a group. Personal growth. To check out some of my values. To see if they were consistent in the classroom. To check out important values. To see whether or not they were really important. I wanted to find out more about myself, the way I was thinking, the way I was reacting. I wanted to make some sense, in general, out of my reactions, my reactions to people. You offered it as an alternative to a regular graduate education class. You came in and gave a little talk. I don't know. The graduate class sounded like a good thing to do and so did this. Maybe it was because it was dif- ferent than the regular classroom stuff. It sounded like it would be. The people that I spotted right off, taking the graduate class, didn't look as interesting as the couple of people who left to listen to you. Many reasons. The original proposition, to find out how we think we are and how we project ourselves in the class— room, is mainly why I joined the group. I also thought that it would help me to look at myself. 1].. 87 Well, it seemed interesting and something new for me. I can't say because I knew a lot about it, because I didn't know what I was getting into. I thought that it might be interesting to find out what it was all about. HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE GROUP EXPERIENCES TO A PERSON WHO HAD NOT TAKEN PART IN THEM? 3.. O.K. There were a variety of experiences that I saw. There were many very warm, supportive kinds of experi- ences. If a person wanted to state a problem that bothered them or if a person brought up something that someone else in the group had a common idea or a common feeling for it, there was support between members of the group. I feel this produced a very warm, cohesive feel— ing between different members of the group. There was also confrontation in the group. There were also feel- ings of hostility in the group at times. There were feelings of rejection and anxiety. These were many of my feelings. I think that we tried to deal with feelings to a great deal. Sometimes I felt that we were success- ful. There were times that I didn‘t feel that I needed what was going on. I would describe it as an introductory experience in sensitivity training. Complex -- drawn out -- lengthy —- mostly beneficial. At times pretty wild! It was something so completely different than anything that I had ever been involved in. At times I was really disturbed in them. We just sat down and talked about things that might change us in some way, some of our values. I evaluated my reactions to other people and whether I really felt what I was saying. Sometimes I have a tendency to say things and not say what I sometimes mean. Well, you could really feel out of it. I felt that way a couple of times, right at the start, where I was sort of off to the side. I felt that I was under a lot of pressure, because I just wanted to sit there and be quiet and people wondering why I wasn't interacting. 10. ll. 88 In the first place, in order to understand a group exper— ience of this nature, you really have to participate in it. As a matter of fact it probably teaches you what an experience is. To another person if I were to try and explain it in words, I would probably try to tell them about some of the things we did, some of the things we talked about or even the funny things that occurred. I would want them to see it just as a slice out of life, not just a set up instant, where a tape recorder recorded everything that happened. I would tell them about the people. You can generally get a perception of what an experience is if you know a little bit about the types of people, and who they are. I would probably want them to come. That would be the most important for me. Not just to tell, to talk about it, but to have them come. A group of teachers coming together, talking about some of their concerns in teaching. Not as much personal growth as I would have liked to have had. But I don't think that many people were willing to take the risks that I was willing to take. A lot of things worked out for me. A lot of things that I was doing, I was able to talk about. I was able to try them out on other people and see if they saw them as meaningful. Sort of double check. It was the kind of thing where we just sat down and we tried to, you know, we talked about this and that. A lot of people were educators, so we talked a lot about educa— tion. What we tried to do, was to get down to the point where people were being pretty honest, both about other people in the group and about issues in general. Some— times we got there a little bit and sometimes we didn't. It was a "groupie" class. Like an encounter group, but not as heavy. Just a support class, where you talk over ideas you have with other people. I would say that it was a very fluctuating group. The facilitator was very nondirective. He kind of let the group do its thing, even though the group didn't always know what it wanted to do. So it fluctuated a lot. We didn't really progress, in the sense of going from one point to another. But we did make some progress, just in doing what we did. Well, as I have said to other people about the group, it's funny how people can fail to communicate with each other even when that is their intention. I feel that even toward the end of the ten weeks we were failing to communicate as much as we were near the beginning, although maybe not for the same reasons and maybe we 89 were a little more sympathetic. But we were still doing the same thing. VHrhflileads me to feel that perhaps that it is pretty hard for anyone to pull off. That's all I can think of right now; perhaps later I'll come up with something else. WHAT EXPECTATIONS DID YOU HAVE WHEN YOU JOINED THE STUDY? 1. I guess I don't know, to be very honest. I know that this group experience was a heck of a lot different than some of the other groups I have been in. I was looking for an interaction group, I expected, maybe, to hear some ideas from other people and I expected to get their reactions to me. I wanted to apply this to my daily work, to see if I'm really satisfied or not. I expected some feedback on how people saw me; how they saw the way I fit into a school system. If they saw me as I perceive myself. I really thought that it was going to be more involved with classroom things. I mean that the discussion was going to be more on school. That kind of thing. I had hoped that I might have come out of it with something, have gained something. This was the ultimate thing when I went into it. I had hoped that it might help me. To learn a lot more about myself and to meet some new people. I don't really like to have any expectations for a group. I think that that is a bad thing, because it sets up cer— tain requirements that you sort of go by. If they aren‘t fulfilled then you become angry or something like that. I really like to be open to what might happen. Personal expectations, I really want to be open to my own growth. I really wanted some people contact. I wanted to meet and be with people because I had just come back to the university and it was important to me to be with teachers and special teachers that were like the ones in this_ group that wanted to look at life in other ways than just an integral part of their lives in schools. I wanted to gain some strength from a group of this nature. 10. ll. 90 Basically, to see what inconsistencies I had in teaching. And, also, I was hoping for more of a personal growth group. I was looking for people who were in education and looking for a support system within the area of edu— cation. Basically, the only solid expectation I had was to get to know a group of people I could get along with really well. Beyond that I had fuzzy ideas about learning stuff about education and this and that. More about group process, how I can fit in. How I do fit into group process; how I do act. I really wasn't sure. I had had a couple of other group classes. They were more into sensitivity, more touching. I knew it wouldn't be like that. I wasn't sure what it was going to be like. I think everyone, for the first three weeks, was still wondering, "What is this class?" "What do we do?" To find out more about myself and the way I project myself. Plus, to see what other people were doing in this respect. I guess my expectation was to maybe find something out about myself. That's after I had some idea of what the whole purpose was about. Also, to learn something about other people and the way I relate to them. Before I came to some conclusion about what the group was about, I think that I was just kind of floating around. I was quite confused. WHICH OF THESE EXPECTATIONS WENT UNFULFILLED? No answer. I didn't get involved in the interaction as much as I wanted to. I partially met all of them. We didn't do too much about the school. In terms of talk— ing and in terms of actually doing something. But I think that we really had our hang-ups. Sometimes I felt up- tight when we talked about those things. Some of the peOple's ideas about school were different than mine. Some of them were so closed, I don't think that I could have helped them. 10. 11. HOW 91 None of them. I really wish I could have gotten to know the people better. I wish we could have continued to grow together even after the group sessions ended. The things happened that reflect my expectations, but in no way to the depth that I would have liked to have had it. The one about group process. Well, not really. I would say that in every one of the areas I got something out of it. I could have gotten more, but I think I got some- thing. I was hoping, I thought that the group might continue. But I wasn't expecting a lot more knowledge out of the whole thing. Yeah! I really don't feel that I really learned much about myself. About how I see myself and about how I project. I don't know. I think the kind of things I was expect- ing to find were more things about myself. Often you might find something out, but you don't realize it until sometime afterwards. So, you know, I really don't know how to answer that. I have a feeling that they were all at least partially met. WAS CONTROL EXERCISED IN THE GROUP SESSIONS? I think first of all the facilitator had more power or control because he organized the group. So, it was a natural tendency to look to him as the leader of the group. There were times that he used this. I can remem— ber our first couple of meetings. And yet, he contin- ually did not want to be the controlling force in the group. For me it took perhaps half the sessions before I viewed him as not being the controlling factor in the group, regardless of how he worked it. Sometimes indi— viduals and sometimes subgroups would control the situa— tions. I think the group we had had a heck of a lot of potential for leadership. Whenever you get a potential for leadership you have peOple who have the ability to influence, persuade, if you want to, call it control. I think, in such a situation, there is a tendency to 92 vie for control. Even if we say we don't vie for it, I think there is sort of an innate tendency to do it. That seemed to happen with people in our group. I saw the facilitator steering the group around and giving it direction. Occasionally other people in the group took on that function. The beginning of the group sessions, the first few meet— ings, were controlled by the facilitator. After that, it revolved around various individuals that tried to seek an identity in the group. Basically, near the end, I think it was fragmented somewhat. But, all in all, I felt it was fairly cohesive and I've met most of the people since then and we still have a very good relationship. Humm. I didn't feel that the facilitator took over the group and said, "Now look, this is what we will do." I felt it was more of a group thing. When anyone in the group would speak up and say that they didn't like the way things were going, we would listen to that. The group just more or less didn't seem to have any real control after we started. For awhile everyone was hung— up on whether we were really a group. But after we really got into it, after maybe the third meeting or so, we didn't worry about control. If someone had something to say they just said it. It was really very informal. At first, that was one of the first things we came to. How were we going to control the group? We kept dealing with it a lot on kind of an intellectual plateau. "Who's going to deal with it?" "What are we going to do?" We sort of left it up to the facilitator at first. Then I think that was our fault and the fault of the facilitator to some degree. But I think that that is a tendency of a group -- to leave it up to a leader, one who starts the group. We worked on sort of a depending, or expect— ing, or requiring some sort of a leader at first. We started rebelling against it at the same time. The two didn't balance. Then later on, about in the middle, we came to where the group was controlling the group. Indi— viduals took responsibility for the directions that they felt the group should go. I think by the time our group was going, it didn't have a leader any more. Well, for most of the beginning sessions they were look- ing to the facilitator for control of where to go, what to do. And then very little control after that because he backed out of that role, which I think was a good thing. He didn't exactly back out; he didn't change. But I think that the group realized that he wasn't going 10. ll. 93 to be the controlling factor. After that, to some extent I controlled the group; another member controlled it in some instances. Not too much more than that. For awhile everyone was looking to you. I think that you more or less exercised control as much as you wanted to. You said that you wanted control to come from the group, which is as authoritarian as anything. After that, it still wasn't enough for some people; they still had an image of you as a teacher. When one or two people would say, "Hey, I want to talk," the group would generally go along with that. Sometimes I thought there was sort of a collective kind of thing. A few key people, I think, took over the control function. There was no formal control. Anyone could say anything at any time. I looked to the facilitator and one of the participants for direction. If nothing was happening, I expected one of those two people to do something about the situation. In the beginning, the facilitator was a little more directive than he was later on. We tried to work at consciousness control. But that didn't seem to work too well. I felt that towards the end, it was better. We became more accepting. When we didn't have consciousness we did just what we wanted to anyway. We didn't neces- sarily feel that everyone had to do the same thing. It was operating on two levels. One was the overt con- trol -- like when we were deciding what we were going to talk about. That sort of thing that we did to get the business out of the way. Then there was a pretty nasty kind of control going on. You know, the pressure, the misunderstanding, the talking at two different levels, talking at people, putting them down. At times people were really hurt or felt that they were hurt. It kind of hit me that even the control that wasn't even inten— tional could hurt peOple. WHAT DIRECTIONS DID YOU SEE THE GROUP EXPERIENCES TAKING? l. I think a lot of us in there wanted to really delve into the feeling issue and I don't think that some did. I felt that it was quite threatening to some of the group to get them into this ball game. And I think that it is threatening sometimes to me. But I'm willing to take 94 the risk. Because I think that there is a great deal that can come out of it. Confrontation is good if han- dled properly. This is where growth comes. Without it peOple begin to stagnate. I think that the feeling game was the major direction that people wanted and tried to move the group in. Yet, some people did play on the fringes of this. Maybe we all gave or participated as best we were able, at the time. We went toward individuals. We dealt with a lot of indi— vidual problems, and feelings on these problems. We developed some understanding, some feeling about other people and how they reacted to our problem or our dis— cussion of the problem. I think in the beginning, I was somewhat skeptical because I thought there was going to be some direction, that we would have to meet a certain specific goal at a certain time. As time went by I think I saw that we were actually meeting the needs in setting our own goals, which I thought was quite beneficial. In the beginning the direction was toward the group itself. In other words, to find a group. And then it broke away and started to go toward the individual needs. At the end the group was coming back to meeting the majority type of needs. At first I just felt that the meetings were really mean- dering and I didn't feel really a part of the group. I didn't know what we were talking about and I didn't think that anyone else did either. I think that one of the group members had had some training along this line before. That helped that person. I think that everyone was, when someone came with a prob- lem, concerned about it. They were concerned about helping that person straighten things out. I saw them going in more of a personal direction as opposed to the fact that we were educators out to solve educational prob— lems. We were more or less solving problems of a per- sonal nature, which, I think, was maybe more meaningful. People talked about where they were at in their own lives. They started sharing that and they would come back talking about, "Well this is what happened to me this week," instead of just talking about what they felt about education. People didn't feel that all they could or had to do was sit and talk about their theories. I saw peOple beginning to realize that their personal experiences and opinions were important. I saw people who are kind of quiet, opening up and expressing and 10. ll. 95 sharing themselves with others. The whole idea of the group dynamic became a concern of the entire group and not just a function of one leader. I saw a lot of people reaching out to one another. In some instances personal problems, things that needed to be talked about with other peOple, were discussed. A lot of general talk about what is going on in education took place. People talked about how they were doing certain things. A lot of bitching, about the system, went on. A kind of support developed that other peOple were dissatisfied with the same kinds of things that you were dissatisfied with within the school system. Just kind of a lot of educational things. How people are handling certain situations, relating through their educational experiences. Sometimes it was on a more issue-oriented level. Sometimes it would come down to a more feeling level. Sometimes we would just run around, talking about this and that. I never thought about that. I don't know how to answer that right now. Various directions. Some were total—group directed; some individual directed, like individual kind of tasks. We did some "getting to know you" kinds of things at first and some group and trust-building kinds of things. As a total group we concentrated, mainly, from one person to another. We tried to deal with individual problems that were brought up. I don't really think that that was very successful. Another direction that we took was the smaller group discussions. I saw it really confused and perhaps that's because I was confused. But I didn't see too much direction. I think it went off in a whole lot of directions. We made mistakes. And we didn't seem to know when we accom- plished something. In a couple of meetings I felt that something was accomplished in helping people to communi— cate -- but only in a couple, and only during portions of those. I think for the most part there wasn't a whole hell of a lot of communication going on. But then again, what happened is probably more than what happens outside in other groups. 96 NOW THAT THE MEETINGS ARE OVER, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT HAVING BEEN A PART OF THEM? l. 10. 11. My best answer would be, if we could do it again, it would be great! I would like to have more of the same types of experiences. I think it was a good experience for me. I feel fairly good about the meetings. Very good. I enjoyed them. I enjoyed it. I'm glad that I went. I really liked it and I really miss it. I really thought that it was one group that I could judge in the action of its happening. It wasn't something that I had to wait until it was over to look at. I could experience and evaluate at the same time. I liked it. Afterwards, I missed the people. I'm glad I did. I was glad to meet a number of people in the group. I enjoyed finding out some other things that were happening in education. I was glad to have the group experience. I enjoyed the night out. Good, because I got to know some people I certainly would not ordinarily meet. For the rest of it, I think I learned something but I'm not overly enthusiastic. Fine. I would still like to get together with the group at another time. I really don't know. That is hard to answer. My origr inal expectations were not fulfilled. But I don't feel at all like it was not a worthwhile activity. I am very glad that I did it and I'd probably do it again. How do I feel about it? Now that it's over, I have kind of a different feeling. I'm glad that I was in it. I feel good about it. I didn't necessarily feel that way about it when I was in the group. It was not a warm group. The group confused me a lot, and I don't like the feeling of being confused that much. I kind of like to find a direction. DO 97 YOU SEE THIS EXPERIENCE AS HAVING BEEN OF VALUE TO YOU? Yes. I learned a few things about myself, as far as how I act in a group of that sort. Maybe, if I ever join another one, I'll interact more than I did in this one. Yes. I think people become totally frustrated with this system and I think that graduate school is a place where you vent your frustrations. I think this is a chance where you should have experiences. Not just filling menial tasks and harassment, but experiences where you are allowed to think, where you are allowed to expand your mind and this type of thing. I saw the group exper— ience as very beneficial in that way. Yes. I find that I'm better able to relate with another teacher here in my school that I have felt some resent— ment toward. I was able to confront her with these feel— ings. As a result we were able to clear the air between us. We get along very well now and I feel good about that. I don't think that if it wasn't for this group that I would have sat down and thought about my feelings and been able to face her with them. Yes, definitely! I find interacting with people a lot easier now. And I'm sure it is because of the sensitivity— type training in the group. I find opening up with new people a little bit easier. I'm not as up-tight now. Now I am more aware of how two people interact. Oh, yes! I always felt that I could talk to anyone in the group, privately, no matter when it was. I think that it is really important to get to know people. The group gave me time to do that. I could wander around, at times, and get the feel of what I actually do when I relate in a group. Things like that don't happen in regular classes. Yes 0 Yeah, I do. Just the very fact I was frustrated, because the group wasn't going where I wanted it to go, said something to me about the way I act. Yes. I don't know that there is any specific cause— effect thing coming from them. Nothing that I can pin— point to the group. Maybe my relationship to people has changed a little bit. I feel that my relationship to people has improved and I think that some part of that can be traced back to the group and having been with them. 10. ll. 98 Yes! It was a neat kind of experience. The working with the other people that we did in various kinds of ways, I think was good. At the very first, one of the female participants turned me off. After the first two meet- ings I really began to respect and like her. I wasn't antagonistic toward her at all, after that. I think that kind of re-evaluation of my feelings like that is a good thing. I began to feel much more tolerant. Well, I think at the time the group met, I was just in a bad way. I was confused; I don't like that; and I was in the group and I got more confused. I wasn't especially happy with what I was doing and I'm not sure that the group was that much help to me. It may have contributed to my depression. I think at that time I needed something to cheer me up and perhaps give me some new direction, and I didn't get it. _flsi -xms" _._" WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT AN EXPERIENCE OF THIS NATURE BE MADE PART OF A TEACHER'S PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION? 1. Yes. Very much so. I think that this is what's lacking. The earlier in a teacher's experiences the better. I think it would be a good idea. But only after they had had some experience, at least student teaching. I think I would. But I'm not sure someone being pre— pared for a teaching position would really have the insight, have that frustration level that most peOple have. I could see that in the group. Those that weren't basically connected with the schools didn't have the frustration levels. For one person in the group, his total thing was his college experience. He didn't have the backlog of frustrations in education, where you never see yourself being evaluated. I think this type of pro- gram should be every three years, through your total teaching experience. I think that it would be good as an option, as an elec— tive. I wonder how it would be for all people. I don't know how all people could stand up under it. You know, it's pretty trying. You would need a good self—concept. If you did not have one, I wonder what it could do to you? Yes. 10. ll. 99 Yes. I really think that people should get to know each other. In college I think that people should have a lot of experiences that have to do with groups, so that they learn to see themselves in groups. Because they are going to be in groups in the schools. In college it is such a very private life. You have nothing to do unless you want to. That's not true in the public schools. A staff forms a group. And very often, people on a staff don't even know each other. A group experience also helps you in becoming sensitive toward other people. Most teachers have no idea who teaches next door to them; because they don't know one another, they can't communi- cate. Honestly, not to get all set up in these profes- sional ethics, setting up an image of who you are. It's phony half the time because people have no idea who you are. Maybe that would stop some of the phoniness. Very much so —- with experienced and nonexperienced educators. Yeah, I would, I think; especially after some sort of student teaching or something like that. I don't know if I would require anything for any teacher. It would be good for me. I don't know if it would be good for everyone. I don't know if you can say, "It's good for you. You do it!" No! I think that there are other ways. I think that it is very important for a teacher to be sensitive to give and take in other people and to getting into other people's heads, especially students'. I feel that this isn't necessarily the way. And I'm not sure that it is a good tool for everyone. I wouldn't recommend it for everyone. But I would if an individual was prone to this kind of thing; I think that it would probably do them some good. Yes, I wouldn't disregard it. But I think that it would be advantageous for everyone. Yes. If you are not going through a confused and depressed period. I think that it's good to try to learn to communicate with people and not talk at them. I think that the few times it happened it was valuable. PeOple should be able to express their feelings. At the same time, I see the danger that everyone hasn't gone through one of those, or even had the experience. If you go out there with the bright eyes, you can really be crushed. lOO WHAT ASPECT OF THE GROUP SESSIONS HAD THE GREATEST IMPACT UPON YOU? 1. After the sessions were over and we sat down and talked with each other. We got down to brass tacks then. A lot of game playing was cut out then. 2. Some of the reactions I got to some of the things I talked about. Some of the perceptions some of the people had. Some of the friendships I gained. 3. I think seeing some of the changes in people's attitudes, including my own, towards others. A lot of biases were already built in from the very first meeting. As time went along, our attitudes began to change and we began to perceive each other differently. 4. The fact that people would say, "You're saying one thing, but that isn't what you mean. You don't mean what you're saying. That isn't the way I read it." They could read between the lines. "That isn't what you really feel." Many times that was true. 5. When I realized, just sitting there and listening to people, that even though I felt part of the group I had to get more actively involved before I would be accepted by other members of the group, I had to sort of force myself to Open up. By that time I had developed a con— fidence and respect for the other people so that I wasn't afraid. That took awhile. Once that was there, it was really strong. 6. Talking to individuals. I really liked that. I'm really more of a one-to-one person. Any time in the group experience that we sensed a need to help someone and the group drew together to do that. People seemed to reach out, share of themselves and not selfishly try to satisfy their own needs at the expense of others. The fact that most of the people in the group wanted to be there. They came because they wanted to, not because they had to. When they were there they were sincere and worked to help the group grow. 7. Two instances that dealt directly with what I was doing in my classroom. [Both were process instances. The . individual presented a situation and the group helped him delineate his position relative to the others involved in the situation.] 8. A lot of the individual things —— like the small groups which formed within the larger group. 10. II. 101 Just everyone really getting into some things. Being able to talk pretty freely, more than superficially, even though we never really got real deep into anything. Very open talk. Watching the variety of people. Not only watching them, but getting involved with them. Some members seemed to know quite a bit about groups and they seemed to really be able to get into other people's heads. I appreciated that. I also had some good experiences when I talked with a few people on a small group or one—to-one basis. I honestly can't, right now, pick any specific thing out. DESCRIBE HOW YOU PERCEIVE YOURSELF AS HAVING OPERATED WITHIN THE GROUP. 1. Sometimes I exhibited leadership. Sometimes I was very passive. I was passive when I was disinterested in what was going on. Sometimes I supported people verbally. I operated on a very limited scale, in somewhat of an insecure type of a participation. I observed a lot. I spent a lot of time listening rather than really getting into the group and really interacting with it. Horribly. I wasn't really too enthused in the beginning. I looked for somebody to lecture and I didn't see it. So therefore I put a lot of people on. After awhile that just wore off and I got down to knowing peOple. I think we wasted a lot of time in the beginning. I tried to be a contributor. Sometimes I wasn't sure that what I contributed was worthwhile, but I tried. I felt older than some; I felt like a mother. I felt out— side of the group at times because there were things that went on that were not a part of my life -- some of the language, smoking, and things like that. That made me feel apart from the group. I don't think that I had operated well during the first few weeks. I wasn't operating; I was just sitting back and listening. I did feel that if I had something impor— tant to say I was going to say it. But I wasn't going to make a fool of myself. I wasn't going to get jumped on and torn down. After I opened up, I was able to relax in the group more. Yet, I still related best in small groups, to threes and fours. 6. 10. II. 102 I did a lot of listening. I got close to a lot of people on a one-to—one basis. I tried to understand where they were coming from. I didn't get to understand everyone, but that's the way life really is. I saw myself mainly as having a need to listen to people around me. I didn't feel a need to really talk about my past experiences. I've talked about it a lot and I'm tired of it. My life is quite passive now, and I need it that way. At times I saw myself as a passive listener. I saw myself as sometimes leader of the group, bringing in information, clarifying. I saw myself in a position of helping others rather than being helped. Well, for awhile I didn't say much. I was listening. I think I was into not trusting the whole thing, into not doing much of anything. I was watching a lot. After awhile, that started to change. I started to say more and get more involved. I sat back a lot until I wanted to get in. There were some nights that I didn't choose to get into things at all. A couple of nights I felt that I was really click- ing -- feeling pretty good about it. Very off and on. Sometimes I gave a lot and sometimes I didn't give very much. Some of the things we did in the group turned me off. Like when we talked about things that I perceived as unrelated to the things that I wanted to get into. The discussions on discipline and things like that, I just turned myself off to. A few of the people in the group just seemed to talk about things that I wasn't interested in. When they talked, I would turn them off. I think that I had a confusing influence on the group. I don't think that I was helpful for the group to any great extent. I was trying to figure out where I was at. I was too busy doing that to worry too much about where anyone else was at. IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE IN YOUR ANSWER TO THE LAST QUESTION AND THE WAY YOU GENERALLY RELATE WITH OTHERS? I. No, I don't think so. I think that sometimes that the group had a freer atmosphere for us to operate in. In some groups you can not withdraw. At times I feel that the opportunity should be there for that sort of thing. 10. II. 103 I think that the atmosphere in the group was quite free for us to do as we felt. At the same time, I felt that at times we were pressured to follow some direction. I didn't feel the pressure that keen, but it was there. Yes. I didn't Open up as much in this particular group as I have in others. I really don't know why. Perhaps it's because in other groups people don't say what they think; they just listen and their feelings or their reactions really don't come out. Probably not. NO. No, not really. I don't think so. I really like to get to know peOple; one or two people at a time. A lot of people know me but not many people know me well. Depending on who the others are, I sometimes feel I'm in the position of only giving help -- feeling that the others aren't going to be able to help me. In some instances in a position of real sharing -- getting help, giving help, getting help. No. It was very typical. I don't know. I don't think so. It's very similar to the way I interact with normal groups of people. Yes, I think there is. I'm generally more willing to go out of my way to help someone do what they want to do. Not just in the emotional sense. Usually, I'm the one that will try to help find some direction. And I'm usually pretty successful at that. GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK, WOULD YOU HAVE DEALT WITH THE GROUP SITUATION DIFFERENTLY? 1. Yes. I might have been more open in some aspects. There were times that different members of the group began to pry and probe and I didn't want them to go any further, so I shut them off. 10. 104 Yes. I think that I would try to participate more. I think that I could gain more in learning about how others perceive me and if that is the same as I perceive myself, if I participated more. I'm really not sure. I said at one time in a meeting, I think, that I wanted to test everyone to see what they really feel, how they really respond. And I don't think using how I feel will really help in the process. Yes. Having had the group experience, I would have dealt with it differently. I would have known right from the start how to begin. I wouldn't have felt so lost at first, for the first few weeks. I would have taken more responsibility for setting direction. I think that I would have done everything I could to get involved as soon as possible. Not sitting around wasting those three weeks. Yes. The one thing I would have liked would have been the opportunity to move through smaller groups of people, getting to know one or two people at a time. I think it would have been neat if people could have called each other out for coffee once in awhile. I don't know why people feel that a group has to meet at a certain place at a certain time and that's it. I think it would have been good to have a spontaneous meeting or just to have met in a bar once in awhile. A retreat together would have been neat. Have some sort of an active social thing once in awhile. No. I can't answer that. I probably would have tried to do the same things I tried to do. I hopefully would have done them a little bit better. But I really couldn't tell you. Maybe, if I do it again, knowing what I do now, I might not sit back so long. I might warm up to the while idea faster. I might get more out of that than observing. I might have tried to get into the things that I wasn't into during the group meetings. But I'm not really sure that that would have been a valid response. I might only have done it because I perceived it as a sensitivity group and I'm not being very sensitive to this person and I had better get my sensitivity together. It would have been for that reason, I think, rather than from a natural cause. ' 11. 105 I don‘t know. I was pretty messed up at that time. I would probably act the same way if the time were the same. But I don't know how I would act now. AS A RESULT OF YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS STUDY, ARE YOU ANY MORE COGNIZANT OF THE BELIEFS AND VALUES WHICH YOU HOLD? 1. 2. 10. 11. Yes. I hope so. In education? No, I can't really say I am. Yes. It made me think a lot more about them. It forced me to take a stand more within myself. I think so. Yes. I think it's still coming through. I became much more aware of my beliefs and values in the area of mar— riage and sexual relationships. The entire area of male and female interaction in our society became more clear to me. I gained new insight into the area of a principal who wanted to listen to his teachers. To some extent. But not to a great degree. Yeah. Yeah, I've gotten away from the typical phony lib* eral point of View, I think. I'm trying to be more real— istic. Sometimes I'm saying, "I should be more authori— tarian in this situation." I'm no longer coming with a blanket point of view. I would say things that really didn't fit what I believed. So, it's now more realistic. Yes. That's right. A lot of this overlaps with a whole lot of other things that I'm into. Maybe they have been reinforced a bit. I don't know if I am any more aware of them. I don't think that I opened up any new beliefs or new horizons for myself. I'm not sure that I am any more aware of the beliefs and values that I hold. But maybe that, in itself, is a value. 106 HAVE YOU NOTED ANY ALTERATIONS IN YOUR BELIEFS AND VALUES SINCE THE START OF THIS STUDY, FIVE MONTHS AGO? l. 10. 11. Yes. I've probably firmed up some of my beliefs a lit— tle more, beefed them up. And I've become a little more honest in my dealings with people. I'm being more honest with myself about the beliefs that I hold. Either I mean it and I'll put it into action or I don't. I attempt to be more honest to peOple as far as how I feel towards them. I value honesty more. Although I do feel that there is a time and a place to say certain things and a time to refrain from it. I don't always say what I feel for fear of hurting other people's feelings. I don't think that my beliefs and values have changed an awful lot. Yeah, sure! I'm a lot more understanding about things that I do and the reactions of kids in my class. No answer. Yes. Yes. I don't know. I think I question my beliefs more. Try to work them out, talk about them more. I feel that I have, but I can't put a finger on them. No question asked. WHAT ASPECTS OF THESE ALTERATIONS CAN YOU ATTRIBUTE TO YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS STUDY? 1. I may have been the same as I am now without having been a part of the group. But I feel that participation in the group brought it about much faster. . When I came back to school this year, I had the idea that I wanted to take a look at myself, but I don't think that I would have progressed as far as I have if it were not for my participation in this group. 10. 11. 107 Not much. I don't know if it was because of this study alone that I'm different. I think that the group brought it out. Through the group I experienced some of the feelings that my kids must have experienced. This has gotten me to think about the kinds of things teachers do to kids and why we do them. No answer. I think that the group helped me clarify what I was say- ing and what I was doing. As you know, that's a hard question to answer. One thing, I would have gotten to where I am now without the group. But I think that I can say that the group exper- ience helped me work into things sooner. I don't know. I think that the group experience is related to the feel— ing, but I don't think that it stems from that necessar— ily. This past year has been a really heavy time for me, sorting myself out. I think that the group has defi- nitely helped me do that. And I'm still not sorted out. No question asked. HAVE YOU NOTED ANY CHANGES IN YOUR BEHAVIOR IN RELATING WITH OTHERS SINCE THE START OF THIS STUDY? 1. Yes. I'm much more aware of group process than I ever was before. The interaction of other people. I am more open with them. NO. I am more honest in my relationships. I don't put on as many fronts. Yes. I'm sure it's different. I'm sure that every experience you have, if you're aware of it, contributes in some way -- perhaps even drastically. 10. 11. 108 Yes. I am more tolerant. I'm more accepting. I'm not as judgmental of students. Yes, very much. I am just a lot less afraid to make mistakes. I have gotten to where I am without the group. But I think that I can say that the group experience helped me work into things sooner. Yes. The idea of the support group. Going to other peOple and bouncing ideas off of them. I really got that from the group experience for sure. NO. I think that I am more aware, a little more sympathetic, and maybe a little more willing to express myself to others. Maybe a little more willing to hear what they are saying and maybe a little more attuned. WHAT ASPECTS OF THESE CHANGES CAN YOU ATTRIBUTE TO YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS STUDY? 1. The experience in the group brought confrontation with self and what you believe. Confrontation with what you said you believed and what you actually did. So, the experience in that group may have brought me to this place where I'm at now, quicker, sooner. The group gave me a little reassurance that it is better to be yourself than it is to carry a false image. None. Did not ask. The group helped me realize how sometimes people are put on the spot and what a horrible feeling that can be. I can see myself doing that to the kids in school and it's really had an effect there. I am more aware and sensi- tive to the emotions and feelings of my students. I'm not sure that I can say this early after this exper- inece how I have changed as a result of the experience. I think that I am really aware of what happens to peOple in groups -- like many times when I'm now in groups, I can see the group happening. On another level, I see things happening that I never really saw before. I'm 10. 11. 109 more sensitive to underneath talk, to things that are both said and shown. When I sense a person has a need that I might not have perceived before, I try to help them out, if I can. I think it gave me a chance to expand upon skills I already had. The group experience helped me to see what happens when I don't take risks. It helped me improve my ability to bounce ideas off of people and create support groups. No answer. Most of what little took place. AS A RESULT OF HAVING PARTICIPATED IN THIS STUDY, ARE YOU ANY MORE AWARE OF HOW YOU ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN INTERPER— SONAL RELATIONSHIPS? 1. 5. I think before I was pretty much concerned with my posi- tion in the group and now I have changed to where I am more aware of other people and the way they behave. I'm more aware of body language than I was before. I'm more aware of how people state what they say. I'm generally more attuned to what is going on about me. Yeah. I find that I can't be friends with everyone. When I meet someone and I put on a false front, they soon find out. So, I have just been being myself with others. I think one is always aware of that. I think it was pointed out by the group. I think, basically, I have always been aware of the process. Yes. It makes me stop and think. Sometimes I'll have feelings about a person. Now I stop and think, "Why do I really feel this way?" I suppose that this does affect me in the way I relate and meet other people. I don't really know if I still know the "how" of it. 10. 11. 110 Yes. Again, I think I am aware of how I do establish interpersonal relationships. Small groups are a big part of that. I saw that age, professions, and things like that may be important to society but it doesn't have much to do with anything if you want to share your- self with another. No great new focuses. Just a continuation of data. I'd say yes, but it's not a thing that I can pin down. Yes. I kind of thought about that. Before the group experience, I knew one of the other group participants. Now I'm taking another class with him. I now realize that as a result of the group experience we have a closer human bond than if we had just met in a standard class last fall. Yes, I think that I am more aware. I was aware, but it did help me clarify. Yeah, and I think it comes back to the point that I am a little more attuned to what people try to say, not necessarily exactly what they are trying to say, but the emotion behind it. And maybe more attuned to how that can be misunderstood and a little more attuned to how I can be misunderstood. So to that extent, I think, yeah, it has helped me. HAVE YOU MAINTAINED CONTACT WITH ANY OF THE OTHER GROUP MEMBERS? 1. Not much. I haven't had the time. 2. No. 3. Yes. About three of them. 4. Only in passing. I see a few of the people on campus when I'm taking classes. 5. No. 6. No. 7. Just one. I've seen one other, but I didn't really seek him out. Time has been a factor. I've been quite busy. 10. 11. 111 No, not really. I just sort of declared myself unin- volved. There is an interest for the other peOple, but I guess it's not enough to really get out there and get hold of them. I see some members of the group in passing and we talk when we bump into each other. Only very superficially. I've been quite busy. Even while we were doing the group things, I didn't see very many of them outside of the group. Some of the people I would like to keep in touch with. FL Well, with one other participant, through our classes and our work. APPENDIX E SECONDARY OBSERVERS' INTERVIEW GUIDE SECONDARY OBSERVERS' RESPONSES 112 SECONDARY OBSERVERS' INTERVIEW GUIDE What is your relationship to Participant #_ ? How long have you known participant #_ ? How much of an Opportunity have you had, in the past six months, to observe participant #_ ? How much of an opportunity have you had, in the past six months, to talk with participant #_ ? Make believe for a moment that I am one of your friends and I do not know participant # . As a part of a con- versation we are having, you wish to describe him to me. Will you do that? Think back to the starting of school in September. If you had described participant # at that time, would you have altered any aspects of the—description you just gave? If "yes," how would your description have been different? How would you describe participant #_'s classroom environment? How would participant #_ react to a student getting paddled? Within the past six months, have you noted any change in the way participant #_ interacts with: students? teachers? administrators? 113 10. 11. 114 What do you perceive to be participant #_'s educational beliefs and values? Since September, have you perceived that participant #_ behaviors have become more or less consistent with the system of beliefs and values he holds? '5 115 WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO PARTICIPANT #1? A. I teach in the building where he is principal. B. Teacher in his building. C. He's principal of the school where I teach. HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN PARTICIPANT #1? A. About five years. B. Two years. C. Almost eight months. HOW MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY HAVE YOU HAD, IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, TO OBSERVE PARTICIPANT #1? A. I see him almost every school day. B. Every school day. C. Almost every day. HOW MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY HAVE YOU HAD, IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, TO TALK WITH PARTICIPANT #1? A. When I see him. B. A great deal. C. Most every day. MAKE BELIEVE FOR A MOMENT THAT I AM ONE OF YOUR FRIENDS AND I DO NOT KNOW PARTICIPANT #1. AS A PART OF A CONVERSATION WE ARE HAVING, YOU WISH TO DESCRIBE HIM TO ME. WILL YOU DO THAT? A. I may have two different lines of thinking on him. I think of him one way as an administrator and I think of him another way as a friend. As a principal, he is very easy to work for. He is a very flexible individual. . He's open to new ways of education. He is always willing to try them. And he listens to his teachers. As a per— son, I have had many talks with him. I enjoy talking with him. I enjoy sharing with him. I feel that I could tell him almost anything. I feel that free with him. I feel very loose with him. Any kind of a problem that I am having as a woman or as a teacher, any kind of a 116 problem I could just talk with him. If I have some ani— mosity with another teacher, I feel free enough to talk to him, knowing that he would understand my side and also be quite objective about it. I feel very secure around him. I can say, I have these hang-ups as a teacher. I don't feel afraid that he is going to fire or evaluate me for it, because I'm having problems. I'm not trying to build the man up. like a god, with no faults, because he has plenty of them, like you and I. But he's certainly a nice person to work for. He's very Open. He's quite understanding. B. Outgoing type of personality. He is willing to accept change. He wants change. He encourages us to try new ideas all the time. If they don't work, throw them out. If they do work, fine. He doesn't limit us to what we can do. C. I see him as a very Open, congenial, very Open—minded, very good-natured person. As far as his work is con— cerned, I think that he is an excellent administrator. An all-around good guy. TO me, he doesn't impress me as a "boss-man." I see him as a great guy to work for and to work with. Sounds like a put-on thing, but he is really a cool guy. THINK BACK TO THE STARTING OF SCHOOL IN SEPTEMBER. IF YOU HAD DESCRIBED PARTICIPANT #1 AT THAT TIME, WOULD YOU HAVE ALTERED ANY ASPECTS OF THE DESCRIPTION YOU JUST GAVE? IF "YES," HOW WOULD YOUR DESCRIPTION HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT? A. I think that I have noticed a deeper understanding in the educational process as it affects the school -— a deeper interest, I should say, in what is going on in the classroom. What is really happening. Of having it, sort of a one-to-one relationship. I think that he has always been interested in kids, but that seems to be deeper. B. Not really; I don't think that he has changed. C. Yes, because I wouldn't have known him as well. I would have based it more on his physical appearance, which would have impressed me as being rather down to earth, not a cold but not a particularly warm individual. Just an all business type of an administrator. ' WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE ENVIRONMENT THAT PARTICIPANT #1 TRIES TO CREATE IN THIS SCHOOL? A. It's a very relaxed school. There is very, very little tension. In general, it is very flexible and relaxed. HOW A. 117 Relaxed, casual, educational. Always thinking toward the education side, for children not the teachers. We are here because of the kids. That is a point that he always tries to make. A very human, almost a one-to-one relationship between teacher and each individual. He allows the teacher to develop rapport with each and every student without interfering, intervening, or in any way getting into the way. At the same time he will back a teacher; he will come to a teacher's aid at any time it is necessary. WOULD PARTICIPANT #1 REACT TO A STUDENT GETTING PADDLED? He would paddle them himself. He's done it. Well, he's done it himself. If there is a need to do it, if they need it, give them a whack. I've had parents tell me that. I really don't think that I can answer that. I don't know. WITHIN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, HAVE YOU NOTED ANY CHANGE IN THE WAY PARTICIPANT #1 INTERACTS WITH: STUDENTS? A. Yes. He seems to be more sensitive to the needs of the children. In fact, he has put the children first in many instances. He has taken more time to listen to them. In the past few months, he has talked to the teachers more about, "Kids first." He has used that phrase, "Kids first!" B. Well, he hasn't been around quite as much. I don't know about interaction. I don't think that I have really noticed much of a change. C. NO. TEACHERS? A. There has probably been a change, but I can't put my fin- ger on it. I think that he listens to us more than he used to. B. I haven't noticed much of a change. C. If anything, he has changed by becoming a little more personal. 118 ADMINISTRATORS? A. B. C. He has taken more initiative this year with the other administrators. He voices his opinions, as to changes that should take place. He has really been on this idea of humanizing in education. He has discussed this, sometimes, almost to the point of being ridiculed by the other administrators. I don't like that word ridicule. But sometimes I think that he stands alone on this idea of kids first, getting love into education. NO. NO. WHAT DO YOU PERCEIVE TO BE PARTICIPANT #l's EDUCATIONAL BELIEFS AND VALUES? A. One thing that I have pointed out, kids first, that empha- sis. What's important to kids. I think that he goes along with making school enjoyable. Making kids like school. Talking with them. Allowing them to feel free in school. If that situation develops, then children will learn. Plus he has a great emphasis on organization and skills. He feels that teachers should be teaching skills. But I think that foremost in his ideas is, "kids first!" Well, let's see. First of all, the child is the impor- tant one. We are there not to make them learn, but to give them an environment so that they want to learn. And if they don't learn, it's not our fault. As a matter of fact he told me. I could almost quote it. He values develOping each child as an individual for his own capabilities, for his own individuality -- to turn each child into an individual. SINCE SEPTEMBER, HAVE YOU PERCEIVED THAT PARTICIPANT #l's BEHAVIORS HAVE BECOME MORE OR LESS CONSISTENT WITH THE SYSTEM OF BELIEFS AND VALUES HE HOLDS? A. More consistent. I think that he follows through better than he used to. There are some inconsistencies. I think that he is working toward more consistency. I would say that he is definitely not inconsistent. But then I don't know that he was inconsistent when I came here. 119 WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO PARTICIPANT #2? A. Fellow teacher. B. Fellow teacher. C. Student D. Principal. HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN PARTICIPANT #2? A. About twelve years. B. Three years. C. Two years. D. Five years. HOW MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY HAVE YOU HAD, IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, TO OBSERVE PARTICIPANT #2? A. About once a week. B. Every workday. C. Quite a bit. After school, before school, during class. D. Well, informally, a great deal. Several times a week. HOW MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY HAVE Y U HAD, IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, TO TALK WITH PARTICIPANT #2? A. During our lunch hour. B. Every workday. C. Quite a bit. D. A great deal. MAKE BELIEVE FOR A MOMENT THAT I AM ONE OF YOUR FRIENDS AND I DO NOT KNOW PARTICIPANT #2. AS A PART OF A CONVERSATION WE ARE HAVING, YOU WISH TO DESCRIBE HIM TO ME. WILL YOU DO THAT? A. He is a tempered person. I have never seen him angry. He is reasonably happy and carefree. He has very little bias. He is a very rational person. He is compassionate. 120 Tries working with the students quite a bit. Students like him. He does real well with them. I like him. He is quite concerned with the students, how they act, what we do with them. He is very open. He will say what he is thinking. Very frank and to the point. As long as you stay within the rules, he is O.K. Once in awhile he gets a little upset when you do things wrong. Don't chew gum and follow the safety rules if you want to stay on the good side of him. He is very concerned about building a good department. He is the head of his department. In terms of his class— room preparation and his classroom, he does a good job. Kids seem to be interested. He is very much in tune with the over-all view of the school and his department. I think that he is very concerned and sensitive to the needs of kids.. He is active on the Student Problems— Student Relations Committee. For a young man, he is a good traditional teacher. He wants to have an orderly situation, and that has its merits. THINK BACK TO THE STARTING OF SCHOOL IN SEPTEMBER. IF YOU HAD DESCRIBED PARTICIPANT #2 AT THAT TIME, WOULD YOU HAVE ALTERED ANY ASPECTS OF THE DESCRIPTION YOU JUST GAVE? IF "YES," HOW WOULD YOUR DESCRIPTION HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT? A. No. As each day goes along, these points that I have mentioned become more concrete and firm in my mind. He seems to be more open with me as the year has pro- gressed. NO. No, I don't think so. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE PARTICIPANT #2'5 CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT? It is not chaotic. If a kid isn't working he is sitting quietly. He is not bothering others. Very loose. Not loose to the point where students dis- rupt others or they are noisy or obscene. But loose to the point that students can come up and talk to him. Students are respectful. I would say that it is a very pleasing atmosphere. He tries to work with the students and have fun in there. It's an atmosphere that is con— ducive to learning. HOW A. 121 Well, it's not too strict. We can talk, as long as we keep it low. We can wander about the room. Once in awhile he will discuss sports and things with us. That's kind of hard for me to say. The over-all climate in the classroom, I think, is a healthy one. My assis- tant in charge of instruction sees more of him in the classroom than I do. WOULD PARTICIPANT #2 REACT TO A STUDENT GETTING PADDLED? I don't know. I don't think that he would paddle a child. He will paddle -— if a student's behavior is way out of line or if a student chooses the paddle over other forms of discipline, like push—ups or staying after school. He uses his head when he uses the paddle, and it is not done in anger. He doesn't mind it too much. If they're doing something wrong he will give them the paddle; as long as they deserve it. If they don't, he will send them down to the office. He usually doesn't give you the paddle on the first offense. It's usually the second or third offense. If you don't want to get paddled, you can do twenty-five push-ups or stay after school for an hour. He might paddle a child. I don't see that he would see anything particularly wrong with that, although he doesn't make a policy of that sort of thing. I do feel that he more than likely feels the same way I do, there are times when a child needs paddling. WITHIN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, HAVE YOU NOTED ANY CHANGE IN THE WAY PARTICIPANT #2 INTERACTS WITH: STUDENTS? A. I think that he is closer to his students. B. More Open. He is very Open with the students, very will- ing to talk and work with them. C. He's starting to get a little stricter now. D. That's hard for me to say. I don't see any marked change. 122 TEACHERS? A. No. He gets along well with everyone. B. Much more open. Much more willing to say certain things to them. C. I don't see him that much with other teachers. D. He is now in a leadership role in the school; he wasn't before. And yes, his relationship has changed. I think that he is able to look at things a little more criti- cally than he was before. ADMINISTRATORS? A. No. B. He will tell them what he thinks. Very open. He is not afraid to tell them what he thinks. C. I don't see him that much with administrators. D. NO. WHAT DO YOU PERCEIVE TO BE PARTICIPANT #2'8 EDUCATIONAL BELIEFS AND VALUES? A. I think he has a real interest in students. He wants to and tries to present a profitable educational experience. He makes school enjoyable for kids. He feels that we have certain students in the school right now that can not be educated in the public school system. They make up about 5 per cent of the total. The rest can be educated. Not everyone to the same degree, but every child can be educated. We should spend more time in the classroom with children and less time in meet— ings mouthing educational jargon. Did not ask. That's difficult for me to answer. I think that I cov— ered most of it in my other answers. - 123 SINCE SEPTEMBER, HAVE YOU PERCEIVED THAT PARTICIPANT #Z'S BEHAVIORS HAVE BECOME MORE OR LESS CONSISTENT WITH THE SYSTEM OF BELIEFS AND VALUES HE HOLDS? A. B. More consistent. He is becoming more assured in what he does each day. More consistent. I would say that he is getting to be more consistent all the way down the line with those kids. Did not ask. I can't answer that. that much lately. I haven't been able to observe him 124 WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO PARTICIPATE #3? A. Assistant principal. B. Fellow teacher. C. Principal. HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN PARTICIPANT #3? A. Three years. B. Seven years. C. About two years. HOW MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY HAVE YOU HAD, IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, TO OBSERVE PARTICIPANT #3? A. A great deal. Contact every day. B. Not in class. I've taught next door to him this year. Our walls are thin —- I could hear him. C. Several times in the classroom. HOW MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY HAVE YOU HAD, IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, TO TALK WITH PARTICIPANT #3? A. A great deal. Every day that there is school. B. Quite a bit. Three or four times a week. C. Quite a bit. Several times a week. MAKE BELIEVE FOR A MOMENT THAT I AM ONE OF YOUR FRIENDS AND I DO NOT KNOW PARTICIPANT #3. AS A PART OF A CONVERSATION WE ARE HAVING, YOU WISH TO DESCRIBE HIM TO ME. WILL YOU DO THAT? A. Very bright, extremely perceptive, very articulate, extremely sarcastic. You have to take him, initially, with a grain of salt. He comes on, at first, very strong, very Opinionated, very finesseless. You have to get to know him before you can appreciate all of the strengths and all of the positive aspects that he has. B. 125 A teacher friend. Tremendous ability as far as problem solving is concerned. He has tremendous ability as far as putting you at ease if he wants to or putting you down if he wants to. He has a tremendous sense of humor. He is very intelligent. If he is in a good mood, you know it. If he is in a bad mood, you also know that. He is a very sensitive person. He is more intelligent than most of the people he works with. Many people go to him looking for advice about problems they are having. A teacher that is very student oriented. He has the student's interest at heart. He has a lot of time for students. He relates very well with them. He has a certain charisma in the classroom. He can run the class much less structured than most teachers. Still, he gets the job done. Kids relate real well to him and they like him. He is a good organizer. He has chaired a teacher group that is working up a differentiated staff- ing proposal. He works well with other teachers. THINK BACK TO THE STARTING OF SCHOOL IN SEPTEMBER. IF YOU HAD DESCRIBED PARTICIPANT #3 AT THAT TIME, WOULD YOU HAVE ALTERED ANY ASPECTS OF THE DESCRIPTION YOU JUST GAVE? IF "YES," HOW WOULD YOUR DESCRIPTION HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT? A. HOW It is my Opinion that there has been less of the negative aspect in him in the past few months. I've noticed in the last few months that he doesn't do as much complain— ing as when I've heard him in the lounge and other places. His attitude, for some reason, has appeared to be more positive. I guess I attribute a great deal of that to his work on the differentiated staffing proposal our teachers are working up. He is chairman of that commit— tee. But he seems to be less critical of everything and everybody. Our conversations and our contacts have been more positive. No. I would have said the same thing. My Opinion would have been different in the teacher rela— tionship. I think this has been a real growth area for him. Studentwise, he has always worked well with them. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE PARTICIPANT #3'8 CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT? I don't really think I can do an adequate job there. Even though I walk by the classroom I haven't spent that much time in his classroom. The feeling that I have is that he has a very good relationship with kids and that he is concerned with major social issues that face our society, as well as issues that kids in particular are concerned with. He's a good classroom teacher. 126 It's a fairly free environment, where the student has the opportunity to speak very freely. Very unstructured. There is a high degree of mutual respect. Very unstructured. Freedom to express self. His philos— Ophy seems to be that the most important thing for these junior high kids to do is get to know themselves and others. So, he structures his class so that they are almost forced to do that. Kids are motivated in his class. They do get to know each other and they begin to look beyond cultural differences and begin to find that they are all peOple with something to offer. HOW WOULD PARTICIPANT #3 REACT TO A STUDENT GETTING PADDLED? A. B. C. He wouldn't do it. He would not paddle a child. I can't answer that. I really don't know. I don't think that he would do it. WITHIN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, HAVE YOU NOTED ANY CHANGE IN THE WAY PARTICIPANT #3 INTERACTS WITH: STUDENTS? A. B. C. No, I haven't been in a position to notice that sort of change. He teaches here only half time this semester and I've had my room location moved, so I really can't answer that. NO. TEACHERS? A. B. It appears to me that he does less complaining. He has improved immensely. Last year I think many of the teachers reacted negatively toward him. He is a leader. This year he is working on a project in the school, and from what we can see he is working very well on this project. Everyone realizes that he is doing a lot of work and that he is the guiding force that is keeping the thing going. They admire and respect him for that. He seems to be wOrking better with them. 127 ADMINISTRATORS? A. I've heard less complaining and less sarcasm directed at administrators. B. Not really any difference. C. I'm just not sure. I don't have the guy figured out. WHAT DO YOU PERCEIVE TO BE PARTICIPANT #3'8 EDUCATIONAL BELIEFS AND VALUES? A. A genuine interest and concern for kids. A willingness to help kids at this age to try and find themselves. An opportunity for self-expression and an opportunity for self—evaluation. A desire to be of help to kids, to help them figure out what's happening to them and what they a can do to alter the things that affect them. ' B. He believes in the value of the individual. He is con- scious and works with students' rights and privileges. Responsibility also. As far as education goes, he feels more for the kids than most teachers do. He seems to identify more with them. C. He believes that the students should be heard. He believes that adults have an obligation to not give the kids a runaround, teachers included. They have done an injustice; they haven't said what they mean. They talk out of one side of their mouth but then don't follow through. SINCE SEPTEMBER, HAVE YOU PERCEIVED THAT PARTICIPANT #3'5 BEHAVIORS HAVE BECOME MORE OR LESS CONSISTENT WITH THE SYSTEM OR BELIEFS AND VALUES HE HOLDS? A. More consistent. He is trying to work out his beliefs with others in more positive ways. He is less sarcastic and negative and trying harder to find real ways to bring about the kinds of things he believes in. B. More consistent. That's just my feelings. I don't have any proof. C. They have always been consistent. 128 WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO PARTICIPANT #4? A. Fellow teacher -— friend. B. Principal. HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN PARTICIPANT #4? A. Almost four years. B. Six years. HOW MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY HAVE YOU HAD, IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, TO OBSERVE PARTICIPANT #4? ' A. About twenty minutes each school day. I"' B. Twice a week -- not for long periods of time. HOW MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY HAVE YOU HAD, IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, TO TALK WITH PARTICIPANT #4? A. At least once a day. By that I mean a school day. B. Just about every time that I see her. MAKE BELIEVE FOR A MOMENT THAT I AM ONE OF YOUR FRIENDS AND I DO NOT KNOW PARTICIPANT #4. AS A PART OF A CONVERSATION WE ARE HAVING, YOU WISH TO DESCRIBE HER TO ME. WILL YOU DO THAT? A. She is a very good teacher! I consider that she is really concerned about her students. She'll do a lot of extra things. She'll put in a lot of extra time. She makes up extra dittos for her kids to do. She keeps close track of their progress. She's really out to improve herself. B. She is a very conscientious teacher. She is quite con— cerned that she does a good job. She wants the children to perform. She wants her students to do the right thing. She wants them to be individual. For example, if one student can move around and get something done, she is willing to let him go ahead with whatever else that he wants to, because he got whatever he was supposed to, done. Generally, I think that this kind of a philosophy is a good one. 129 THINK BACK TO THE STARTING OF SCHOOL IN SEPTEMBER. IF YOU HAD DESCRIBED PARTICIPANT #4 AT THAT TIME, WOULD YOU HAVE ALTERED ANY ASPECTS OF THE DESCRIPTION YOU JUST GAVE? IF "YES," HOW WOULD YOUR DESCRIPTION HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT? A. I don't think so. She has always been a go-getter. She has always been very nice. She does seem to be working harder at finding out which of her kids are making it and which aren't, and then trying to help those kids more that don't seem to be doing the work. B. Yeah! I'm not sure that she did this much independent work with her students six months ago. HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE PARTICIPANT #4'S CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT? A. I would say that kids aren't going to run her. But they are going to feel free enough to come to her and talk about things. The little ones are not afraid to bring their problems to her. It would not be considered highly individualized. Kids would not just be wandering around while she is having a class. Everyone would have some- thing to do. They would be expected to do it, rather than do your own thing. She does her best teaching when she has the kids' attention. This is the environment that I am most familiar with her having, although lately she has let the kids walk down the hall on their own when they got their work done. She has been more permissive lately. B. I think that she tries to create an atmosphere in her room where the children learn the basics that they will need later in school. At the same time, she is very concerned about children learning to share and get along well. HOW WOULD PARTICIPANT #4 REACT TO A STUDENT GETTING PADDLED? A. It would depend on the situation. Whether the kid really deserved it, or whether the teacher just lost her temper, or whether it was a constant nag-nag situation. Usually, she is very flexible. I know that she would do it if it were necessary to straighten them around and get them back on the track. B. I don't think that she would do it. If she saw it taking place, I think that she would think, "There is another way." I don't think that the paddle has been her method of motivating. I think that if she were having a problem she would isolate the child and talk with him later. 130 WITHIN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, HAVE YOU NOTED ANY CHANGE IN THE WAY PARTICIPANT #4 INTERACTS WITH: STUDENTS? A. I really don't think so. I haven't noticed the change. B. NO. TEACHERS? A. I think so. I think she gets along a little better with them. There were some hostilities left over from last year at the start of this year; the wraps seem to be off of that. I think she gets along better with one of the other teachers she was having some trouble with last year and the first part of this year. B. She has always been friendly with everybody. ADMINISTRATORS? A. She isn't as involved with the administration as she was last year. I don't know why, although she is taking a lot of night classes at the university. That occupies a lot of her time. B. NO, we have always had a good relationship. WHAT DO YOU PERCEIVE TO BE PARTICIPANT #4'3 EDUCATIONAL BELIEFS AND VALUES? A. She loves kids. She is dedicated. She has a concern to improve the children. She isn't just out for herself, to get ahead in the world. She is also interested in bring— ing these kids along. She cares about them getting an education. B. I guess to see what each child can do, let him go. Let him, guide him, direct him, but keep him creative. Don't let him rest on his laurels. Try to keep them improving. If a kid can write his first name, help him to go on and learn to write his second. 131 SINCE SEPTEMBER, HAVE YOU PERCEIVED THAT PARTICIPANT #4'5 BEHAVIORS HAVE BECOME MORE OR LESS CONSISTENT WITH THE SYSTEM OF BELIEFS AND VALUES HE HOLDS? A. I would say that she is more consistent. It's hard for me to describe her, but it's a feeling that I have. B. I haven't seen much change in her. I feel that her beliefs and values have been quite consistent with her behaviors. I 132 WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO PARTICIPANT #5? A. Principal. B. Fellow teacher. C. Student. D. Student. HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN PARTICIPANT #5? A. This is the second school year. B. Two and one—half years. C. Two years. D. Two years. HOW MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY HAVE YOU HAD, IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, TO OBSERVE PARTICIPANT #5? A. A great deal; at least once a week, in his classroom. B. Quite a bit —- here at school, at a workshop, on committees. C. Two hours per day. D. Most of the day. HOW MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY HAVE YOU HAD, IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, TO TALK WITH PARTICIPANT #5? A. Every day. B. Quite a bit. C. Every school day. D. Every day. 133 MAKE BELIEVE FOR A MOMENT THAT I AM ONE OF YOUR FRIENDS AND I DO NOT KNOW PARTICIPANT #5. AS A PART OF A CONVERSATION WE ARE HAVING, YOU WISH TO DESCRIBE HIM TO ME. WILL YOU DO THAT? A. He is very competent in the classroom. He may have a few academic areas that he is weak in, but he puts in a great deal of energy to overcome those weaknesses. He has grown a great deal in the academic areas in this past year. He doesn't let things slide. Teaching older kids, he could let their reading slide by, but he doesn't. Academically, in the classroom, he does a find job. His relationship to the students, his ability to communicate with the students, is probably one of the finest I have ever seen. He is aware of their problems as individuals. He sees them as each different. He sits down and will talk with them and/or their parents about their problems. If I had to pick one teacher on the staff and say, "This is the person that I would like the others to be like," it would be him. He does have a bit of a temper, but he never loses all control; he doesn't overreact. It's more of a frustration type of anger than a mean type. He has a good rapport with students and he is working on this anger thing. He puts in a great deal of time -- takes on extra responsibilities beyond the duties of his class— room. He can see the larger picture of education beyond his View as a classroom teacher. I think he enjoys teach— ing. He very seldom misses a day. Socially, he gets along very well with the staff. He is very well liked. He will speak his piece, but he doesn't do this too often. When he does, peOple listen. B. In a way, he is sort of a unique teacher, because he has a lot of ability in certain areas, for instance art. He works this into the kind of an atmosphere where a child has a lot of freedom, but yet feels he can't do anything he wants to. The child has a sense of having to direct what is done in the room. He accomplishes this very well. The projects and things that are planned, are never just his ideas, but he works this out together with the stu— dents. What comes out is really representative of the whole group, not just him as a teacher. He really has quite a bit of skill here. C. Friendly! He'll help you if you have problems, and let you do things that you want to. You don't have to do everything at that moment. You can rest, or do what you want to. In the afternoon you have to do English; that's the only thing. D. He's a nice teacher. He's the nicest one in the school. But you can get in trouble if you disturb the class. ‘3' W I 134 THINK BACK TO THE STARTING OF SCHOOL IN SEPTEMBER. IF YOU HAD DESCRIBED PARTICIPANT #5 AT THAT TIME, WOULD YOU HAVE ALTERED ANY ASPECTS OF THE DESCRIPTION YOU JUST GAVE? IF "YES,” HOW WOULD YOUR DESCRIPTION HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT? A. HOW Yeah, more than likely his temper for one thing. It has improved. I think that all of the areas have improved since September, even though last year he did a great job. I think that his awareness of himself and the whole scheme of this thing, within his classroom, within the building, within the system, has improved. Some teachers can become very narrow. He hasn't done that. His judg- ments, minute—to-minute decisions, have been much better. 3 NO. As a matter of fact, the more I get to know him, the more I am convinced that he is very honest in his phil- osophy. What he does, he really believes in. He really firmly believes in the principles that come out as he teaches. I would have said the same thing. The same thing. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE PARTICIPANT #5'S CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT? It is relaxed. Free -- free from under—the—thumb pressure. There is pressure applied, but it's of a different sort. Very relaxed, children feel that they can give input and it will be considered. Yet, I don't think for a minute that he isn't in change in that classroom or that he doesn't have that classroom under control. The students still do have inputs in that room, both physical and academic. Every minute he still knows what is going on in that room. Open, but not bedlam. It's open: you would feel free in there. There would be something that would get your interest right away, something or the other that is going on. But there is never just one thing going on —- there are two or three things, here or there. I don't mean to imply that that is confusion, because they know what they're doing. We have independent study. One person might be reading a story and another on the other side of the room might be writing a paper. Everyone is doing something differ— ent. We make our own assignments. On some days, when we want to work we can. On days we don't want to, we don't have to. 135 HOW WOULD PARTICIPANT #5 REACT TO A STUDENT GETTING PADDLED? A. I don't think that he would do it. He never has, and I don't think he would. I don't know how he would react to another teacher doing it. I don't think that he would do it. I don't think that he would like it if someone else did it. I don't know if he would stOp it, but he would become angry. I don't think he would like it. I don't think he would do it. He wouldn't do it. He wouldn't like it at all if he saw another teacher paddle someone. WITHIN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, HAVE YOU NOTED ANY CHANGE IN THE WAY PARTICIPANT #5 INTERACTS WITH: STUDENTS? A. If at all, it is probably in the area of being more aware of them as people. B. No, I don't think so. This year he is more concerned with curriculum and not so much with the students. He feels a little guilty about this, but the building is pushing for this. He has said that he feels that many times the child is lost in the process of planning for them. C. I don't really know. He gives most of us more freedom. D. I'm not sure. TEACHERS? A. He is well liked. But I'm not down in the teachers' lounge to hear them talk. B. No, I don't think so. C. I don't know. D. I don't know. ADMINISTRATORS? A. He is more honest with me. There is more of a trust factor between us. C. D. 136 He is getting along very well with all of the administra— tors this year. Even the top administrators from downtown are coming in to see him and his room this year. I don't know. I don't know. WHAT DO YOU PERCEIVE TO BE PARTICIPANT #5'8 EDUCATIONAL BELIEFS AND VALUES? A. Allow the students freedom to learn, with guidance from the teacher, with guidance from the materials at hand. That you work on their interests, that you try to get them as far as you can while you have them, wherever they are starting from. The key to his philos0phy is the ability to get along with each other. I think he has worked on that a great deal this year. I think that he is very child oriented in his approach to everything. He tries very hard to bring in the mater— ials that he feels the child should have. He believes very much in the individualized approach, and he feels very secure in doing this. He is one of the very few teachers that I have known that are able to do this well. He is more humanistic than most teachers. He is very concerned with the total child and the child's self— concept. He joins in things with us. He likes independent study. He helps us with our work. He explains things to us. He wants to make it fun for us to learn. SINCE SEPTEMBER, HAVE YOU PERCEIVED THAT PARTICIPANT #5'8 BEHAVIORS HAVE BECOME MORE OR LESS CONSISTENT WITH THE SYSTEM OF BELIEFS AND VALUES HE HOLDS? A. More -- more! I think that he has always believed in the type of classroom that I've described, but I think that this year he has felt the need to ask himself, "Do I really have it?" I think that this year he has pursued it and made it. More so. He is constantly searching for ways to individ- ualize. He is much freer and very confident. No question asked. No question asked. 137 WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO PARTICIPANT #6? A. A friend. B. I'm a friend of hers. HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN PARTICIPANT #6? A. I've known her for a few years now. B. About eight months. HOW MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY HAVE YOU HAD, IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, TO TALK WITH PARTICIPANT #6? A. I see her about two or three times a week. B. About once a week. Sometimes more, sometimes less. MAKE BELIEVE FOR A MOMENT THAT I AM ONE OF YOUR FRIENDS AND I DO NOT KNOW PARTICIPANT #6. AS A PART OF A CONVERSATION WE ARE HAVING, YOU WISH TO DESCRIBE HER TO ME. WILL YOU DO THAT? A. Well, she is a very out-going type person. Very spontan— eous. She's very friendly generally, although she gets impatient with people rather easily, sometimes. But I think that she thinks of herself as being very liberal, a very free type person. And I think that she is, to a great degree. Ummm, she makes friends easily, I think. She is quite interested in people and she has a great variety of interests. She's quite intelligent. A very friendly person. B. She's a very warm person. She likes people. She likes to be around them. But she doesn't make a lot of real close friends. She has a few people that she is real close to. She's a very bright person, and she likes to read a lot. At times she gets heavy on women's lib. THINK BACK TO THE STARTING OF SCHOOL IN SEPTEMBER. IF YOU HAD DESCRIBED PARTICIPANT #6 AT THAT TIME, WOULD YOU HAVE ALTERED ANY ASPECTS OF THE DESCRIPTION YOU JUST GAVE? IF "YES," HOW WOULD YOUR DESCRIPTION HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT? A. Well, I think that she is basically the same type of person. She is, I've known her now for the past year, and I've noticed that her interests have varied a great I38 deal. She'll get into something, then she'll do some— thing intensively for awhile, and then she'll go into something else. I think her basic nature has stayed about the same. No. I don't think so. WITHIN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, HAVE YOU NOTED ANY CHANGE IN THE WAY PARTICIPANT #6 INTERACTS WITH OTHER PEOPLE? A. Well, it's hard to say because she has always been very friendly. She mentioned several times that the group helped her feel a lot closer to people and she felt that was a real accomplishment. I think that she comes on to people warmer and she is more sensitive to their feelings. 139 WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO PARTICIPANT #7? A. Principal. B. Counselor. C. Student. HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN PARTICIPANT #7? A. About two years. B. About a year and a half. C. Since September of this year. HOW MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY HAVE YOU HAD, IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, TO OBSERVE PARTICIPANT #7? A. Nothing in the classroom. Frequently outside of the classroom. B. Quite a bit. C. Last semester, for three classes; this semester I have her for one class. I also talk to her before and after school. HOW MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY HAVE YOU HAD, IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, TO TALK WITH PARTICIPANT #7? A. Two or three times a week, for short periods of time. B. Yes. C. Almost every day I'm in school. MAKE BELIEVE FOR A MOMENT THAT I AM ONE OF YOUR FRIENDS AND I DO NOT KNOW PARTICIPANT #7. AS A PART OF A CONVERSATION WE ARE HAVING, YOU WISH TO DESCRIBE HER TO ME. WILL YOU DO THAT? A. Very interested in kids. Very COOperative with me. »Her philosophy in her classes is more student oriented rather than subject-matter oriented. Her classes are not very structured. B. A young teacher. Has excellent rapport with about 99.44 per cent of her class. He has gone 95 per cent of the way with every child. She will give freely of her time 140 to help me when I ask for that of her. I can depend on her to work with me at any time. She is a great asset to our staff. I know she does well in her subject— matter area. She is like no other teacher I have had before. I think she tries to understand the students; you know, come down to their level and work right with them, instead Of this thing, "I am the teacher and the boss and you're the student, and I rule this room." I like her classes. She doesn't structure her classes. You don't have to use a seating chart and the kids feel that they can express themselves more in her class. They can be more honest. She is Open and honest with us. I think she is really a beautiful person. You can relate with her as a person you know, not just a teacher as a teacher. THINK BACK TO THE STARTING OF SCHOOL IN SEPTEMBER. IF YOU HAD DESCRIBED PARTICIPANT #7 AT THAT TIME, WOULD YOU HAVE ALTERED ANY ASPECTS OF THE DESCRIPTION YOU JUST GAVE? IF "YES," HOW WOULD YOUR DESCRIPTION HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT? A. No, I don't see that she has changed that much. I don't see her much in the classroom, so perhaps she has changed there. NO. NO, I don't think so. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE PARTICIPANT #7'5 CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT? It would be unfair for me to answer, because I don't get in there that often. Very free, and I don't mean without order. There is a difference. You can have freedom, where kids feel that they can say and do things that concern the class. They don't feel a threat to say what they think. But still there is a subject to be taught. It's not structured. NO seating chart. You can sit where you want to. She isn't into her subject to the point that we can't get off into other things, and just talk about our own experiences. The class is freer. You can eXpress yourself. 141 HOW WOULD PARTICIPANT #7 REACT TO A STUDENT GETTING PADDLED? A. I don't think that she would do it. She doesn't handle problems like that. If she saw it being done, I don't think that she would agree to that method. But then, she might think everyone to his own bag. B. She would be absolutely furious. She might swear at a student, but she wouldn't touch them in anger. C. I don't think that she would approve. She wouldn't do it. She usually yells. WITHIN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, HAVE YOU NOTED ANY CHANGE IN THE WAY PARTICIPANT #7 INTERACTS WITH: STUDENTS? A. No. B. NO. C. I think that she has gotten a lot closer with a lot of them. Like finding out where they're at, and helping them along. TEACHERS? A. I don't know. B. Our staff is split. We have the conservatives and the liberals. They don't talk to each other. Participant #7 doesn't have many people to talk with. C. She is the same person, but it's like it's a whole dif— ferent level. ADMINISTRATORS? A. It has always been pleasant as far as I'm concerned. B. She is playing it cooler with them. Not overreacting. C. No question asked. 142 WHAT DO YOU PERCEIVE TO BE PARTICIPANT #7'5 EDUCATIONAL BELIEFS AND VALUES? A. I think that she is interested in developing ideas in kids. She doesn't put a lot of emphasis on them gather- ing plain information. Giving them a basis from which to make decisions, and making judgments, becoming adults. She takes a child from where he is. She likes to help understand the whole kid. If the child has problems, she spends innumerable hours -— before school, during her lunch, after school -- working with individual kids. And she does a real crackerjack job. She is well pre— ! pared in her subject area and kids go out of there know- ' ing more than when they came in. When anyone has had trouble with school or something, she has always tried to step out and help them. She wants kids to get an education, but she realizes the problems that the kids are having in the school today. Like with the teachers and the way it is so structured and every- thing. And that she tries to change the way that teach— ing is, to come down to their level so she can help these kids that are having problems get an education. She tries to help with our problems that other teachers don't pay any attention to. She really cares. She wants to see more kids graduate and get a good education. SINCE SEPTEMBER, HAVE YOU PERCEIVED THAT PARTICIPANT #7'8 BEHAVIORS HAVE BECOME MORE OR LESS CONSISTENT WITH THE SYSTEM OF BELIEFS AND VALUES SHE HOLDS? A. I think that she has been consistent right along, and I think that she is remaining that way. I feel that she will continue as she has been. She has been open and consistent and I think she will continue that way. She is able to take each kid as a new case. She does not let the job get to her, like some teachers do. I think that she is doing more things. She is more con— sistent. Of course, she has always seemed consistent to me. 143 WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO PARTICIPANT #8? I'm a friend of his. HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN PARTICIPANT #8? About a year and a half. HOW MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY HAVE YOU HAD, IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, TO TALK WITH PARTICIPANT #8? Oh, quite a bit. About four times a week. Something like that. MAKE BELIEVE FOR A MOMENT THAT I AM ONE OF YOUR FRIENDS AND I DO NOT KNOW PARTICIPANT #8. AS A PART OF A CONVERSATION WE ARE HAVING, YOU WISH TO DESCRIBE HIM TO ME. WILL YOU DO THAT? Well, he's philOSOphically minded. Like when he does things, he likes to have all the reasons within his grasp. To fig— ure out why he is doing what he is doing. That makes him kind of not too impulsive, because he does things very ratio— nally. He doesn't try to do things a whole lot just because he feels like it. Sometimes he does, once in awhile. Usually he is pretty even tempered, and like that. He is very con— siderate and he doesn't try to impose his will. He is very careful about that, watching out for not taking advantage. He's kind of in the process of figuring out exactly what the purpose of going to college is. You know, why he is here. He doesn't have a specific field Of interest. He is taking all kinds of things. THINK BACK TO THE STARTING OF SCHOOL IN SEPTEMBER. IF YOU HAD DESCRIBED PARTICIPANT #8 AT THAT TIME, WOULD YOU HAVE ALTERED ANY ASPECTS OF THE DESCRIPTION YOU JUST GAVE? IF "YES," HOW WOULD YOUR DESCRIPTION HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT? Well, I think the tendency to try to really figure things out has come through more lately. Like last year he was more, a little bit more, happy-go-lucky about things. Like he wasn't so involved in deciding what he really thought, what he really wanted. He did more things just on larks and things like that. ' 144 WITHIN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, HAVE YOU NOTED ANY CHANGE IN THE WAY PARTICIPANT #8 INTERACTS WITH OTHER PEOPLE? Yeah. I think that he is taking it more seriously. It's becoming more important to him how he behaves with other people, like aside from just deciding if he likes them or not. Besides looking at it from kind of a selfish perspec- tive, I guess. What he likes them for. What he gets from them. He's more concerned about how that reflects his own personality. Like how he gets along with them is important to him. 145 WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO PARTICIPANT #9? A. B. We work together. We're friends. HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN PARTICIPANT #9? A. B. About two years. Since the fall. About seven months. HOW MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY HAVE YOU HAD, IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, TO TALK WITH PARTICIPANT #9? A. B. Most every working day. A couple of times a week. MAKE BELIEVE FOR A MOMENT THAT I AM ONE OF YOUR FRIENDS AND I DO NOT KNOW PARTICIPANT #9. AS A PART OF A CONVERSATION WE ARE HAVING, YOU WISH TO DESCRIBE HIM TO ME. WILL YOU DO THAT? A. Well, he is kind of an easy-going guy. He just takes his time doing everything. He seems to like peOple; peOple get along with him. At least I get along well with him. And, ummm, he likes his job. He tries to help people that want to do the same stuff that he is doing. And I guess that he is concerned about people and their prob— lems. He's a quiet kind of a guy. He doesn't shove himself on peOple. He has a good sense of humor. He doesn't have a lot of close friends, but those that he does have seem to value that. THINK BACK TO SEPTEMBER. IF YOU HAD DESCRIBED PARTICIPANT #9 AT THAT TIME, WOULD YOU HAVE ALTERED ANY ASPECTS OF THE DESCRIPTION YOU JUST GAVE? IF "YES," HOW WOULD YOUR DESCRIP- TION HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT? A. I don't know. He has always —— I guess that I would have to say that he is kind of more together. He doesn't like some of the things he has to do. He doesn't bitch about it as much as he used to. He seems to figure out ways to get around doing the things he doesn't want to do, with— out much hassle. B. I had just met him. get to really know 146 I think that I'm just starting to him now. So, I don't think that I can answer that question. WITHIN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, HAVE YOU NOTED ANY CHANGE IN THE WAY PARTICIPANT #9 INTERACTS WITH OTHER PEOPLE? A. Oh, he just seems a whole lot more patient. And he's not as afraid to speak his own mind. If he disagrees with someone or something he will let them know. I don't know. Lately he seems to be looking to make more new friends. long. But I just haven't known him that 147 WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO PARTICIPANT #10? A. Quite casual friends. B. Friend and roommate. HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN PARTICIPANT #10? A. Eight months. B. About a year and a half. HOW MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY HAVE YOU HAD, IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, TO TALK WITH PARTICIPANT #10? A. Off and on fairly frequently. A couple of times a week. B. Most every day. MAKE BELIEVE FOR A MOMENT THAT I AM ONE OF YOUR FRIENDS AND I DO NOT KNOW PARTICIPANT #10. AS A PART OF A CONVERSATION WE ARE HAVING, YOU WISH TO DESCRIBE HER TO ME. WILL YOU DO THAT? A. She is an extremely elusive person. She's filled with contrasts in a lot of ways, I think. Gee, description: extremely complex. She seems to react extremely stably to situations. She is a very transparent person, in that often she can't put the mask on that we sometimes do. You know, when we're feeling one way and should act another. She is somewhat indecisive, sometimes, about her personal life. I'm not sure if she is basically optimistic, pessimistic, or just indecisive. I just don't know. She is a hard person to lock in my mind. I can't think of descriptive terms for her, unless the situation is specific. She is not stereotypable. B. I've seen her do one thing one time, the next time, in a very similar situation, turn around and do another thing, depending on the way she feels. I do this all the time. And I have trouble standing back and looking at a person and saying that they are this, this, this, and this. Anyway, I think that she is outgoing. In most respects she speaks her thoughts. She doesn't skirt what she feels. She doesn't sit back because she is a woman. She'll stand up for what she thinks and she'll go after what she thinks. If she really wants something she'll go after it. On the other hand, if she is into something that she doesn't like, she may ignore it. She is very precise and she likes things neat and orderly. 148 THINK BACK TO SEPTEMBER. IF YOU HAD DESCRIBED PARTICIPANT #10 AT THAT TIME, WOULD YOU HAVE ALTERED ANY ASPECTS OF THE DESCRIPTION YOU JUST GAVE? IF "YES," HOW WOULD YOUR DESCRIP- TION HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT? A. Very different. I thought that she was rather spoiled. I have since gone on to find greater dimensions to her. As I say, she is a person that doesn't wear masks. B. From last September? She has changed. She's a lot more freer. She's a lot more happy. She's more herself now. She has been getting out and meeting a lot more people. I think that that has done her a lot of good. She's more outgoing and more independent. WITHIN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, HAVE YOU NOTED ANY CHANGE IN THE WAY PARTICIPANT #10 INTERACTS WITH OTHER PEOPLE? A. Yes. She is happier. She is more secure. Her personal life is much more stable. B. Yeah. She has more of a positive outlook on life. That helps her interact better with people. She needs a lot of people around her; she needs close friends, she needs lots of them. 149 WHAT IS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO PARTICIPANT #11? A. It is a work relationship. He is a consultant to an area I work in. B. In a manner of speaking, I am his supervisor. HOW LONG HAVE YOU KNOWN PARTICIPANT #11? A. I don't know. I think about two years. B. About two years now. HOW MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY HAVE YOU HAD, IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, TO OBSERVE PARTICIPANT #11? A. He has come in to work with me from time to time in my classes. B. I suppose that we do most of our business by phone and by memos. But I see him, oh I would say once or twice a week. HOW MUCH OF AN OPPORTUNITY HAVE YOU HAD, IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, TO TALK WITH PARTICIPANT #11? A. Oh we carry on maybe a little social chatter, but it's not necessarily significant talk. He's very pleasant and I like him. He's a good person. B. About once or twice a week. MAKE BELIEVE FOR A MOMENT THAT I AM ONE OF YOUR FRIENDS AND I DO NOT KNOW PARTICIPANT #11. AS A PART OF A CONVERSATION WE ARE HAVING, YOU WISH TO DESCRIBE HIM TO ME. WILL YOU DO THAT? A. Well, I see him as a large person. You know, he is tall physically. And I think that he has a lot of substance to him. By that I mean that there is a lot of worth to him. I think that he doesn't put himself forward a great deal. In that that doesn't seem to be the thing that is performed for people. So, I think that there is a lot more to him than a lot of people see. That's my hunch. If you ask him to do something he does it very well. And he's probably more creative than he lets himself be. I have a feeling that he is rather structured as far as what he should do and what he shouldn't do. Now to me, lately, I will make this observation, he has drOpped ' 150 into the office two or three times and he will sit down, if I ask him to, and he'll stay and have a cigarette and we'll talk about his work. SO there has been more friendliness than there was before. He is a little shy. There is some shyness. At the same time, I feel that he has a security of knowledge. By that I mean he knows what he is doing. B. I don't suppose that you want a physical description. Well, I think that he is a very pleasant person to work with. He is hard working. I think that he is very co- Operative. And he takes responsibility well. He has to be pretty tactful with some of the people he has to work with. He has done very well. The people he works for and with are very pleased with his work. There has been no unpleasantness, no problems at all. He's damn good, I think! THINK BACK TO THE STARTING OF SCHOOL IN SEPTEMBER. IF YOU HAD DESCRIBED PARTICIPANT #11 AT THAT TIME, WOULD YOU HAVE ALTERED ANY ASPECTS OF THE DESCRIPTION YOU JUST GAVE? IF "YES," HOW WOULD YOUR DESCRIPTION HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT? A. I didn't know him that well in the fall, so I don't think that I can really say that. I really don't see him that much. B. NO. WITHIN THE PAST SIX MONTHS, HAVE YOU NOTED ANY CHANGE IN THE WAY PARTICIPANT #11 INTERACTS WITH OTHER PEOPLE? A. Well, the only person that I have seen him interact with around here is the head Of our staff. To me it is sort of a straight sincerity. He does his job and he does his job well. Things are good and straight, and that's what I see. B. He has been consistent. I think that his whole approach has been consistent since the beginning. He has always been pleasant. He has always been cooperative and easy to get along with, and, as I say, aslo very responsible. WHAT WOULD YOU PERCEIVE TO BE PARTICIPANT #II'S EDUCATIONAL BELIEFS AND VALUES? A. I would imagine that he is a guy that is rather solidly traditional. Yet, at the same time, I imagine that he can see through any set of phoniness that might be in the tradition. I think he is probably a much more insightful person than maybe he would come out and say. I've never gotten on to that area with him. APPENDIX F JUDGES' PERSONAL DATA SHEET 152 JUDGES' PERSONAL DATA SHEET Judge Number 1 2 3 Age: 35 28 35 Sex: M=Ma1e M F M F=Female Race: C=Caucasian Marital Status: M=Married M M M Total College Credits: l93=Bachelor's Degree 313 298 343 Participated in Groups: Yes Yes Yes Facilitated Groups: X21 or 2 Groups Y=3 to 5 Groups Z26 or More Groups Professional Experience: =Teacher A-Administrator C=Counselor AT T TAC Professional Years in Education: 10 6 12 Teaching Level: E=Elementary J=Junior High School JSC JSC JSC S=Senior High School C=College 153 APPENDIX G "FIRST NAMES, FIRST IMPRESSIONS" EXERCISE 154 42. FIRST NAMES, FIRST IMPRESSIONSl Goals I. To get acquainted with other members of a small group. II. To discover one's initial impact on others. III. To study phenomena related to first impresseions-- their accuracy, their effects, etc. Group Size Six to twelve participants. Time Required Approximately one hour. Materials Utilized Two sheets of paper and a pencil for each participant. Physical Setting Group members should be seated in a circle, with a table or lapboards for writing. Process I. At the first meeting of the group the facilitator suggests that each person give his first name and one or two facts about himself. II. Participants are then directed to turn their chairs around, away from the circle, so that they cannot see the other group members. They are instructed to write down as many of the first names as they can i remember. III. After about three minutes, they turn their chairs back toward the group and find out whose names they forgot. They may ask for additional information to I attach to the names that they find difficult to | remember. 1J. W. Pfeiffer and J. E. Jones, A Handbook of Struc— tured Experiences for Human Relations Training, II (Iowa City, Iowa: University Associates Press, 1969), pp. 95-96. 155 IV. VI. VII. 156 The group discusses names, feelings attached to them, difficulties that they experience in remember- ing them, their reactions to not being remembered, etc. The facilitator hands out additional sheets of paper, on which participants are to write a group roster, in the same order. Then they are asked to note briefly their first impressions of every group member. These first impressions papers are collected by the facilitator, who reads them aloud anonymously. He reads all of the impressions that members have of the first participant, who is asked to react to the accuracy of the impressions, his feelings while hear- ing them, what surprised him, etc. Then all of the impressions of the second participant are read aloud, he reacts, and so on. Variation: each person reads aloud the impressions he has written about each of the other members. The group discusses the accuracy of first impression data, the effects of first impressions, and their reactions to this experience. APPENDIX H THIRTY CLARIFYING RESPONSES 157 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. THIRTY CLARIFYING RESPONSESl Is this something that you prize? Are you glad about that? How did you feel when that happened? Did you consider any alternatives? Have you felt this way for a long time? Was that something that you yourself selected or chose? Did you hayg to choose that; was it a free choice? Do you do anything about that idea? Can you give me some examples Of that idea? What do you mean by ; can you define that word? Where would that idea lead; what would be its consequences? Would you really do that or are you just talking? Are you saying that ... (repeat the statement)? Did you say that ... (repeat in some distorted way)? Have you thought much about that idea (or behavior)? What are some good things about that notion? What do we have to assume for things to work out that way? Is what you say (express) consistent with ... (Note something else the person said or did that may point to an inconsistency)? What other possibilities are there? Is that a personal preference or do you think most peOple should believe that? 1Louis E. Raths, Merrill Harmin, and Sidney B. Simon, Values and Teaching (Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Publishing Company, 1966), pp. 260—61. 158 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 159 How can I help you do something about your idea? Is there a purpose back of this activity? Is that very important to you? Do you do this often? Would you like to tell others about your idea? Do you have any reasons for saying or doing that? Would you do the same thing over again? How do you know it's right? Do you value that? Do you think people will always believe that? APPENDIX I GROUP PROCESS PAPER 160 161 The focus of this session is on openness to taking an honest look at one's own behavior. To facilitate the devel- Opment of an open, accepting atmosphere in the group's process and procedures, it is important that you draw some perspective on your own behavior and feelings. Take a few moments to respond to the following open— ended questions and then use them for the basis of discus- sion in your groups of three. 1. When I enter a new group I feel 2. When people first meet me they 3. When someone does all the talking I 4. I feel most productive when a leader 5. In a group, I am most afraid of 6. I am hurt most easily when 7. I feel loneliest in a group when 8. I trust those who 9. I feel closest to others when 10. I feel loved most when 11. My greatest strength is 12. I am 162 The first important concern is for you to increase your sensitivity to the group process. You have probably spent a lot of time in various types of groups ranging from family groups to social groups to professional groups, including classroom groups and faculty meetings. For the most part, peOple think about the content of the discussion that occurs in all groups but rarely do people think much about the process of the group interaction. When we observe what a group is talking about, we are focusing on the content. When we try to observe how the group is handling its communications —- that is, who talks how much, who talks to whom, how do they feel about the dis— cussion, we are focusing on group process. TO become more sensitive to process it is necessary (1) to increase one's skills in observation of others or to become aware of others' feelings, non—verbal communications, discrepancies in what people are saying, (2) to increase one's skill in listening clearly to others, and (3) increase sensitivity to your own feelings. When you feel bored or irritated with someone in a group do you clearly identify that feeling to yourself or do you ignore these feelings and only focus on the intellec- tual content of a discussion? Here are some questions about the interaction which your group just had which may help you think about the process of your group discussion. What happened in your group beyond the verbal content that was expressed? How did people respond to each other in this getting acquainted phase? Did people introduce themselves formally and talk about jobs? Were peOple hesitant about how to begin the discussion? How do you feel about the group right now: Excited? Bored? Tense? Do you feel good about anyone in the group? Why? Did you feel irritated with anyone in the group? Why? Did you express these feelings in the group? Why? or why not? Did you interact in the group yourself? Why? Why not? Did you behave in the way you usually do in a group? Why? Why not? Do you think others behaved the way they usually do in groups? Why? Why not? ' One of the easiest aspects of group process to observe is the pattern of communication. 1. Who is doing the talking? For how long? How often? 2. Who do peOple look at when they talk? 163 a. Single others - possibly those who may agree? b. Scanning the group? O. No one? Who talks after whom, or who interrupts whom? What style of communication is used (assertions, ques- tions, tone of voice, gestures, etc.)? JAG) By Observing the styles of communication one begins to become aware of how various members influence the group. Your group was not formed with a designated leader, which makes it more possible for you to become aware of how leader- ship and influence develop within groups. 1. Has one person assumed the role of leader? 2. Is there competition for leadership? 3. How do members react to leadership? What are your feelings right now about what is happening in the group? Do you feel good about the way in which you are communicating with others? Are you pleased with the leadership? Annoyed? Could you express these feelings in the group? How much leadership or influence are you exerting in the group? Are you willing to go along with the leadership? Are you withdrawing by being bored? Are you behaving in ways you Often do in a group? Mimeographed paper, author unknown. APPENDIX J THE ISLAND GAME 164 THE ISLAND GAMEl Technique—activity: "The Island Game." Process: The facilitator relates the following story. Once upon a time five people were stranded on a deserted South Seas Island. There was Annie, about twenty years of age, beautiful, and engaged to wed Danny; Bertha, Annie's mother; Charlie, age twenty-three; Danny, about twenty—one; and Eddie, the same age as Charlie. One day an earthquake snapped the island into two sep— arate islands that were now three miles apart, with rough seas and sharks in between. Annie, Bertha, and Charlie were now on one island, Danny and Eddie on the other. After a month passed without any communication between the two islands, Annie went to her mother, Bertha, to indicate that she wanted somehow to get over to Danny's island to marry him ... but she was worried about leaving her mother, who might terribly miss her. Bertha told Annie, "Do whatever you think is right and I'll support you any way I can." So Annie went about the island looking for a way to get over to Danny. She discovered that Charlie had a small boat, so she went to ask him to take her to the other island. Charlie said he would if Annie would go to sleep with him. Annie responded with, "I'll have to think about it," and went back to Bertha. She told Bertha Charlie's conditions and asked for her advice. Bertha told Annie to "Do whatever you think is right and I'll support you any way I can." So Annie went back to Charlie, slept with him, and Charlie took Annie across to the other island. He dropped her off and went back. Danny was delighted to see Annie and they immediately began to make wedding plans. Two days before the scheduled wed- ding Annie got guilt feelings and went to Danny to tell him how she had had to sleep with Charlie in order to get over to be with him. Danny told Annie that she had done "wrong" and that he could not marry her ever. He could only marry a virgin. Eddie was listening close by and knew what was going on. He went to Annie, told her that he loved her, and that she should marry him and live a happy life. SO they were married . . . The End. Following the story, the task for each individual in the group is (without discussion) to rank the five characters 1Michael G. Pasternak, "An Exploration of the Educational Belief System Process as a Means for Helping Educators Formu- late Curriculum Decisions" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972), pp. 35-36. 165 166 in the story on a piece of paper, from one to five, in terms of whom he liked the most to whom he liked the least. Num- ber One would indicate the best liked, and Number Five the least liked. Upon completion, groups of five or six partici— pants are formed for sharing rankings and discussing dif- ferences and inconsistencies. Afterward, the total group membership can create a composite ranking on the blackboard. An exploration of the values reflected by each of these individuals and their level of priority might take place. "‘mmmS