ABSTRACT THE DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT AND INITIAL FIELD TEST OF THE TEACHER-PRINCIPAL COMMUNICATION INSTRUMENT (TPCI) By Richard Ignatius Aquilina The genesis of this research emerged from the requisite that the elements of an educational system function cooperatively in order to develop and maintain personally satisfying professional rela- tionships. The continuous opportunities for self-assessment and self-discloSure are mandated by the need.for harmonious relationships among system com- ponents. The frequency, mode and caliber of the information exchanged as a result of the needed introspective process is related to the effectiveness of the system and to the relative degree of satisfaction personnel ascribe to their work environment. At times, structural or organizational constraints preclude admin- istrators from relating to, or working with, staff members on an indi- vidual basis. The number of staff, the size of the organization, space, protocol, etc. are all variables which may act to discourage the establishment and maintenance of individual communication relation- ships. Typically, the acquisition of administrator-teacher interface feedback has been left to chance. For the most part, staff meetings, Richard Ignatius Aquilina teacher evaluation sessions, conversations which transpire in the teachers' lounge, school corridor, classroom or principal's office do not candidly address teachers' perceptions of their work environment. Moreover, teachers and principals generally do not exchange information regarding methods or strategies in which the potential disparity in the level of satisfaction associated with the present and optimal working environment might become less pervasive. Consequently, the major thrust of this research endeavor was to develop a communication device designed for utilization by administrators (elementary school principals) with staff (elementary school teachers). The purpose of constructing the Teacher-Principal Communication Instrument (TPCI) was threefold: l. to provide teachers an opportunity to reflect upon, and respond to. factors which purportedly affect morale and job satisfaction and, ultimately, classroom effectiveness; 2. to provide principals (and staff) feedback information relative to individual staff member's responses to factors which purportedly affect morale and job satisfaction; 3. to provide both teachers and principals a data-base upon which numerous relevant goals, objectives and strategies can be generated. The focus is upon the mutual develop- ment of alternatives designed to enhance the teacher- principal interface and thereby advance the effective- ness of the educational suprasystem in which they co-exist. An extensive review of the morale and job satisfaction literature was conducted. The search provided a foundation upon which the initial Richard Ignatius Aquilina draft of the TPCI was constructed. Explored were such topics as: Morale and Job Satisfaction: A Definition of Terms Morale and Job Satisfaction: Impact and Effect Upon Productivity Morale and Job Satisfaction: A Multitude of Considerations General Studies of Factors that Purport to Affect Morale and Job Satisfaction Perceptual Variance Among Teachers Regarding Factors Which Purport to Affect Morale and Job Satisfaction Saliency of the Teacher-Principal Interface in Influencing Morale and Job Satisfaction Among Teachers. The initial draft of the TPCI, based upon data collected in the literature review and the first pilot study. consisted of 127 items distributed in nine subscales. Each subscale was defined by its com- ponent items and represents complex behavioral patterns. The subscales are listed as follows: l. Motivational Factors Services Physical Environmental Conditions Group Cohesiveness Matter (Materials, Supplies, Equipment) Teacher Decision—Making Principal Leadership Behavior Information £0 CD \1 03 01 «5 (JD N O O O O O O O . Communication Relationship It is important to note that those considerations which purportedly affect morale and job satisfaction status and are typically channeled Richard Ignatius Aquilina through professional teacher organizations in their negotiations with school board representatives have been excluded. The intent was to direct attention to only those matters whereby resolution might be attained through the interaction of a principal with his/her teaching staff. The initial draft of the TPCI was subjected to the scrutiny of a reactor panel of experts.. Authoritative and knowledgeable persons. versed in morale research and related disciplines, performed the dichotomous function of validating each item by responding to inquiries about clarity, relevance, focus, format and overall construction of the instrument, as well as providing inputs relative to general design. As a result of the efforts of the panel of experts, the initial draft of the TPCI was revised. At this juncture, the TPCI included ll3 items, classified in the previously stated nine subscales., A method of scoring and reporting the results of the TPCI was then developed.. A Likert scoring system, consisting of five categories. was applied to each item. The items were constructed so that the polarity indicating satisfaction was the responses strongly agree and agree, while strongly disagree and disagree represented the dissatis- faction end. The neutral response was undecided. Scoring weights ranged from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). while the range of total scores was computed by multiplying the weights by the number of items. Results could then be transcribed on three TPCI Scor— ing Grids: Richard Ignatius Aquilina 1. Overall and Subscale Profile for a Single Respondent 2. Overall Profile for a Group 3. Subscale Profile for a Group A second pilot study was conducted for the following purposes: l. to determine internal consistency (reliability) measures for each subscale, as well as the overall instrument, by utilizing the Coefficient Alpha technique; 2. to administer the TPCI to a teaching staff of an elementary school; 3. to further content validate and refine the TPCI by eliciting the reactions and observations of a teaching staff; 4. to demonstrate that the TPCI will be acceptable to those participating teachers and generalizable to the population randomly selected for the field test, in terms of content, relevance and.format. The TPCI was revised based-upon subscale Coefficient Alpha scores (an overall Coefficient Alpha score for the TPCI was calculated at :23), correlational matrices and the feedback provided by the teachers participating in the second pilot study. As a result. the TPCI was once again refined and, at this point in time, consisted of l02 items, assigned to the aforementioned nine subscales. This was to become the final revision of the TPCI. The TPCI was then field tested in nine rural and suburban elemen- tary schools in south-central Michigan. Over 100 classroom teachers and principals participated in this final phase of the study. Richard Ignatius Aquilina Two treatment groups and one control group were established. A provision for staff feedback differentiated the treatment and control conditions. All nine principals completed the TPCI on two separate occasions (pre/post) as he/she perceived their staff would respond. However, only the six principals in the two treatment groups received feedback information relative to how the teachers did. in fact. respond to the instrument. and comparing the principals' ratings with those of the staff. In the control situation, teachers were not administered the TPCI; therefore, no feedback mechanism was established. Treatment Group.0ne differed from Treatment Group Two based on the following criteria--the three schools in which the principal's and teachers' scores illustrated the greatest disparity were assigned to the first treatment group,.while the second treatment group consisted of teachers and principals (in the three schools) whose scores were most similar. Specific null hypotheses involving the principals' pre- and post- scores were stated as: l. For Treatment Group One, feedback information relative to teacher ratings will not have an effect upon the post-scores of the principals. 2. For Treatment Group Two. feedback information relative to teacher ratings will not have an effect upon the post-scores of the principals. 3. For the Control Group, the lack of feedback information relative to teacher ratings will not have an effect upon the post-scores of the principals. Richard Ignatius Aquilina 4. Results associated with Treatment Group One, Treatment Group Two and the Control Group will not reveal different effects. A t-test was employed to evaluate Null Hypotheses l, 2 and 3, while a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to test Null HYPOtNESlS 4. The SCheffé.post-hoc treatment was used in an attempt to discern the location and magnitude of the differences obtained in the ANOVA. Null Hypotheses 2 and 3 were not rejected, while Null Hypotheses l and 4 were rejected in favor of the research hypotheses. It was concluded that the TPCI can effectively be used with ele- mentary school principals and teachers whose perceptions of the teacher- principal interface are varied and widespread. Moreover, it was inferred that the TPCI can be utilized to reduce the equivocal nature of the per- ceptual or attitudinal variability between principals and their teaching staff regarding the interface they share. Although statistical significance was not attained for Null Hy- pothesis 2, it was suggested that the TPCI can be sensitive to marginal differences in administrator-teacher perceptions of factors which pur- port to influence morale and job satisfaction. Post-hoc comparisons did not reveal the location of the differences obtained in the ANOVA. Therefore. on the basis of the results generated by.testing Null Hypothesis 2 and the ANOVA. further investigation was suggested. Recommendations for future research, insights relative to administering the TPCI. as well as implications for administrators, have also been provided. THE DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT AND INITIAL FIELD TEST OF THE TEACHER-PRINCIPAL COMMUNICATION INSTRUMENT (TPCI) By Richard Ignatius Aquilina A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State UniverSity in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Elementary and Special Education 1975 ® Copyright by RICHARD IGNATIUS AQUILINA I975 TO MAUREEN-- You are an your your your your your your your your your integral part of my being-- warmth, sensitivity, compassion, need to be loved, spirituality, candor spontaneity, love of all that lives, fulfillment in giving; And most importantly, your your your respect, confidence, and love, Which you give undenyingly to me. I wuv you. TO MOM AND DAD-- You have given me the greatest gift parents can provide--unconditional love. Your influence will eternally occupy the most profound and meaningful dimensions of my existence. God bless both of you. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS "The Design, Development and Initial Field Test of the Teacher- Principal Communication Instrument (TPCI)" has been, in part, the coordinated efforts of numerous knowledgeable, insightful and conscien- tious professionals in the field of education. The single most influential contributor to this research and to my doctoral program, in general, has been Dr. Charles E. Henley, doctoral guidance committee chairperson. advisor and dear friend. Or. Henley's understanding, guidance and timely sense of humor have assisted me through two of the most challenging years I have encountered. His authenticity, perseverance and precision has, and will continue to provide a model for educational administrators. For Dr. Henley, a truly beautiful human being, I have one wish-- remember the marble rolling at Colombiere, the “KISS" Principle, raisin pie, the two-selections-for-a-quarter cigarette machine, truffles, the squirrel-o-gram and the vitacon tube. I know I will. Deepest appreciation is extended to the members of my doctoral guidance committee--Dr. Richard L. Featherstone, Dr. Richard V. Farace and, especially, Dr. Frank B. Bruno for his assistance during the developmental stages of the initial framework for the study. Coopera- tively, their support, encouragement and direction illustrate the saliency and indispensable nature of an effective doctoral committee. It must also be noted that this research proceeded with the additional cooperation of many responsive individuals--the reactor panel of experts, the numerous elementary school teachers and princi- pals participating in one of the two pilot studies or the initial field test, as well as the contact persons who facilitated "entry" into the randomly selected schools. I am sincerely grateful to all of these participants, in particular to Dr. Sheila Fitzgerald, Dr. Frederick R. Ignatovich, Dr. Stephen L. Yelon, Dr. David L. Haarer, Dr. Robert Docking, Mr. Charles Twork and Mr. George Zarka, whose collective assistance has had an appreciable impact upon this investigation. Special thanks to my friends for their relentless support, notably to Bill Frey for his much needed advice, candor and concern. Bill's knowledge of design and.measurement provided the foundation upon which this study has been constructed. My family is also to be honored for the love they expressed to me during this project--Bob (Ba-Rob), Ron (Ba-Ron), Marie, Millie, Ginger, Jack, Pam and Dawn. Their interest was consistently harbored in sin- cere concern for my well—being rather than a preoccupation with the task in which I was engaged. Thank you for caring. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION ....................... l A Systems Approach .................. 6 The Teacher-Principal Interface ............ 14 Need for the Study .................. 17 Statement of Purpose ............. . . . . 19 Delimitation of the Study ............... 2l Overview of the Study .......... . . . . . . . 22 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................. 24 Morale and Job Satisfaction: A Definition of Terms ....................... 24 Morale and Job Satisfaction: Impact and Effect Upon Productivity . . ........... 28 Morale and Job Satisfaction: A Multitude of Considerations .............. . . 32 General Studies of Factors That Purport to Affect Morale and Job Satisfaction ..... . . . . 35 Perceptual Variance Among Teachers Regarding Factors Which Purport to Affect Morale and Job Satisfaction . . . ............. 53 Saliency of the Teacher- Principal Interface in Influencing Morale and Job Satisfaction Among Teachers ......... . ....... . . . . . 56 Summary and Conclusions ................ 67 III. METHODOLOGY . . . ................ . . . . 69 Phase 1. Identification of Control Factors Which Purport to Affect Level of Morale and Job Satisfaction ............ . ....... 69 Phase 2. The First Pilot Study ............ 70 Phase 3. The Development of the Initial Draft of the TPCI .................... 75 Phase 4. The Content Validation of the TPCI by the Utilization of a Panel of Experts ....... 78 Phase 5. The Modification of the Initial Draft of the TPCI Based Upon the Feedback Provided by the Panel of Experts .............. 82 Phase 6. The Development of a Method of Scoring and Reporting the Results of the TPCI . ...... 85 vii Chapter Phase 7. The Second Pilot Study. . . . . . . . . . Phase 8. The Revision of the TPCI Incorporating the Feedback Provided by the Respondents in the Second Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase 9. The Validation of the TPCI in an Initial Field Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........ Results of the Initial Field Test . . ' ........ Conclusions Regarding the Initial Field Test ..... Recommendations Provided by the Principals Participating in the Initial Field Test . ..... Recommendations for Further Research . . . . ..... Recommendations for Administering the TPCI ...... Implications for Administrators . ........ . . REFERENCES . . . . ........ . . . . ...... . . . . APPENDICES ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE FIRST PILOT STUDY .......... . ......... . B. INITIAL DRAFT AND SUBSCALE COMPOSITION OF THE TPCI . . . C. FEEDBACK FORM (SUMMARY DATA FORM) USED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE PANEL OF EXPERTS . . . . . . . . . . . D. REVISED FORM AND SUBSCALE COMPOSITION OF THE TPCI . . . . E. TPCI SUMMARY DATA SHEET AND SCORING GRIDS . . . . . . . . F. FEEDBACK FORM (SUMMARY DATA FORM) USED BY, AND CORRESPONDENCE TO, THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE SECOND PILOT STUDY . . . ............ . . . G. FINAL REVISION, RESPONSE SHEET AND SUBSCALE COMPOSITION OF THE TPCI . . ............. H. THE INITIAL FIELD TEST OF THE TPCI: AN OVERVIEW PRESENTED TO CONTACT PERSONS AND POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS; PRINCIPAL'S FEEDBACK FORM (SUMMARY DATA FORM); TPCI SUMMARY DATA AND SCORING GRID FEEDBACK INFORMATION; AND CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PARTICIPANTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. FOLLOW-UP CORRESPONDENCE TO THE CONTACT PERSONS AND PARTICIPANTS IN THE FIRST PILOT STUDY, PANEL OF EXPERTS, SECOND PILOT STUDY AND THE INITIAL FIELD TEST ...... . ...... . ........ viii Page 89 94 110 120 120 124 134 140 142 146 152 158 158 161 171 186 195 201 211 219 240 Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15° 16° LIST OF TABLES Morale Regulating Factors ........... Ranked Sources of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction Coefficient Alpha Scores for TPCI Subscales . . Intercorrelational Matrix for TPCI Subscale: Services ...... . . . . . . ...... Intercorrelational Matrix for TPCI Subscale: Matter (Materials, Supplies, Equipment) . . . . . . Intercorrelational Matrix for TPCI Subscale: Group Cohesiveness-. . . . . . . . . . . . . Intercorrelational Matrix for TPCI Subscale: Physical Environmental Conditions . . . . . . . Intercorrelational Matrix for TPCI Subscale: Teacher Decision-Making_ . . . . ...... Intercorrelational Matrix for TPCI Subscale: Information ..... . .......... Intercorrelational Matrix for TPCI Subscale: Communication Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . Intercorrelational Matrix for TPCI Subscale: Motivational Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . Intercorrelational Matrix for TPCI Subscale: Principal Leadership Behavior . ..... . Intercorrelational Matrix for All TPCI Subscales Initial Field Test Design ........... T-Test Results for Hypotheses l, 2 and 3 . . . One-Way Analysis of Variance ......... ix Page 43 48 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 104 105 107 113 121 123 Table Page 17. Teachers' Scores, Principals' Pre- and Post-Scores, and Difference Scores for Treatment Group One (greatest disparity group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l26 l8. Teachers' Scores, Principals' Pre- and Post-Scores, and Difference Scores for Treatment Group Two (closely aligned group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I30 19. Principals' Pre-, Post- and Difference Scores for Control Group (no feedback group) . . . . ...... l33 Figure 10. LIST OF FIGURES Page Control continuum . . . .............. . . . l External control factors ............. . . . 2 Internal control factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Synthesis: Internal-external control factors ...... 4 Internal control factors: For a teacher ........ 9 External control factors: For a teacher ..... . . . lO Synthesis: Internal-external control factors: For a teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll The elementary school: As an ecosystem . . ....... l2 The teacher-principal interface: A critical relationship in an elementary school . . . . . . . . . l4 Ingham Intermediate School District ........... lll xi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ooooooooooo There can be no darker or more devastating tragedy than the death of man's faith in himself or in his power to direct his future (Saul Alinsky). The phenomenon that Alinsky has described focuses upon one of the most critical determinants of social reinforcement, that is, whether or not rewarding life experiences are a matter of internal (self-directed) or external (environment-induced) control (see Figure l). INTERNAL EXTERNAL Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . No choice Free Will . . . . . . . . . . . Fate Control . . . . . . . . . . . . Chance (Inner (Environmental determinants) determinants) Figure l. Control continuum. Alinsky implied that one must develop full potential to exercise power over external behavioral determinants or one shall be destined to exist as an impotent cog in the life system. An obvious dilemma which arises is how much internal influence is sufficient to regulate one's own life, concurrent with living in harmony with environmental forces? Alinsky's message provided a caution-~not to become totally suppressed by external variables so to lose the uniqueness and positivism associated with oneself. It is precisely this condition, when external- ities bombard one's daily life, prohibiting self-directed behaviors, \ that the ability to shape one's destiny is forfeited (see Figure 2). Job Peers Society PERSON Religion ENVIRONMENT Education Family Culture Figure 2. External control factors Reference Groups / More significantly, the structure for what might have generated otherwise healthy, positive self-perceptions as regulators, adaptors or manipulators of the environment, is undermined. A commitment for total control represents the antithesis of the position that Alinsky described (see Figure 3). Both attitudes are extremes. Ostensibly, both are unrealistic, irrational and unattain- able postures. Attempts at total internal control conspicuously dis- regards a wealth of salient environmental influences, such as family, peers, culture, religion and reference groups which help define one's \ x/ Beliefs ’ Values Energy Effort ENVIRO ME T PERSON Skills N N Interests Perceptions Attitudes Figure 3. Internal control factors. lifespace. It seems naive to think that as a human system one can avoid addressing the multitude of external forces which permeate one's life's boundaries, in an attempt to live as a "closed" system. These external- ities affect in one manner or another perceptions, attitudes and the direction of how one behaves whether at work, play or in the home. Ostensibly, it is more reasonable to assume the position by which the importance of external influences is recognized and seasoned with personal thoughts, feelings, perceptions, abilities, etc., so to develop a transactional relationship with the environment. By doing so an harmoniously balance between internal and external control factors can be realized (see Figure 4). The concept of internal and external control which was introduced by Rotter in 1966, in studying the effects of reinforcement in complex A 'vv Beliefs Job Values ’ Peers Energy :ogiety Effort e igion PERSON Skills Education ENVIRONMENT Interests Family Perceptions Culture Attitudes Ref. Groups 3/ Figure 4. Synthesis: Internal-external control factors. learning, has now gained prominence in many diverse areas of research. Rotter defines internal control as a person's belief that rewards are contingent upon one's own behavior. It is the assertion that what happens in life is the result of one's own attitudes, perceptions, skills, abilities and effort. Conversely, external control represents the belief that rewards are controlled by forces outside oneself and may transpire independently 0f one's own actions. An external explana- tion asserts that success and failure are determined by chance, fate or specific constraining forces. The latter position reflects the Alinsky caution. Gurin and Gurin (l969) stated that researchers have emphasized the need to assess how realistic it is for a person to perceive that events are beyond his control and whether he considers external forces to be benevolent or malevolent. Alinsky's position adds clarity to this issue--life becomes progressively more futile, as events become proportionally more and more attributable to external controls rather than to internal forces. It has been assumed in the literature that a belief in internal control represents a person's assessment of one's own life experiences, that one can influence, manipulate or control the consequences of a situation through one's own actions. It can then be further suggested that internal control is analogous to a sense of competence or personal efficacy, whereby variance in the level of internal control generates divergent self-perceptions. Alinsky characterized this relationship when he spoke about degeneration of self-concept (loss of faith in one— self) and ability to direct one's own destiny. Further ellucidation is provided by Gurin and Gurin (1969): It has usually been assumed that internal beliefs represent a positive affirmation. . . . When associated with success, an internal orientation can lead to feelings of competence and efficacy. When associated with failure, however, it can lead to self-degradation and self-blame (p. 32). Clearly, internal control variables are powerful sources of reward. However, the road to the acquisition of such satisfaction is paved with potential failure. In a finding that is often forgotten in the focus on the positive aspects of internal control, Rotter noted that the relationships between internal and external control dimensions and personality adjustments are somewhat curvilinear. He discovered that due to the potential for failure (intra-punative implications) of an internal orientation, peoplebwho are predisposed with extremely internal perceptions, as well as those who are predisposed with extremely external perceptions, tend to be psychologically maladjusted and, therefore, inefficacious. The Rotter research implied that there is a strong need for synthe- sis of internal-external control factors. There must be a balanced interface of personal and environmental influences if a functional system is to be developed. Further corroboration of this homeostatic position has been provided by Gurin and Gurin (l969), when on one hand they illustrated the lack of efficacy associated with a belief in external control, and on the other stated how an external force can be utilized effectively: The literature to date indicates that people who believe in external control are less effectively motivated and perform less well in achievement situations. . . . Instead of depressing motivation, focusing on external forces may be motivationally healthy if it results from assessing one's chances for success against systematic and real external obstacles rather than exigencies of overwhelming, unpredict- able fate (p. 33). A critical distinction is made. It matters for persons in social systems whether the assumed external orientation refers to chance or to more systematic constraining forces, the identification of which becomes a substantive issue. A Systems Approach Human groups and their interactions with the environment may be studied by means of analysis of the function of the structure of the social system governing their activities. A system is defined by Hall and Fagan (1968) as: . . . a set of objects together with the relationships between the objects and between their attributes (p. 8l). ' VonBertalanffy (l968) provided credence for scientific investigation based upon a systems analysis approach: In the last two decades we have witnessed the emergence of the "system" as a key concept in scientific research. Systems, of course, have been studied for centuries, but something new has been added. . . . The tendency to study problems as an entity rather than as a conglomeration of parts is consistent with the tendency in contemporary science no longer to isolate phenomenon in narrowly confined contexts, but rather to open interactions for examination and to exam- ine larger and larger slices of nature (p. ll). Simply, a system is a set of objects or elements (individual parts or separate components) in interaction. Any system must be so organized as to maintain some degree of integration among its parts and some degree of adaptation to external controls. Generally, structures that foster integration and adaptation are functional, while those systems which inhibit integration and adaptation are dysfunctional. Entropy is the state of being dysfunctional. There is disorder, disorganization, or randomness of organization in an entropic system. It can no longer per- form its function. Entropy may occur from changes within the system, changes in the environment, or changes in input. Integration of system components and adaptation are inextricably bound. The adaptation of parts to one another determines the integra- tiveness of the system and, in the long run, the system's integration depends upon its adaptation to itself and its environment. If part of a system is changed, it may cause the system to operate inefficiently. A state of inefficient functioning is called dissonance. One of the properties of systems that helps it cope with dissonance is adaptation. Adaptation is a system's ability to react to change in the system or the environment in a way that favors the continued operation of the system. 8 Schools are systems. They consist of a set of objects or elements which are interrelated. The dynamic interrelatedness of the school, as a system, binds or ties it together. The school is composed of physical, as well as abstract, elements; that is, people, materials, supplies, equipment and regulations, laws, and processes, respectively. For the purposes of this investigation, systems terms and principles will be applied to the educational milieu. This approach is not an at- tempt to adhere to a specific systemic base, such as general systems theory or cybernetics, rather it is a treatment of educational notions with systems language. In an educational environment a multiplicity of elements must inter- act harmoniously if it is expected to function effectively. The physical and abstract elements must be placed in a meaningful juxtaposition if the system is to be functional. The functional school is one in which inter- nal and external control factors coexist harmoniously within and among all of the (human) elements. Consequently, school personnel must be afforded opportunities to temper environmental inputs with internal sources of influence. Well-regulated individuals provide a foundation for the rela- tional well-being of the entire system. Transactional exchanges between internal and external control variables (for each person) enhance the likelihood that a healthy, cohesive, adaptive system will be developed. Because systems are relatively defined and there is no such thing as the school system, it becomes necessary to delineate the collection of integrated components which are to be designated as having central importance. The boundaries of the defined system determine the inter- dependent group of elements that function together for a predetermined purpose--in this instance for the educational well-being of children and youth. An elementary school is an example of an ecosystem; that is, it is a system that has living elements. The group of "organisms" which lend themselves to analysis in the elementary school system are the principal, teachers, students, ancillary,secretarial and custodial staffs, parents and other community reference groups, etc. These essential components have the capability of developing complex interrelationships, some of which are more important for system maintenance and survival than others. Anderson (1972) described three basic types of relationships that can be established in a system: 1. a relationship in which the organism affects the environment (O--+E). For example, how teachers draw upon internal controls in order to affect external factors (see Figure 5). \ W’ Beliefs Values Energy Effort SCHOOL TEACHER Skills ENVIRONMENT Interests Perceptions Attitudes / K Figure 5. Internal control factors: For a teacher. 10 2. a relationship in which the environment affects the organism (E--+O). For example, how external factors affect the behaviors and attitudes of teachers (see Figure 6). N / Students Parents Colleagues Principal SCHOOL Central Admin. School Board ENVIRONMENT Community State Dept. Federal Level / \ Figure 6. External control factors: For a teacher. TEACHER 3. a relationship in which an organism affects another organism (O--+O). For example, how teachers affect the behavior of other teachers, and how teachers affect the behavior of their students and, perhaps, most significantly, how a principal affects the behavior of teachers, etc. (see Figure 7). These relationships may be either in dynamic (something is happen- ing) or static states (no interaction). If the elementary school system is to properly perform its function, it must be in a dynamic state; that is, there must be a flow of information, matter, energy, service among its components--principa1, teachers, students, etc. (see Figure 8). 11 Beliefs Students Values Parents Energy galleagues Effort rinc pa TEACHER Skills Central Admin. EMUIgBNMENT Interests School Board Perceptions Community Attitudes State Dept. ederal Leve y V. Figure 7. Synthesis: Internal-external control factors: For a teacher. However, it has been alluded that one cannot sufficiently study the elementary school system without defining and analyzing its sub- systems--students, teachers,and ancillary,secretarial and custodial staffs, parents, community groups, etc. It is virtually impractical to thoroughly investigate all of these subsystems which affect the functioning of the elementary school system. Therefore, it becomes necessary to identify the most salient subsystems which influence or regulate the suprasystems' overall effectiveness. Hall and Fagan (1968) summarized the difficulty involved in resolv- ing this prob1em: To specify completely an environment one needs to know all factors that affect or are affected by a system, the problem is in general as difficult as the complete specification of the system itself. As in any scientific activity one includes in the universe of system and environment all those objects which he feels are most important, describe the interrelationships 12 cum .mcwgpo beeuwcmcm_m Fmawuzwem memsummh mucmvapm "com cowpmmwacu< ”new .EoumAmoum cm m< "Foocum agmucmempo one .w mcamwm .uuo .puwuoumau .pmwcmuwcumm meocuo Logbook .xgm—pwucmuum6w>cwm genoccweawm . .upm .ucmsnpsam pcmvaum mwwpanzm .mpmmgmumsuugouumz .upm .mnmnmcowpmpmg Pocowpm0wczeeou .chowmmmeoea .PacomgmagwucwuucowumscomcH 1“.--" . _ _ _ Amcowpwncou qucchocw>cm quwmxnmv mcwcpwsm Poocum "Emummmmgaam 13 as thoroughly as possible and pays closest attention to those attributes of most interest, neglecting those attributes which do not play essential ro1es. . . . It is no mean task to pick out the essential variables from the non-essential; that is, specification of the universal and subsequent dichotomy into system and environment in itself, apart from analysis of the interrelationship, a problem of fundamental complexity (p. 84). The study of any object system should take into account the rela- tionship to its suprasystem; that is, the larger system of which it is a part. Therefore, global analysis of the teacher object system must incorporate relationships with students, peers, administration, parents, secretarial and custodial staffs, professional organizations, community groups, etc. This task can also become too cumbersome an endeavor. Although all possible relationships within the system can assume sig- nificance, there are some relationships which affect outputs more pro- foundly than others. Despite the fact that a teacher's relationships with parents are important, their relationships with their principal carry added significance. It is assumed that this teacher-administrator relationship is the most critical interactiOn within the school, as a system. Specifically, this relationship is to be considered a major determinant in defining the level of satisfaction teachers ascribe to their role as vital elements within the system. Moreover, the degree in which teachers employ internal controls or influences to regulate this relationship (external control) is also assumed to be a critical determinant of the success or failure observed in the teacher-principal relationship and in attaining overall program goals (outputs) of the system. Brademeier and Stephenson (1962) conducted research which disclosed that action of one person in one status (teachers) is contingent upon 14 action of a person in another status (principal). In other words, there is an interdependent social relationship that is guided by the status of the participants in a system. Such interrelated statuses, Brademeier and Stephenson call a social system. Statuses and the rela- tionships of persons holding the status are the building blocks or constituent parts of a social system which determine its effectiveness. The Teacher-Principal Interface Considering its primary significance, the interface of the systems, teacher and principal, becomes the focal point of investigation (see Figure 9). Exchange (Flow)--Information, matter, service, etc. TEACHER PRINCIPAL Figure 9. The teacher-principal interface: A critical relationship in an elementary school. 15 The teacher-principal interface is defined as the juncture in which various commodities (flows) of the teacher-principal relationship are, or can be, exchanged. For the purposes of this research, the teacher-principal interface shall be limited to those events, situations, variables or conditions in which the principal and/or the teaching staff can exercise influence or bring resolution. At the teacher-principal interface,matter (materials, supplies, equipment), services (ancillary, custodial, secretarial) and information (for interpersonal, professional and communicational relationships) may be exchanged. These exchanges or "flows" occur under specific physical ‘ environmental conditions. Certain interface dimensions, such as interpersonal, professional and communicational re1ationships, may be perceived as having direct impact upon the interface, while variables such as services and physical environmental conditions may be considered as having indirect influence. It is assumed that in order to globally analyze the teacher-principal interface, both the direct and indirect factors must be considered. An additional aspect of the interface is introduced when considera- tion is given to whether or not the teachers (and principal) have acti- vated internal control factors in order to influence the nature of the exchanges. Optimal satisfaction is associated with interface exchanges that afford teachers, as well as principals, opportunities to regulate, influence or control external inputs; that is, through decision-making and management, so that maximum programmatic outputs can be achieved. It is this cooperatively functioning interface, one which combines 16 internal factors-~beliefs, attitudes, skills, perceptions, effort, etc.-- with external variables (for both the teacher and the principal), that is most satisfying and productive. Ultimately, the effects of the teacher-principal interface can be reflected in such measures as staff morale, job satisfaction and class- room performance. Obviously, attaining a suitably functioning interface is an arduous task. To prescribe a single delivery system would border on over- simplification. Several strategies may surface which attempt to enable teachers and principals to function independently, as well as in an interrelated manner. However, characteristic of most remedies is a need to communicate openly and regularly about the variety of situations or issues which facilitate positive perceptions of self within the job environment. Katz and Kahn (1966) illustrated the critical importance of infor- mation and meaning within a system: Communication, the exchange of information and the transmission of meaning, is the very essence of a social system or an organ- ization. The input of physical energy is dependent on infor- mation about it, and the input of human energy is made possible through communicative acts. Similarly, the transformation of energy (the accomplishment of work) depends upon communication between people in each organizational subsystem and upon com- munication between subsystems. The product exported carries meaning as it meets needs and wants, and its use is further influenced by the advertising or public relations material about it (pp. 223-224). Meaningful interface between a teacher and principal permits the educational system to flourish. The absence is devastating--conditions for learning, conditions for teaching and conditions for supervision degenerate. 17 Need for the Study In an educational system it is important that all elements (teachers, students, principal, parents, etc.) function cooperatively so that they may develop and maintain satisfying interrelationships. Comparably as important is the development and maintenance of satisfying attitudes or perceptions of the work environment, an influence of pro- fessional effectiveness. The engenderment of such positive perceptions is complex, but nonetheless, an attainable objective. At this juncture, within educational systems, there is minimal opportunity for self-assessment and self-disclosure. Typically, teachers are not afforded an appropriate forum to express their perceptions (internal) concerning the variety of external factors which help define the environment (suprasystem) in which they teach. Typically, teachers are not canvassed as to how the present educational work environment compares to optimal working conditions. Moreover, teachers and prin- cipals typically do not exchange information regarding methods in which the potential disparity in the level of satisfaction associated with the present and optimal working environment might become less pervasive. Structural or organizational constraints sometimes preclude prin- cipals from working with or relating to individual staff members. The number of staff, the size of the organization, personal commitments of both principals and teachers, community pressures, space and protocol (checking to see if a person is available, etc.) are all variables which tend to discourage individual communicational relationships. If oppor- tunities to relate on a one-to-one basis are stifled, then the need to 18 develop an assessment tool which yields individual information is corroborated. The acquisition of interface feedback is typically left to chance. Such information may provide the key ingredients so that teachers are able to perform with greater satisfaction and efficacy. For the most part, staff meetings, teacher evaluation sessions, conversations which occur in the teachers' lounge, school corridor, classroom or principal's office do not candidly address such issues as information, matter, services, physical environmental conditions, etc., which are critical to the teacher-principal interface. Nor would these activities be sufficient in generating the kind of information necessary for the analysis required to develop strategies for improving the vari- ous interface dimensions. Currently, many evaluation techniques exist which purport to measure attitudes, morale and general job satisfaction. Typically, these devices address a conglomerate of general environmental variables,. Activities which occur at the teacher-principal interface are dealt with in a cursory fashion. A more in-depth, comprehensive analysis is man- dated by the impact the interface has upon the rest of the educational system. In addition, most assessment instruments yield group or mean scores. Although this form of data is necessary for generating particular infer- ences about groups of teachers, it is not sufficient for identifying how individual teachers react to varying external variables. There is no such person as an ”average" teacher. Each teacher presents unique qualities and properties to the 1arger educational ecosystem. To infer 19 that all teachers'reactions to external factors are similar in)nature is a presumptuous conclusion. Because all teachers are not alike, there is a need to identify their individual differences. Therefore, just as teachers are asked to identify the strengths- weaknesses, likes-dislikes and satisfiers-dissatisfiers for each of their students, so too must principals "individualize" with their teaching staff. The attainment of this objective would be facilitated if prin- cipals abandon the utilization of techniques which tend to define teachers generically. It is assumed that principals will be able to obtain practical data if teachers' perceptions of the teacher-principal interface are treated individually. The transition from generalization to individualization is not an easy task. However, the use of a survey assessment instrument such as the one being developed in this study enhances the potential of obtain- ing information specific to an individual or a group. Learning more about individual teachers and a staff in general facilitates the identi- fication of recommendations for improving the teacher-principal interface and in the long run may enable principals to perceive each teacher as a unique system. Statement of Purpose The major purpose of this research is to develop an instrument which provides an assessment of factors which university personnel, teachers, principals and previous research describes as influencing morale or job satisfaction. However, the intent is not to develop a 20 measure which generates scores that are indicative of stagnant morale or job satisfaction status, within a dynamic system. Rather, the intent is to develop a communication instrument or vehicle which affords teachers the opportunity to express their perceptions of external vari- ables which purport to affect their level of job satisfaction or morale and ultimately affect their classroom performance. The evaluation device will focus upon teachers' perceptions of the interface they experience with their principal. Factors will be explored which relate to information, matter and service exchanges (flows), as well as to the physical environment and energy conditions in which the interface occurs. For example, teachers' perCeptions regarding degree of decision-making responsibility and influence over such areas as communication relationship (between teacher- principal and teacher-teacher), materials, instructional supplies, equip- ment, etc., as well as the principal's leadership behavior will be given careful scrutiny. The intended purpose of gathering such data is threefold: 1. to provide teachers an opportunity to reflect upon and respond to external control factors which purportedly affect job satisfaction and classroom performance. 2. to provide principals information about individual staff members and the ways in which they respond to external control factors. 3. to provide both teachers and principals a data-base from which numerous goals, objectives and strategies can be generated. The focus is upon the mutual development of 21 alternatives designed to enhance the teachereprincipal interface and the improvement of the effectiveness of the educational suprasystem in which they co-exist. In no sense is this research an attempt to develop a manual listing key ingredients necessary for the implementation of the optimal work environment. The intent is to identify certain situations toward which the mutual efforts of teachers and supervisors can be directed. Delimitation of the Study This research addresses itself to the various exchanges, i.e., information, matter, services, etc., which transpire when the system-- elementary school teacher interfaces the system--e1ementary school principal. At the foundation of this study is the development of an assessment instrument which affords teachers opportunities to express their per- ceptions (internal) of environmental factors (external) which purportedly affect the level of morale or job satisfaction. It is imfigrtant to note that those considerations which affect morale status that are typically channeled through professional teacher organizations in their negotia- tions with school board representatives have been omitted. The rationale for this exclusion is that issues such as salary, fringe benefits, due process, etc., mandate the services of persons from many levels of the organizational hierarchy. The reconciliation of such issues is not typically enacted by a decision made at the local level-- by individual teacher and his or her principal. Therefore, the intent is to direct attention to only those concerns which may attain 22 resolution through interaction between principal and teaching staff (teacher-principal interface). Further constraints are placed upon inferences drawn from the sur- vey results, by administering the assessment instrument to suburban and rural, mid-Michigan elementary school principals and their respective teaching staff in districts of 5,000 students or less. This procedure has been adopted due to the differing impacts rural, suburban, urban and inner city environments have upon the educational milieu. Ingemi (1957) and Ross (1960) provided further substantiation for including rural and suburban schools in a single study when they deter- mined that comparatively, rural and suburban teachers react similarly to factors affecting their morale status. Elementary schools will be selected as the basic unit of analysis due to the inherent structural differences in the organizational hier- archy of elementary and secondary schools (departmentalization, etc.). Overview of the Study In Chapter II a review of the literature is presented. Components of Chapter II include: Morale and Job Satisfaction: A Definition of Terms Morale and Job Satisfaction: Impact and Effect Upon Productivity Morale and Job Satisfaction: A Multitude of Considerations General Studies of Factors that Purport to Affect Morale and Job Satisfaction Perceptual Variance Among Teachers Regarding Factors Which Purport to Affect Morale and Job Satisfaction 23 Saliency of the Teacher-Principal Interface in Influencing Morale and Job Satisfaction Among Teachers Summary and Conclusion In Chapter III the overall research effort, including the design and development of the assessment instrument, is described and identi- fied as the Teacher-Principal Communication Instrument (TPCI). Chapter IV describes the results of the field test, provides implica- tions for further research and lists recommendations for future utiliza- tion. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Morale and Job Satisfaction: A Definitionlofolefims The field of education has been overwhelmed with a proliferation of articles dealing with morale, a term that was in virtual obscurity prior to World War I and which was addressed marginally until World War II. Educational literature has mirrored the rapidly increasing aware- ness of professional educators of the importance of staff morale in the development and maintenance of school functions. This interest has been generated by developments in the field of education, as well as those which have occurred in the business world. Research in industrial relations has facilitated focus upon morale and its effects upon organizations. The work of Roethlisberger, Dickson and Wright, in 1943, entitled Management and the Worker, illustrated that morale and productivity are inextricably bound. This relationship has been generalized to the field of education. Educational leadership assumed that there is a link between teacher morale and teacher efficacy. As far back as 1907, Frederick Burk, in "The Withered Heart of the Schools" suggested that high morale among teachers was a requirement for a functional educational system. At that juncture, the seed had been sown, which attempted to account for individual performance and 24 25 attitudinal differences among teachers as attributable to the level of morale or job satisfaction they experienced. In 1938, Burton indicated a conspicuous paucity of investigation in the area of educational morale as compared with research already con- ducted in industry. Burton's caution was deflected until Oppenheimer and Britton (1952) emphasized education was far behind the business world in the study of morale and its effect upon teachers. Perhaps the delay in studying morale among teachers can be asso- ciated with the problems of definition, operationalization and measure— ment. Researchers have since voided the gap by offering definitions which have facilitated dialogue about the subject which, in turn, has encouraged the development of assessment instruments. A careful survey of the literature revealed that attempts to iden- tify and estimate job-related satisfaction have preceded precise defini- tion. Employee satisfaction and morale are often equated but seldom defined. Morale is not a steady, pervasive entity. Morale fluctuates because it represents the dynamics of people, rather than the state of inanimate objects. Therefore, the term morale has always proved some- what elusive to define. It concerns the mental or emotional attitudes of teachers towards the components of their job. It takes into account the atmosphere or "climate" in which they work and their individual orientation towards their task. It is essentially a reflection of how one feels about things and is, therefore, a matter of subjective percep- tion. Hull and Kolstad (1942) corroborated the subjective posture by illustrating that definitions of morale lacked operationalization (p. 350): 26 Although the term 'employee morale' is widely used, it remains a more or less undefined concept whose meaning, usually, is simply taken for granted. Such definitions as have been offered are of little help to the psychologist in the con- struction of items designed to measure morale. Thus, it is necessary to proceed on the basis of subjective judgment. Morale has also been described by Leighton (1947) as the capacity of a group of people to become mobilized persistently and consistently in pursuit of a common goal. In their thirty-third yearbook (1955), entitled Staff Relations in School Administration, the American Association of School Administrators surfaced the critical need to study staff morale and identified the lack of techniques for surveying opinion of staff relations as a major research priority. In order to clearly delineate the notion of morale and to perpetuate precise research, the Association defined morale as a disposi- tion on the part of persons engaged in an enterprise to act in ways which contribute to the purpose for which the enterprise exists. Redefer (1959) supported the notion that morale, job satisfaction or perceptions and attitudes of the work environment do not lend them- selves to precise definition and that they exist as conglomerate concepts: Teachers' morale is a complex and complicated area for investigation. Morale cannot be succinctly defined and minutely measured. Operationally, morale consists of many interrelated factors whose effective weighting may differ with the individual and the situation (p. 59). Franks (1963) attempted to operationalize morale in an educational environment by providing the following definition: [Morale] is a predisposition of the school principal and teachers to put forth extra effort in achieving school goals because of their commitments to the goals, their sense of belongingness, the perceived rationality of their role- expectations and their freedom from restraint in actions directed toward these goals (p. 21). 27 Coverdale (1973) opted to circumvent the problem of specifically defining the concept of morale. He generated the following implications and associations of the term: Clearly, morale implies some human quality which prompts a person to produce at maximum output and without which he cannot perform at his best. It is associated with a forward-looking, healthy and confident state of mind and includes such attri- butes as persistence, enthusiasm, zeal and pride. It can usually be increased by favorably modifying any condition that will increase job-satisfaction. There is a clear relationship between teacher morale and pupil achievement (p. 32). Moreover, Coverdale offered a descriptive model of morale as a group phenomenon (pp. 31, 32): Morale is expressed by: (i) tenacious persistence and energy in enduring and attempting to overcome difficulty and frustration; (ii) enthusiasm and zealous striving in pursuit of the school's objectives; (iii) group cohesion and cooperative functioning of the teachers who comprise the staff of a school. Features of low morale are: (i) a tendency to elevate personal interests above the purpose of the enterprise; . (ii) failure to derive personal satisfaction from group achieve- ment; (iii) behavior that is obstructive and non-contributory to the common purpose. As a working approach for this research, it was assumed that job satisfaction and morale can be inferred from the individual's attitude or perceptions of his or her work environment. In addition, morale and job satisfaction are assumed to be equivalent terms and, therefore, shall be treated in an interchangeable manner. 28 Research conducted by Blocker and Richardson in 1963 provided a rationale for integrating morale and job satisfaction: Some of the earliest research done in the field dealt with what was tentatively identified as job satisfaction. Many writers use this term interchangeably with morale. The difference between the two, if any, would appear to be in the more encompassing nature of job satisfaction, whereas morale tends to concern itself more specifically with per- sonnel practices. Any division of studies into these two categories is bound to be arbitrary and to contain a con- siderable amount of overlapping (p. 200). Conditions of the work environment and organizational climate shall also be identified as having numerable overlapping connotations to be used separately. Through the utilization of assessment instruments based on these definitions or definitions much like them, researchers have identified a number of factors which relate to teacher morale. As a result, educa- tional leaders have access to an increasing broader range of reliable information upon which to base activities designed to improve morale. Morale and Job Satisfaction: Impact and Effect Upon Productivity Robinson and Connors (1962) conducted research which illustrated the magnitude of the morale problem in education: In three studies which dealt statistically with the percentage of workers judged to be dissatisfied with their jobs, ten per- centages were reported. These studies, related to the others reported in the past twenty-seven years, yield 427 percentages ranging from one to ninety-two per cent, with a median of thirteen per cent dissatisfied. The median has fluctuated between twelve and thirteen per cent dissatisfied for the past nine years (p. 241). With approximately one-eighth of the working force dissatisfied With their jobs, it is safe to hypothesize that administrators in every 29 school in America, at one time or another, have faced the problem of diminished teacher morale or job satisfaction. Considering the ubiquitious nature of the morale problem, it is important to note how perceived morale,or the lack thereof,has affected and will continue to affect educational institutions. Hersey (1936) embarked upon a novel approach to study job satisfac- tion and morale. He built his study upon the premise that job attitudes varied for each individual from one period to another. One of his research efforts illustrated the cyclical nature of job satisfaction was related to the frequency of job-related accidents. Evidence has been provided not only to show that people can identify job-related mood swings and report them, but that these vissisitudes can be linked with specific environmental factors--in this case the occurrence of accidents. It was also reported that perceptions of job-related activities were related to one's measure of work effectiveness. Low moods (job dis- satisfaction) were linked with poor productivity, while higher level moods were associated with accelerated production. Redefer (1959) affirmed the saliency of teachers' perceptions of the work environment and the overall impact upon the educational process when he raised the following question and then proceeded to provide a response to his own question: Why are teachers soimportant to the successful administration of a school system? Teachers are important because they are the professional workers in a school system who determine the quality and quantity of the educational program (p. 59). Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman (1959) disclosed an important find- ing concerning the effects of morale and job satisfaction on performance. 30 According to the people they interviewed, job attitudes exercised an extremely important influencelover the manner in which the job was per- formed. In over sixty per cent of the cases an effect on performance was observed in the anticipated direction; that is, improved performance was related to improved job attitudes and decelerated outputs were related to negative job perceptions. The conclusion which eminated from their research was that there was a direct relationship between job attitudes and output or productivity. There is further evidence that when high morale exists, that is when conditions of employment are favorable, productivity increases. An investigation by Koura (1963) compared teacher morale and student achievement. Results confirmed when teachers experienced high morale, student achievement accelerated and, conversely, when low morale was observed, student performances decreased. Additional corroboration of the direct relationship of teacher morale upon student achievement has been provided by a report compiled by Blocker and Richardson (1963): Teachers in secondary schools showing relatively high student achievement appear to have higher morale than teachers in schools of relatively low student achievement . . . this study is of interest because it represents an attempt to objectively demonstrate that high teacher morale is good for schools, an assumption upon which all morale research rests (p. 203). Von Burg (1963) assumed a posture similar to that of Ellenberg (1972), when he supported the contention that effects of morale have exhibited the distinct capability of enhancing and/or deteriorating the effectiveness of the total educational program for a school. He des- cribed this phenomenon as one that can be and has been easily overlooked. 31 Ellenberg (1972) provided support to the notion that the effects of morale and level of job satisfaction are factors which ecologically affect the functioning of the school system: Morale affects more than just productivity or student achieve- ment. It assists in establishing the character of a school. It is one of the factors which may determine whether a school functions at its best, demanding and receiving the utmost from its students, or whether the school plods along happy, just to see the passing of another day (p. 37). Coverdale (1973) stated that it is not necessary to identify "copious" figures to emphasize the morale crisis. Rather, he presented information which assists in lending clarity to what he called the "dedication and motivation" issue: [I]t is obvious that for every teacher who resigns, there are undoubtedly many of his colleagues who remain disconsolately in their classrooms in a mood of depression, discontent and possibly even despair (p. 32). Of particular importance are the implications derived from this point. Suggested and reinforced are those concepts alluded to in the research regarding turnover and absenteeism behaviors explored by Talacchi (1960), Robinson and Connors (1962) and Nelson and Thompson (1963). However, most teachers have not been disaccommodated sufficiently by a lackluster environment to leave their positions. Rather, they have remained in classrooms in a state of malcontent. It is most certain that those who "remain disconsolately in their classrooms" have not been and will not be able to perform to their maximum potential, unless Provisions are implemented to identify and ameliorate the sources of their dissatisfaction. It becomes apparent that potential rewards derived from a study of Job satisfaction and morale would be more harmonious working relationships 32 and accelerated productivity. In terms of individual teachers and principals, the implication is that a clearer understanding of the forces that lend to improved morale would facilitate better interpersonal relationships and greater self-realization. Morale and Job Satisfaction: A Multitude 6f Considerations Researchers have suggested that no single variable accounts totally for the presence or absence of staff morale. Rather, morale is a multi- dimensional concept. In one of the most well-regarded research investigations, Robert Hoppock (1935) administered four attitude scales to 500 teachers. His results indicated a determination of items which discriminate teachers who have high morale or job satisfaction scores from those who do not. Typically, satisfied teachers enjoyed better relationships with super- visors and fellow teachers and exhibited less evidence of emotional maladjustment. Hoppock's effort provided a foundation upon which many morale research studies have been based. McCluskey and Strayer (1940) perpetuated Hoppock's investigation. They employed what currently might be considered as an ecological assess- ment strategy; that is, incorporated in their study were all major aspects of a teacher's environment. Their contribution to the field, and to this study in particular, is that they have reinforced the notion that there are numerous factors or determinants of morale or job satis- faction which must be addressed in any systemic treatment. It is necessary to identify single variables which significantly affect one's 33 perceptions or attitudes regarding the work environment, but it is not sufficient to embark upon comprehensive study of morale utilizing that . single variable. Garrison (1945) corroborated the findings of McCluskey and Strayer (1940) when he concluded that nearly every aspect of the teacher's environment is involved in adjustment to the job situation. Once again in 1948, the notion of the complex nature of the etiology of morale was reinforced by Hand: That salary is undoubtedly the most crucial factor in teacher morale, I have little doubt. A public that desires a decently adequate education for its children must remedy this situation, and that very quickly. But salary considerations by no means constitute the sole ingredient of high teacher morale; and since so many of these other components lie largely if not entirely within the control of the profession itself, it is important that they be identified (p. 279). Redefer (1959) emphasized the ineptitude associated with addressing staff morale in a simplistic, cursory and chance-like manner: Many administrators play teacher morale by ear, but even those with developed hearing are surprised by what they do not hear. Principals cannot rely completely on what they think is hap- pening among their staff members (p. 59). Perhaps, the phenomenon described by Redefer is in part, due to a failure to provide a comprehensive identification of those variables purported to affect morale. If uncertainty permeates administrative minds in terms of what influences morale, then perhaps it is understand- able why morale is dealt with in an intuitive manner. Two research teams, Robinson and Connors (1962) and Blocker and Richardson (1963), respectively, provided additional support of the conglomerate perspective of morale and job satisfaction: 34 As far back as 1935, however, in his book Job Satisfaction, Hoppock pointed out that job satisfaction may not even exiSt as an independent variable. Today Aikenhead reflects a similar view and also emphasizes a present type of analysis by stating that work satisfaction may not exist as an inde- pendent variable, but as a cluster of factors (p. 241). Studies which emphasize a single factor, such as salary, as being the major determinant of morale do the field a dis- service. Most of these studies are rather naively designed and are of little value. Job satisfaction studies have already indicated rather conclusively that morale is the result of many interrelated factors (p. 202). One may conclude from the research cited heretofore that it is essen- tial to have information at one's disposal, identifying those factors which purportedly affect the level of morale or job satisfaction in order to develop precise measurement instruments and to prescribe appro- priate alternative management strategies. However, at this juncture, limited data have been presented and, consequently, several questions remain unanswered: 1. What are those factors which purportedly affect the attitudes and perceptions associated with morale and job satisfaction? Is there concensus relative to the identification of factors which purport to affect morale and job satisfaction? Do the identified factors affect employees similarly, or do they have a differing impact? Does the literature support the contention that there is agreement relative to the importance of those identified factors in affecting morale and job satisfaction or are some factors more salient than others? 35 Knowledge of the identification of these key ingredients is afforded by the wealth of research effort in morale and job satisfaction which shall be representatively addressed in the remainder of this chapter. General Studies of Factors That Purport to Affect Morale and Job Satisfaction Perhaps, the earliest comprehensive treatment of morale is contained in Morale for a Free World, published by the American Association of School Administrators in 1944, as their twenty-second yearbook. The focus of this document was essentially dichotomous. First, it provided a review of early literature in the field of morale research and secondly, it reflected vital interest in morale by a large segment of educational leaders who emphasized its saliency in time of war, as well as in peace- time. Hand (1948) studied teacher morale among 400 mid-western teachers. Those teachers identified as having high morale status experienced a sense of belonging within their respective schools. Those dissatisfied perceived themselves as isolates. Being sufficiently consulted regarding school policies; relationship with their immediate supervisor; being able to employ teaching methods and materials one deemed most fruitful; equitability of total workload; adequate preparation time; and being obliged to spend their own money for teaching materials; were critical determiners of the level of job satisfaction teachers experienced. Shilland (1949) distributed a questionnaire checklist consisting of thirty items to 429 teachers. The following factors were identified as most important in terms of staff morale (listed in order of importance): 1. 2. 3. 4. 36 adequate equipment and supplies receive courteous and considerate treatment from supervisors having desirable working conditions working with helpful and cooperative administrators. James Worthy in the Harvard Business Review (1950) explored the implications of organizational structure upon the attitudes of various employees. tUY‘ES o Contrasted were formal and informal organizational struc- The following summarizes the researcher's observations regarding organizational structure and morale: 1. The informal organizational structure is more advantageous than a complex, formal structure, because it affords and reinforces face-to-face relationships and manages to keep impersonal, institutional relationships to a minimum. The informal structure provides flexibility, utilizes maximum human resources and requires the exercise of personal judgment and initiative. Morale is contingent upon the effectiveness of the organi- zational structure. Neither is high morale a result of being nice to people, nor is it something that occurs at the expense of good operating results. The same policies, attitudes and practice that account for good operating results and produce high levels of morale among employees. Sound organization and knowledgeable leadership produce good morale and good results. The two are not considered mutually exclusive. 37 Braem (1950) determined: freedom to teach, as opposed to a restrictive administrative policy regarding methods; fair policies, and a democratic administration which support teachers; as the most important factors influencing the level of morale and job satisfaction among teachers. In "Conditions that Lower Teachers Morale," Hedlund and Brown (1951) reported research in which survey-questionnaires were mailed to 3,000 teachers. On the basis of approximately one-third of the returns, several factors were identified to be critical determinants in “turn-over“ behav- ior. Among these were salary, infrequent advancement, large classes and unsatisfactory support. The most salient factors reported were placed upon the role of the administrator in determining or influencing morale-- administrative conditions and administrative support. F. 5. Chase conducted a study which appeared in Phi Delta Kappan, in 1951, which has been frequently cited in teacher morale research. Chase developed a questionnaire containing items relating to eleven factors concerning teaching. Two hundred school systems were sampled_ W1 forty-three states. Results indicated that the following factors SiSJnificantly contributed to the level of morale and job satisfaction among teachers: 10 freedom to plan their own work 2. quality of professional leadership and supervision 3. opportunities to participate regularly and actively in educational planning and policy making 4. working conditions, such as teaching load, school plant, equipment and supplies. 38 In 1956, Monford reported that: helpful, cooperative, understanding principals and supervisors; the freedom allowed teachers to plan and teach as they think best; and good human relations among teachers within a school; were the factors named by teachers to be most influential in their work. Analysis of Monford's data illustrated that elementary school teachers were hindered most in their work by an excessive amount of clerical work and a lack of time away from pupils during the school day. Knox (1956) embarked upon a study in which he attempted to relate sixty-five varying aspects of the teacher's environment with teaching effectiveness. He discovered a positive relationship between teacher efficiency and the composition of the community in which he or she taught. This finding can be considered tenuous if one considers that the instru- ment utilized attempted to assess everything from the language used by the community to teacherS' feelings about the philosophy of the super- intendent and the bus schedules. The Knox study has been included in the literature review to illustrate an important caution which should be addressed in morale research. Just as the total environment must be considered in identify- ing variables which affect perception of the work environment, so too must a global perspective of the employee be assumed. Activities, inter- actions and perceptions of the complete person within the total milieu influences and accounts for the level of job satisfaction and morale one EXperiences. Therefore, attempts to define, limit and measure such a condition should consider a variety of internal and externaI'factors while circumventing those variables deemed irrelevant. Unfortunately, Knox was victimized by this unheeded caution. 39 Although his study focused upon job satisfaction in an industrial setting, Walkers' (1959) conclusions can be generalized to job satisfac- tion in educational environments. He determined that complete automa- tion and a close relationship to the end product tended to raise the level of job satisfaction, and that of job performance, too. He observed that workers initially reacted to assembly-line work with dissatisfaction. Gradually, negative perceptions were subsumed by those related to job satisfaction. Inability to control the work situation was of paramount concern to the workers. As the workers were provided opportunities to utilize other skills of judgment, rather than manual skills, job satis- faction accelerated. Manipulation, influence or regulation of the work environment coupled with the facility to perceive the whole or complete product bear direct relationship upon job satisfaction. Employees need to utilize their perceptions, skills and judgments, as well as their manual skills in order to achieve an appropriate level of satisfaction with an identified task. Also inferred is the need to place one's work inputs in juxtaposition with the final product, as an output. Redefer (1959) conducted a study in twenty-four school systems involving over 5,000 teachers which paralleled the research of McCluskey and Strayer (1940). Morale Tendency Scores based upon the number of positive attitude responses to the items yielded the following generali- zations (p. 59): l. The morale of teaching faculties is closely related to the quality of education in individual schools. 2. The morale score of teachers has a significant correlation with the rating, by administrators, of superiority in teaching. 4O 3. Marital status, sex or age are not the determining factors of morale status. 4. While elementary school faculties seem to have higher morale than junior or senior high school faculties, the level of education is not the detennining factor. 5. Salary or salary schedules, while important, do not deter- mine the morale status of the individual teacher or the faculty group. 6. Secondary schools are structured in personnel patterns that differ from the elementary school and this has impli- cations in morale status. 7. The socio-economic status of the school community does not determine the morale status of the faculty. 8. "Problem" schools do not necessarily cause low faculty morale. Additionally, Redefer identified teaching assignments (suited to the interests and abilities of individual teachers), report deadlines and clerical duties, and professional activities and conferences as areas which affected job satisfaction status. In 1959, Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman in the Motivation to Work investigated job attitudes, in toto, a study in which factors, attitudes and effects would be treated simultaneously. The major hypothesis was that factors leading to positive attitudes and those leading to negative attitudes would differ. The researchers embarked upon a study of job satisfaction to deter- mine whether "personpower" was being utilized completely. They also addressed the notion of internal-external control factors when they identified accountability, increased efficiency and productivity as external forces, while on the other hand there was such internal consid- erations as an individual's perceptions, attitudes and needs. 41 Results indicated that job satisfaction was identified with five salient factors which focus upon the job itself (p. 63): l. on doing the job on liking the job on success in doing the job on recognition for doing the job, and 01 45 CA) N o o o . on moving upward as an indicator of professional growth. Dissatisfaction seemed most closely related to company policy, administration, supervision in terms of technical and interpersonal matters and working conditions. In this study, job attitudes did seem related to stability, adjustment and productivity of the workers involved. The researchers concluded that satisfiers relate to the actual job, while those factors which do not act as satisfiers describe the job situation: The factors that are rarely instrumental in bringing about high job attitudes focus not on the job itself but rather on the characteristics of the contexts in which the job is done; working conditions, interpersonal relationships, supervision, company policies; administration of these policies; effects on the worker's personal life, job security and salary (p. 63). Antoinette Miller (1959) has alluded to the notion that the mental health of teachers is related to job satisfaction. She determined that recognition of a teacher's achievements was crucial in the development of a teacher's self-perception, as well as in the development of one's job attitude. She also identified that a physical plant which is more conducive to teaching will provide teachers with a morale "boost." Gurin, Veroff and Feld (1960) studied employee mental health in non-educational systems. Results have had implication for the study 42 of morale in educational milieus. The researchers revealed that feelings of inadequacy among the employed were directly related to job dissatis- faction. Those employed who exhibited a higher degree of job satisfac- tion typically experienced positive self-perceptions and sought out intrinsic job factors to express themselves, rather than those employees whose self-perceptions were less rewarding, and who focused upon the materialistic or the extrinsic factors related to the job. The field of mental health and job satisfaction was also explored by Byrd, in 1960. His target population was teachers. He concluded that job satisfaction, freedom and independence, sense of accomplishment, recognition by others, self-esteem and acceptance of rules of conduct as being critically important to the emotional well-being of teachers. His conclusions implied that mental health and job satisfaction are inextricably bound. In a study of ninety-three industrial organizations, Talacchi (1960) discovered no significant relationship between level of job satisfaction and turnover rate. He did find a negative relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism. Perhaps, this phenomenon might be explained in terms of Harry Stack Sullivan's Accommodation Theory (1953). People have a propensity to seek physically and psychological balance. Remaining in one's physical environment; that is, maintaining one's job, living accommodations, etc., provides stability. Therefore, people tend not to change. Disruption of stability can only occur if substantial disaccommodating events transpire in one's ecosystem. If, in fact, events in one's job, social or personal lives become sufficiently dissatisfying, one may be provided cause to "drop out“ from those 43 activities from which the discomfort has emerged. Perhaps, when those events are seriously enough disturbing, employees will quit. Typically, most situations do not escalate to suchproportions. Most employees do not perceive the work environment as so disaccommodating that they are driven to resign. Talacchi reinforced this hypothesis and defined a far-reaching consequence of low morale, when he concluded that dis- satisfied persons do not quit their jobs but find a minimum performance on the job that they can "get away with." Strickland (1962) identified ten factors which had a tendency to elevate teacher morale and ten factors which had a tendency to lower teacher morale, as enumerated in Table 1. Table l Morale Regulating Factors Factors Which Tend to Factors Which Tend to Raise Morale (Satisfiers) Lower Morale (Dissatisfiers) 1. cooperative colleagues who 1. lack of time away from pupils share ideas and materials during the school day 2. cooperative principal 2 clerical duties 3. cooperative, appreciative 3. uncooperative principal parents . . 4. inadequate school plant 4° figfiguate SUPPAIeS and equip- 5. uncooperative colleagues 5. freedom in classroom teaching 6' EXCESSIVE teaching load 6. cooperative pupils 7' salary 7. adequate school plant 8. Eggggggrative, uninterested 8. pupils interested in class- . . . . room activities 9. poor pupil discipline . lO. inadequate supplies and 9. helpful superVisor equipment 10. well-organized school (formu- lated policies) 44 Contrary to the findings of Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman (1959), Strickland concluded that factors which tend to satisfy and those which tend to dissatisfy were not distributed in mutually exclu- sive categories. Rather, some satisfiers surfaced as diSsatisfiers, while some dissatisfiers emerged as satisfiers. Why teachers quit the profession was examined by Nelson and Thomp- son (1963). Out of seventeen reasons given, the one most cited was salary; however, other important factors were teaching loads, inadequate supervision, poor assignment as first-year teachers, discipline problems, pressure groups, marriage and inadequate preparation in the subject field. Despite the lack of consensus among investigators, some meaningful implications can be made regarding "leaving" and "remaining" behaviors: 1. Several factors incite "leaving" behaviors. 2. What causes one person to leave his or her job might not be sufficient cause for another person. 3. Typically, dissatisfied persons--that is, those who exper- ience low morale levels--have a propensity to seek a minimum (ineffective) job performance level. 4. Those persons who are not sufficiently disaccommodated to leave their position contribute, by non-performance, to a dysfunctional state of the system. Thomas Franks (1963) concluded that teacher morale is related to: the age of the teacher; the age differential of the teacher and the principal; the number of years of teaching experience with the present principal; the extent to which there is consonance between the 45 principal's social value structure and that of the teacher; and perceptions of the morale level of their colleagues. This research and that of Redefer (1959) are in direct opposition with regard to the relationship of an age factor to general morale. In 1963, Halpin and Crofts made a significant contribution to the study of morale, job satisfaction and organizational climate, when they introduced a method of quantifiably assessing school climate. They developed an instrument called the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (0CDQ) through a series of factor analytic exercises. The tests included sixty-four items in eight subtests. Four subtests addressed salient characteristics of group behavior (faculty), while the remaining four subtests queried the leadership qualities of the principal. Four dimensions which characterize the four principal subtests are summarized as follows: 1. Aloofness refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized as formal and impersonal. For example, the principal prefers to be guided by rules and policies rather than to deal with the teachers in an informal, face-to-face situation. 2. Production Emphasis refers to a principal's behavior, which is characterized by close supervision of the staff. The principal is highly directive and plays the role of a "straw boss." Communication tends to be unidirectional; consequently, the principal is not sensitive to feedback from the staff. 46 3. Thrust-behavior is characterized not by close supervision, but by the principal's attempt to motivate the teachers through a modeling modus operandus--the example which he or she personally sets. Teachers are not requested to do anything more than the principal is willing to do. The principal's behavior is essentially task-oriented, but nonetheless viewed favorably by the teachers. 4. Consideration refers to behavior by the principal which, is characterized by a propensity to relate to and treat teachers in a humanistic fashion. The principal would be inclined to expend greater energy to provide for his or her staff in terms of their human needs. Sergiovanni (1967) undertook a study similar to that of Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman (1959) to determine whether or not factors identi- fied by teachers would be categorized dichotomously, those producing satisfaction and those engendering dissatisfaction. This study provided additional substantiation to the Herzberg et al. Two Factor Theory, that is for the hypothesis that satisfiers and dis- satisfiers tend to be mutually exclusive. It was also determined that factors which accounted for high attitudes of teachers were related to the work itself and factors which accounted for low attitudes of teachers were related to the conditions or environment of work. Satisfiers encompassed achievement, recognition and responsibility, however, low attitude judgments, identified factors which were not in themselves work-centered, rather, they focused on the conditions and people which surround the actual work. 47 The implications of the findings of this study suggested that the current emphasis on "teacher-centered" behavior (supportive supervision, interpersonal relations, effective communications and group effectiveness) is an important prescription for effective administrative behavior. The teacher-centered approach, however, is not an all-inclusive behavior. It is constrained in that it tends to focus upon the reduction of dis- satisfiers, which is not directly related to the perpetuation of factors identified as satisfiers. In I'Job (Dis) Satisfaction," Kenneke (1969) solicited the responses of 433 teachers regarding a job satisfaction questionnaire he developed in 1967. Rather than employ the Two Factor Model developed by Herzberg et a1.(l959), this study utilized teachers' reactions to the factors considered satisfiers, as well as dissatisfiers (as did Strickland, 1962). The specific breakdown of how the teachers responded to eight general factors which the researcher considered as major determinants of job satisfaction is represented in Table 2 . The researcher concluded that teachers are in significant agreement regarding major factors and specific aspects affecting job satisfactions and dissatisfactions. Kenneke (1970) amplified the research he conducted in 1969 and con- cluded that educational procedures and policies regarding pupil personnel problems were primary considerations in determining job satisfaction. Additional characteristics were given as (in order of importance): 1. adequacy of personnel 2. adequacy of instructional equipment 3. materials 48 Table 2 Ranked Sources of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction Ranked Importance Ranked Importance Factor as a Source of as a Source of Satisfaction Dissatisfaction Teaching conditions 1 2 Teacher-student interactions 2 4 Faculty relationships 3 6 Intrinsic aspects 4 7 Immediate supervisor 5 8 Administration 6 3 Economic considerations 7 1 Community aspects 8 5 . time to plan . time to prepare . time to teach NOSU‘l-h . salaries Natzke and Bennett (1970) explored a factor which might not be immediately associated with morale; that is, teacher aide utilization. Their findings suggested that (p. 314): l. [T]he presence of aides may have a substantial impact on the career satisfaction of teachers. Indeed, the evidence suggests that . . . teachers with aides are considerably higher in career satisfaction than either their counter- parts . . . who are without the benefit of such services . . . 49 2. It appears that teacher aides have a distinct influence on teacher role satisfaction in matters of career satis- faction and morale . . . 3. [T]herefore, teachers with aides were found to be higher in both career satisfaction and job morale than the other two teacher groups which did not have aides. Tirpak (1970), like Worthy (1950), presented research findings which indicated how organizational structure affected job satisfaction among teachers and offered some timely advice to principals: [S]chools with an open climate have teachers with high satisfaction and that, conversely, schools with a closed climate have teachers with low satisfaction. Therefore, comparing one's own personality traits with those traits confirmed by research to belong to principals of closed or open climate schools can reveal the effect your person- ality may be having on your school's climate and, therefore, on the satisfaction of your teachers (p. 117). Graeme Fraser (1970) attempted to arrive at and measure an array of underlying organizational variables of schools. His rationale for pursuit of such an endeavor rested upon a basic assumption; that is, some of the studies in teacher morale have been based upon the notion that morale is affected by numerous problems teachers have encountered in school. Included are such factors as class composition, overloading the teacher with extra-curricular duties, etc. The departure Fraser considered was that the set of conditions under which teachers work was another plausible source of morale. He had concluded that the properties of schools (physi- cal plant, equipment, etc.) have not been sufficiently explored as morale influencing factors. Ellenberg (1972) identified general factors which purportedly affect the level of morale among teachers. They consisted of: . . achievement, interpersonal relations, recognition, work itself and responsibility. Four factors--policy and adminis- tration, working conditions, status and personal life--showed 50 statistical relationship to teacher dissatisfaction. It is worthy of note that salary was one of the five factors which did not show statistical relation to either satisfaction or dissatisfaction of teachers with their jobs (p. 40). The author provided additional specificity, while supporting the notion that teacher morale and job satisfaction are associated with a diversity of environmental factors such as: 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. the administrator's understanding and appreciation of the teacher as an individual, the confidence the teacher has in the administrator's professional competence, the support the teacher receives from the administration regarding discipline problems, teacher participation in the formulation of policies that affect them, adequate facilities and equipment, adequate teachihg supplies, teaching assignments which are commensurate with training, fair and equitable distribution of extra-curricular assignments, professional training provided through the inservice program, job security, an adequate policy for leaves of absence, a Eair and equitable distribution of the teaching load, an salaries that are comparable with professions requiring equal training (1972, p. 41). Coverdale (1973) conducted research in which teachers were requested to rank thirty-eight problems repeatedly raised as affecting their morale. The author identified the following sources as exercising 51 influence over teacher morale--class size, curriculum, system of transfer, promotion system, supervision and community support. The following observation summarizes the results of his study: It is interesting to note that salary came twentieth in the ranking. It was quite obvious that the teachers' main con- cern was with conditions of service and that this transcended all other considerations (1972, p. 33). Anthony Gregorc and David Hendrix (1973) raised some highly vola- tile issues in their article, "Are Turned-Off Teachers Turning Off Your Schools?" The authors noted that there is an increasing number of students that are turning off schools; that is, they are unmotivated. The search for remedies for this situation has turned up empty handed. Despite attempts to improve schools through the acquisition of better materials and technology and more efficient management, the problem still remains. It has been clearly demonstrated that attempts in find- ing answers have omitted a critical part of the school system--the teacher. It was hypothesized that at the base of the student "turn-off" problem were teachers who were also "turned-off." The researchers concluded that schools have failed to provide teachers with what Herzberg et a1. (1959) described as hygienic (so named because they have to do with the environment of the work, such as salary, supervision, job security, etc.) and motivational factors: We do not offer personal recognition to our teachers except at PTA meetings or retirement banquets. We do not encourage them to share professional ideas because we insist that they have continual contact with children, and we fail to provide travel funds for visiting other educators. We fully regulate "their profession" by governing their certification and training requirements, work hours, benefit plans and, in some towns, their personal habits, such as smoking, drinking and dating. 52 All teachers, whether beginners or veterans, have the same teaching responsibilities. A good teacher who wishes to remain in the classroom and not advance in status or respon- sibility; promotion requires movement out of the classroom into administration or counseling. Lastly, we pay every teacher with a certain number of years of experience and a master's degree the same as every other teacher with the same years of experience and training, regardless of the results in the classroom. Next year each teacher gets an equal across-the-board raise. And, with the exception of occasional cost-of-living increases, the teacher who has reached the top of our salary schedule ceases to get raises (p. 33). The result has been that many teachers have become "turned-off" themselves. Teachers have been concerned with hygienic factors such as salaries, fringe benefits, grievance procedures and tenure. Motiva- tional factors must be identified and provisions must be made for their expression. The notion surfaced by Worthy (1950) and Tirpak (1970) that both structural and compositional properties of schools have been directly related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment has been supported by Helen Marie Evans in Man the Designer (1973). She stated that: Knowledge of materials and design is essential if one is to realize practical and aesthetic satisfaction in daily living. The consumer who has no visual training is less than what he potentially can be. . . . He can realize himself through selecting objects that reflect his particular responses to life: his emotions, intellectual propensities and aesthetic inclinations (p. 3). ' The studies summarized in this section leave many questions regard- ing teacher morale and job satisfaction unanswered: 1. What is the basis for the variability in research findings? 2. Why is it that some schools experience higher levels of teacher morale and job satisfaction than do others? 53 3. What is the basis for widespread individual differences? Is it a matter of communication, the channels of communi- cation or is it some other factor(s)? Despite this lack of closure, the value of the previously cited studies should not be minimized. A multitude of factors have been identified which contribute either to the building or the breakdown of morale and job satisfaction among teachers and, in doing so, have pro- vided a basic framework upon which one might commence further exploration. _ Perceptual Variance Amon Teachers Re ardin 7 Factors WhiCh Purport to Affect *Morale and Job Satisfaction In studies of factors relating to or perceptions of factors which relate to job satisfaction, it is important to emphasize that each com- munity, school and teacher is unique and not necessarily comparable factor-by-factor. The following research has been cited to illustrate the presence and importance of considering individual differences when analyzing morale and job satisfaction. Herzberg (1957), in his review of research and opinion in several thousand articles, studies and books, corroborated this observation: Generalizations from these findings to groups of different and specific characteristics should be made with caution. Apparent differences in the results may well be accounted for in terms of the (focus) method of measurement used in specific studies (p. 279). Redefer (1959) noted a factor-by-factor study of each school's response revealed differences, sometimes widespread. Average scores calculated for a specific school were varied. Within each school there 54 was witnessed additional variability among teachers' perceptions. Therefore, not only have different school populations reacted dissimil- arly, so too have individual teachers within those schools. Ostensibly, much caution must be exercised when attempting to deal with teachers in a collective manner. Variable scores on job satisfac- tion measures have been observed by most researchers. Differences have been witnessed from school building to building, from class level to level and in comparing public and private educational institutions. McLaughlin and Shea (1960) gathered job dissatisfaction data from teachers in elementary and secondary schools. Although both groups of teachers agreed that clerical work, salary and student attitudes were major sources of dissatisfaction, several disparities were observed. For example, elementary teachers ascribed more significance to super- visory duties, extra-curricular school functions, equipment and supplies; while secondary teachers identified class enrollment, discipline policies and teacher-administrator relationship as being most salient in contrib- uting to job dissatisfaction. The National Education Association (1969) explored the following question: 00 teachers generally agree on the working conditions that give them satisfaction or do groups of teachers have divergent views? (p. 6) To investigate this problem, the NEA Research Division analyzed the effects of personal variables on job satisfaction as part of the valida- tion process for an instrument developed in the area of job satisfaction. The researchers observed that: 55 People in most other occupations seem to share job-related interests and, in general, look for the same kinds of working conditions that give them satisfaction in doing their jobs. Teachers, as a group, however, do not seem to have as many common primary interests, mostly because of the different levels at which they teach and the different subjects they teacher; e.g., elementary-school teachers may want special subject helping teachers, and science teachers may want more time to devote to setting up demonstrations. . . . This diversity among teachers may be a strength for the profession, but it makes analysis and prediction of teacher satisfaction with working conditions more difficult (p. 6). The results of this research confirmed the notion that individual factors were critical in determining level of job satisfaction: Although teachers as an occupational category have much in common, there are many differences among the various groups that make up the profession. Age, sex and teaching level all have an important influence on how the teacher views his job. Consideration of these factors is essential for estab- lishing and maintaining a desirable working climate (p. 7). N West (1972) presented the notion that individualized treatment for teachers has been violated: By operating on the assumption that all teachers are alike in needs, abilities and aspirations, the school has inad- vertently sanctioned an organizational farce. That teachers are massively and indiscriminately lumped together is easily corroborated by a perfunctory examination of a single salary schedule, which not only fails to provide for a differentiation and delegation of responsibilities, but also recognized competence and creativity as a natural outgrowth of coursework accumulation and years of experience. Viewed from this perspective, a teacher is, at best, a carbon copy of his colleagues. The individuality he possesses is submerged within the context of the group. Furthermore, these rather abusive inequities are guaranteed, as it were, by an outmoded tenure system that casts a lock-step mold for third and fourth year look-alikes (p. 249). Friesen (1972) conducted a study which pointed to some meaningful externalities for the administrator, as he or she attempts to address individual differences in teachers' perceptions of their work environ- ment. 56 [M]embers at different levels may view the climate of the organization in different ways. For the administrator the key question may be that of deciding for whom openness is attained or for that matter for whom specific aspects have been satisfied or have been blocked (p. 99). Further insight into the question addressed in this section and specifically identified by National Education Association researchers (1969) has been provided by Ellenberg (1972): [T]he degree to which organizational dimensions correlate with the job satisfaction of teachers depends upon the personal dimensions of the teacher. The results of this study indicate that the environmental aspects that are related to job satisfaction are not necessarily the same for all subgroups of teachers. That is to say that the things which might cause job dissatisfaction for one per- son may not affect the morale of another (p. 40). At this juncture, knowing that the importance teachers ascribe to factors which influence morale and job satisfaction vary widely, it is an important research consideration to determine which factors (if any) are consistently considered salient in affecting the satisfaction level among most teachers. Saliency of the Teacher-Principal Interface in Influencing_Mora1§;and Job SatisfactiongAmong Teachers Although the research cited heretofore present numerable clues as to the identity of factors which affect job satisfaction and morale, sufficient data have not been surfaced which permits inferences relative to the saliency of these factors. Ostensibly, each factor must be appropriately weighted if an efficient morale and job satisfaction formula is to be derived. The literature has provided such "weighting" factors. 57 At first glance the results of morale research seem to yield nothing except disagreement, confusion and that a statistician can illustrate anything through the use of statistics. However, after carefully considering these data, it becomes clear that generalizations can be, and need to be made. While authors have assumed varying postures relative to the identi- fication of job satisfaction and morale regulators, one trend pervades most periodicals and texts-~the administrator-teacher relationship is the key. The administrator and his or her staff do influence the climate of a school building which results in a specific level of morale. This status level directly reflects upon the successes and inefficiencies of the administrator and teacher in building authentic, cohesive and harmonious relationships. Job satisfaction or morale in the total sense of the word is built upon human understanding. Material and physical variables are important for establishing morale; however, they are not as significant as the personal factors or human variables. Research by Hoppock (1935) clearly indicated that a teacher who enjoyed a successful communicative relationship with his or her super- visor and who has been provided opportunities to influence and manage inputs from the educational environment was clearly more satisfied than those who did not. In 1946, Michaeles reported the results of interviews of seventy- five teachers who were asked to identify those factors which parents, students and teachers did which affected their morale and to indicate what strategies they would implement if they were principals. 58 The importance of the principal's role in building morale among teachers has been reflected by the number of suggestions directed at what principals should or should not do about morale. This list of recommendations outnumbered those rendered for the other two categories combined. Principals were advised: l. to be specific about rules and regulations, . to provide teachers with assistance when reguested, not later, . to allocate additional time for helpful supervision, #00“) . to have school parties so that the faculty could get better acquainted. In a survey conducted by Nations Schools, in 1948, administrators reported that morale was improving appreciably among teachers due to improved staff relations; that is, with one's colleagues, as well as with one's immediate supervisor. Hand (1948) found that a great percentage of teachers with low morale expressed dissatisfaction with certain aspects of their work environment. Principals and supervisors and their relationships with staff were described as having the most profound impact upon job per- ceptions. The researcher aptly described the far-reaching parameters of the administrator's relationship with staff by stating: Principals and supervisors certainly have much to do with making a teacher feel that he either does or does not "belong." Operating as they do at the policy level they are in a position to see to it that teachers are either brought into or excluded from this process. They can treat teachers either considerately and decently, or the opposite. They may grant freedom or impose restrictions in reference to teaching methods and materials. They can either see to it that the needed teaching materials are supplied, or leave the teachers to shift for himself. They can either give or withhold the supervisory and other "front office" help that 59 teachers need. They can apportion the work load either fairly or inequitably. They can so arrange schedules that teachers either do or do not have adequate time to prepare. They can make it either easier or more difficult for teachers really to know their pupils. They can either assist or hinder the teacher who is desirous of helping his pupils resolve their personal perplexities. And they can work either for or against the evolution of a curriculum geared to the needs of children and youth. They can, in short, do much to make either better or worse the situations which seem so linked to teacher morale (p. 280). Leipold and Yarbrough (1949), in "What 1600 School People Think About Teacher Morale," reported that teachers considered administrative support as the most salient determinant of morale and job satisfaction. In 1950, Juckett concluded that the following factors were critical in determining the level of morale and job satisfaction among teachers: 1. open channels of communication between teacher and supervisor 2. supervisors should maintain a democratic approach to supervision 3. faculty participation in the management of school affairs should be encouraged 4. positive (supportive) behaviors on the part of supervisors 5. supervisors should not play favorites; that is, not giving preferential treatment 6. supervisors should not respond with "blunt" answers. Hedlund and Brown (1951) conducted research in New York state which developed ten conditions as being most critical in causing teacher turn- over. The most important condition influencing morale was the adminis- trator's facility to relate with staff. Schultz (1952) conducted research among 776 subjects and concluded most satisfied and dissatisfied teachers primarily developed their respective perceptions based upon administrative practices and procedures. 60 Arnold (1953) used an assessment tool he and his colleagues designed to determine the impact specified factors had upon teacher morale. He studied 560 principals and teachers and determined that effective com- munication between principal and teacher to be the most important factor which influenced morale level. In 1955, Linder also surveyed teacher and principal opinions regard- ing factors which purportedly affect teacher morale and job satisfaction. He found the following to be significantly important to contributing to low staff morale: 1. lack of leadership by the principal 2 lack of clarity regarding school policies 3. frequent classroom interruptions 4. poorly planned faculty meetings 5. lack of administrative support 6. policy changes without soliciting teacher input 7. the appointment of ineffective, non-directed committees Bidwell (1955) conducted research which measured teacher satisfac- tion. He devised thirteen situations describing teacher-administrator interactions. He concluded that teachers who perceive administrative role perception as being consistent with their role expectation will tend to be satisfied with the teaching situation. Monford (1956) developed a questionnaire listing factors identified as being important to a teacher's work and found that most important inere teachers' relationships with supervisors (and colleagues). Roth (1956) reported seemingly paradoxical findings--that teachers in both high and low morale schools were dissatisfied with working 61 conditions. One cursory explanation which has been availed rests upon individual differences among teachers. Further operationalization of these individual differences has’been provided by the researcher. He implied that the administrator-staff member relationship accounted for the difference. Daniel Griffiths (1956) succinctly identified the core of the morale and job satisfaction problem when he stated: Teachers need an organization in which and through which they can derive satisfactions in carrying out the educational philosophy of the school system. The gratifications accruing to the teacher in his work are few and far between. In many respects, teaching is the least satisfying of all the pro- fessions because it is so difficult to see the results of one's labors . . . The development of morale in a school faculty is dir- ectly related to the degree to which the administration can help individuals to achieve satisfaction in their work (P. 147). Sharpe (1956) requested teachers, principals and members of the superintendent's staff to describe what they considered the ideal prin- cipal to be. He reported that most participants identified the "same" principal. He or she possessed such qualities as: 1. being highly communicative 2. developing a close identification with his or her staff 3. being moderately open to change 4. being non-dominant Also observed were significant correlations between the morale of the teachers and the degree in which their principal compared to the "ideal." In a study of how principals affect the morale of elementary school teachers, Silverman (1957) found that a principal's personality and 62 skill in human relations had more effect upon teacher morale than physical or mental characteristics, professional background and exper- ience, work as an improver of instruction, or any other administrative activity. Implied was that the principal is the strongest of the morale regulating factors. The following ten items which relate to principals' behavior were those identified as influencing teacher morale (listed in order of importance): 1. backs up teacher in conflicts with parents 2. criticizes a teacher in front of others 3. has good knowledge of current elementary school methods and materials 4. does not seem to trust teachers (is always snooping around) 5. gives praise and credit where due 6. does not hesitate to assume responsibility or to take a stand (shows initiative) 7. is sneaky, hypocritical 8. pays special attention to teachers' physical comfort 9. works for the good of the school and the children rather than for his or her own personal glory 10. allows after-school conferences to drag unreasonably late. Leibson (1958) synthesized Hemphill and Coons' (1950) Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire with Redefer's (1959) Morale Tendency Score and studied the effects of administrator relationships upon climate of the elementary school. He concluded there is aihependent relationship between the working pattern of the principal and the satisfaction of the staff. 63 O'Connor (1958) revealed several differences between teachers with high morale and teachers with low morale. Typically, those teachers with high morale thought that their supervisors were fair, reasonable, understanding and friendly, while teachers with lower levels of morale perceived that their supervisors were unfair, unsympathetic, unreason- able and unreliable. Teachers with high morale thought their colleagues were cooperative, while teachers with lower morale were more critical about their peer relationships and consistently reported poorer rela- tions with their supervisors, pupils and community associates, in general. Generally, teachers with high morale were supervised more often and had a more democratic relationship with their supervisor regarding such issues as scheduling, evaluation and faculty meeting participation. He concluded that teachers' perceptions of their rela- tionship with their supervisors illustrated the most consistent indicator of morale status. Cohen (1959) researched teacher morale in underprivileged schools and has provided further clarification relative to the nature of supervisor-staff relationships. She determined that attitudes of the teacher-supervisor interface existed independently of the socio-economic nature of the community. Specifically, the attitudes toward supervisor- staff communication were solely contingent upon the relationship of appropriate participants. The determining factors were the type of administration and the nature of its relationship with staff. Ross (1960) embarked upon a study of rural schools in which he determined that morale and job satisfaction were most closely related to interactions with supervisory staff than any other single factor. 64 In research conducted by Vroom and Mann (1960), the saliency of supervisor-employee communication in determining the level of employee morale was also identified. Their results indicated that employees in small work groups developed positive attitudes toward equalitarian leaders, while employees in larger work groups developed positive atti- tudes toward authoritative leaders. The workers in the smaller groups had appreciably more interpersonal interaction with their supervisors and their peers, while the employees in the larger groups did not. They concluded that the size of the group was not the critical variable, rather, it was employee attitudes toward and interactions with super- visors which accounted for the difference. It can be inferred that quality, content and frequency of supervisor-employee communication exerted powerful influence over staff attitudes toward the work environ- ment, as well as toward the supervisor. Robinson and Connors (1962) cited research similar to that of Barry (1956). Analyzed were survey questionnaire responses from 186 supervisors, relative to factors which affect administrator morale. They determined that administrator morale research has generated many of the same inferences as that which focused upon teacher satisfaction; that is, at most organizational levels, the relationship of an employee (whether in a line or staff position) to his or her immediate supervisor has been critically important to the level of job satisfaction attained by that employee. Leiman (1962) asserted that teacher participation in administrative decision-making was directly related to teacher morale. The comparison of two groups of teachers, one group which participated in decision-making 65 typically reserved for administrators and one group who did not, revealed the following conclusions: 1. Teachers who participate in school administration tend to have a higher level of morale than teachers who do not participate. 2. Teachers who participate in school administration tend to develop and maintain more positive perceptions and attitudes toward principals, colleagues and their pupils. 3. Teachers who participate in school administration tend to have higher regard for themselves and for the teach- ing profession. Cook (1965) studied the relationship of the principal's behavior upon school climate perceived by elementary school teachers. He util- ized the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) and the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) to assess atti- tudes toward school climate. His major conclusion was that leadership behavior of the principal was highly instrumental in determining the climate of his or her school. Helen Johnson (1970) explained that teaching in some schools was more satisfying than teaching in others due to clearly definable factors. Teachers reported rewarding professional experiences with a prin- cipal who (p. 557): l. appreciates me as a person . doesn't tell how but works with us to solve our problems . rarely gives lectures and speeches at faculty meetings 2 3 4. really cares about kids 5 . is enthusiastic when things go well and helps when they need to go better. 66 Coverdale (1973) reinforced the teacher-principal interface as having primary influence upon teacher morale. He stated that the fac- tors affecting the level of morale among teachers most were matters which were potentially reconciled by administrators themselves: Many of them [factors], it must be conceded, are the sole province of the employing authorities. It is only their wisdom and foresight which can alleviate the concern which the teachers feel for their working conditions (p. 33). Ellenberg (1972) amplified the notion that internal factors, as well as the relationship with the principal, have accounted for the widespread variability in level of morale and job satisfaction teachers have experienced: Although personal factors are the most important of all factors in determining the individual morale level of the teacher, the principal is the key non-personal factor in the professional environment of the teacher . . . the teacher's relationship with the principal is more important in determining morale level than is the teacher's relationship with other teachers (10. 39). Ellenberg further observed that one conclusion has consistently resounded throughout the morale literature regarding the significance of the administrator: [H]is attitudes, his policies, his procedures, his under- standing of the individual teachers and his philosophical approach to problems--seems to be the major factor in teacher morale. How he works with his staff, whether he treats them as individuals with worth and dignity or merely as part of the machine, will determine to a great extent the morale of the school (pp. 43, 44). Gregorc and Hendrix (1973) affirmed that teachers must have access to motivational factors and that administrators hold the key which will unlock the door to that accessible path. 67 Summary and Conclusions In this chapter, it has become clear that morale is a varying, multidimensional and significant component of an educational system. A considerable number of studies have been concerned with attempt- ing to identify factors in the educational milieu which can be modified by administrative action, as well as purport to affect morale and job satisfaction. The rationale for such empirical emphasis is that the teacher-principal (administrator) interface, in study after study, appears to be at the crux of the teacher morale issue. The research reviewed leaves little room for doubt concerning the importance of the roles of school administrators and supervisors in the development and maintenance of teacher morale. Administrators can control or influence a wealth of factors which teachers have identified as having a significant impact upon their morale status. For example, principals can offer praise, provide opportunities for teachers to participate in policy making, avoid classroom interruptions, support teachers in the variety of conflicts they experience, plan relevant faculty meetings and provide adequate leadership. Teachers' roles-expectations and role-perceptions of principals appear to strongly influence teacher morale. Morale suffers when the principal fails to perform as the teachers expect him or her to perform. The consistency of the results of these studies is interesting, because of the variety of instruments used to collect the data. Each study 68 used techniques for eliciting teachers'role-expectations and role- perceptions which differed from techniques employed in other studies. With virtually the same environmental factors operating, high or low morale may be observed, depending upon the administrator and his or her relationship with staff. I The need to provide better methods of evaluating staff interactibns has long been evident. Considering the results of research cited in this section this need has become even more pronounced. Although considerable interest has generated a substantial research effort in the area of morale and job satisfaction, the field of educa- tion is presently devoid of an assessment device which purports to measure some of the more salient dimensions of those behaviors which transpire at the teacher-principal interface. The paucity of survey- assessment instruments derived from morale research in education lends credence to investigations which focus upon perceptions of teacher- principal interactions and events which can be potentially modified through their mutual support. Review of these studies suggests that the problem of employee morale and job satisfaction are far more complex than is customarily recognized. There are no simple cause-and-effect relationships and often the influences of primary importance are subtle and obscure. Nevertheless, it is clear that the quality of interpersonal relation- ships prevailing in any organization is not and should not remain a matter of chance. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The overall research effort consists of nine major phases. These phases provide.in outline form.the methodological considerations which have been employed in this study. Phase I. Identification of ConEFBT—ictors Which Purport to Affect Level of Morale and Job SatistEtion A. Preliminary Interactions: Extensive dialogue was initiated with persons knowledgeable of elementary school functioning in order to involve them in the study from the outset. . Inclusion of teachers and principals at this juncture was an attempt to fully represent their opinions, attitudes and perceptions in the development of the Teacher Principal Communication Instrument (TPCI). Further informal face-to- face communication with university personnel versed in theory of administration, systems theory, human relations, interpersonal communication, organizational climate, morale and job satisfaction provided an additional data base upon which the development of survey items was contingent. 8. Survey of Related Literature: An extensive review of related research was conducted. Three computer searches yielded the information necessary to crystallize some 69 70 issues, thereby facilitating the identification of morale and job satisfaction control factors. As delineated in Chapter II, the search of the morale and job satisfaction literature included: definition of terms; scope of the issue; effects of morale and job satisfaction upon produc- tivity; the multidimensional, complex nature of morale and job satisfaction; how stratified groups differ in their perceptions of the impact of morale and job satisfaction; and the classification of morale and job satisfaction fac- tors according to their saliency in the educational ecosystem. Phase 2. The FiFET'PTTht Study A pilot study was conducted to serve two major purposes: 1. To compare the information surfaced by the pilot study participants with that collected in Phase I and 2. To foster a further determination of factors or condi- tions of employment which enhance or reduce the level of morale and job satisfaction. The population utilized in this pilot study was the teaching staff and principal of an elementary school in a suburban community in the San Francisco Bay Area. An outline of the procedural steps employed in the first pilot study are provided as follows: STEP 1. The participants were contacted three times prior to convening small group sessions: STEP 2. 71 By letter (see Appendix A) informing them of: ,the overall nature of the research; the scope of their intended participation; a request for their assistance; the projected location and timeline in which the pilot study will be con- ducted. Provided in this communication was a feedback post card to be returned to the researcher identifying their intention to participate (or not), and their selection of one of three meeting times. Upon receipt of the feedback cards, participants were assigned to small discussion groups. By letter (see Appendix A), thanking them for their commit- ment, as well as providing a list of the tentative group assignments, meeting times, and place. Respondents were requested to communicate any problematic situations which might arise regarding group compositon, etc. By telephone, upon arrival in Palo Alto, to confirm their willingness to participate in the study, to reinforce the vital role they will perform and to restate the intended meeting times and place. Small Group Sessions Participants were welcomed and preliminary comments were made relative to the overall purposes of the research endeavor. The role of the pilot study members, the method of acquiring and analyzing data, and the general purposes of obtaining such data were restated. 72 In order to help narrow the focus of the instrument, a modified critical incident strategy was utilized. The basic underlying structure for this approach focused upon the identification of incidents which in themselves reflected real, on-the-job occurrences and not those deemed arbitrary or abstract in nature. The intention was also to learn more about the actual dimensions of morale and job satis- faction which transpired in an elementary school ecosystem and to revise the initial conceptualization of the TPCI accordingly. Insights relative to the identification of critical variables which purport to affect level of morale and job satis- faction, their etiology and the outcomes they produced were recorded on audio tape, as well as transcribed manually. For example, participants were asked to think of situations, experiences, or events when they felt especially good or bad about their job. It may have been in their present position or another job. Participants were asked to think of high and low points in their teaching careers, to recall when they happened, where they happened, who was involved, and to respond to the set of questions listed below. Subsequent exploration of the group's feelings, perceptions and attitudes toward specific factors. instrument items and format was provided in response to the following general open-ended questions: 73 1. What are the factors or conditions of employment which tend to elevate morale and job satisfaction and thereby facilitate teacher effectiveness? 2. What are the factors or conditions of employment which tend to lower morale and job satisfaction and thereby diminish teacher effectiveness? 3. How would you describe the optimal educational environment which would enhance teacher effective- ness? 4. What must an assessment instrument include so that a teacher's perceptions of the work environ- ment can be accurately communicated to his/her principal? 5. What format might the TPCI assume? 6. How should the TPCI be utilized? When? By whom? Participants were asked to respond to one inquiry at a time and to freely associate any information conjured up by the question. Upon consideration of the first open-ended question, the subsequent question was introduced. This procedure con- tinued until all questions had been addressed. Upon completion of the final open-ended question, participants were asked if there were any further comments they wished to make relative to the questions or to the study in general. When the dialogue had ceased, participants were asked to communicate (in writing or telephonically) inputs relevant to the research which they may conceptualize subsequent to 74 the conclusion of the meeting. It was then announced that participants would be receiving feedback from the researcher in July, 1975 (see STEP 3). Analysis of the data collected in the first pilot study was conducted by reviewing hand written notes and audio tape recordings. STEP 3. Participants in the first pilot study were contacted one time, by letter (see Appendix I) subsequent to the convening of the small group sessions. They were thanked for their assistance and provided reference copies of the final revi- sion of the TPCI, the TPCI Response Sheet, the TPCI Summary Data Sheet and the TPCI Scoring Grids. The first pilot study provided a data base upon which the TPCI has been founded, in addition to that generated by informal dialogue with teachers, principals and university personnel, as well as the survey of related literature (Phase 1). Moreover, it was the former source of information which permitted the developmental stages of the instrument to proceed compatibly with the historical notions surfaced by morale and job satisfaction researchers. It is important to note that Phase 3 represents an a posteriori approach to data collection and analysis. Information was generated from the participants themselves rather than based upon reactions to a previously defined and outlined instrument. Only the general structure of the open-ended questions was delineated before hand. Categorization of data occurred after all of the group sessions had been concluded, in an attempt to circumvent any strong bias which might have been communi- cated by the researcher. 75 It is assumed that a valuable analysis of the instrument will occur with a synthesis of a posteriori and a priori approaches. Repre- sented in this phase is the former; the latter has been incorporated in the content validation provided by the panel of experts (Phase 4), as well as the second pilot study group (Phase 7). The Development of thggThTETal Draft of the TPCI Upon completion of Phases 1 and 2, an initial draft of the TPCI was constructed (see Appendix B). The data collected in the initial phases was carefully analyzed and incorporated in the formulation of the work- ing draft. Chapter II illustrated the philosophy and structure underlying the development of the TPCI, while data provided by participants in the first pilot study added specificity in terms of item construction. It was determined that persons with divergent attitudes should be able to respond differently to the TPCI. The design of the TPCI reflected the need to be sensitive to individual differences. The potential for generating undifferentiating statements--items which might not adequately measure the issue or variable of interest, and/orinight be responded to in the same manner by each respondent, and/or might be misunderstood or interpreted as a statement of fact--was given considerable scrutiny. The most differentiating items were selected for the initial draft. In addition, items were constructed in a manner representative of statements of desired behavior, not facts. It was perceived as a dis- tinct advantage to have the capability of prescribing specific action based upon the manner in which items were completed. For example, the 76 statement "My principal is accessible," provides a referential base upon which responses ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree can be readily translated into appropriate action. Several hundred items were written, reviewed and reconstructed with the following criteria in mind: 1. Is the item relevant to the research problem and research objectives? 2. Is the item right and appropriate for the variable or issue explored? 3. Is the item clear and unambiguous? 4. Does the item contain one focus? 5. Is the item "leading”?l 6 Does the item demand knowledge and information the respondent does not have? 7. Is the item loaded with social desirability? After having selected the most acceptable items, classification was then made according to the issue or variable described. One hundred twenty-seven items were selected and nine subscales were identified (see Appendix B). TPCI items were randomly arranged in order to circumvent the system- atic influence of a subscale content area. A halo effect was to be avoided so that respondents would be able to mark their responses accord- ing to how they perceived the item, not because the subscale term con- jured up specific predisposed thoughts. 77 Each subscale is defined by its component items and represents complex behavioral patterns. Definitions of the subscales are listed as follows: 1. Motivational Factors--the extent in which recognition is provided by the principal for staff accomplishments (twelve items). Services-~the availability and quality of assistance provided by the school psychologist, social worker, reading teacher, custodian, secretary, etc. (eight items). Physical Environmental Conditions--the adequacy of classroom location, temperature, light, furniture, and work, eating and lounge areas, etc. (ten items). Group Cohesiveness--the-extent in which cooperative teamwork exists,and is provided for,among the teaching staff (seven items). Matter (Materials, Supplies, Equipment)--the avail- ability and quality of curricular materials, classroom supplies and instructional equipment (six items). Teacher Decision-Makingr-the opportunity for teachers to participate in determination of policies and prac- tices affecting classroom operation (twenty-one items). Principal Leadership Behavior--the strategies and behaviors employed by the principal in fulfilling his/her role as building administrator (twenty-nine items). 78 8. Information--the inputs required by teachers to perform their role responsibilities (fifteen items). 9. Communication Relationshipr-the'adequacy, frequency, mode and manner of communication utilized by the principal in developing relationships with staff (nineteen items). This initial draft format of the TPCI was duplicated in order to solicit reactions from the panel of experts (Phase 4) and the second pilot study participants (Phase 7). Phase 4. The Content Validation-hf—Ehh TPCI by the Utilization of a Panel of Experts To enhance the unidimensional questionnaire approach to validation, this phase and Phase 7 (second pilot study) have been designed to act as external criteria for validating the TPCI. Employing a reactor panel of experts to validate the TPCI became the next phase in the design. Authoritative and knowledgeable persons were selected to perform a dichotomous function: 1. to validate each item, responding to inquiries about clarity, relevance, focus, format and overall con- struction of the instrument, as well as 2. to provide inputs relative to the general design. A crucial task was to identify and solicit the services of personnel who have appropriate credentials in one or more of the following areas-- morale, job satisfaction, teacher-administrator relationships, elementary 79 education, interpersonal communication, systems theory, instrument construction, scaling techniques, etc. It was decided that Michigan State University, Departments of Ele- mentary and Special Education, Communication, Labor and Industrial Rela- tions, Educational Psychology, Business and Management and Admin- istration and Higher Education were feasible sources for selecting a panel of experts, given the nature of the study and the intended role responsibilities of each panel member. The following components represent a sequential breakdown of the selection process, as well as the individual activities of the panel of experts: STEP 1. Prospective participants were contacted on two occasions prior to the selection of the panel. A. By telephone, briefly explaining the purposes of the study, and requesting an appointment to provide addi- tional information. 8. In a face-to-face encounter, providing further elabora- tion of the research and the intended function of the panel members, requesting an opinion relative to the candidate's participation, as well as attempting to arrive upon a convenient timeline for the individual activities of the panel. STEP 2. Selecting the Panel Members Several candidates were considered and three participants were chosen. One participant has conducted extensive research in the area of morale and job satisfaction and STEP3. STEP4. 80 is presently involved in teacher training as a member of the Department of Elementary and Special Education. The second participant has a broad background in education, psychology, systems theory and analysis and is presently a member of Learning Services Center at Michigan State University. The third participant is well versed in cli- mate analysis, has also conducted considerable research in the area of morale and job satisfaction and is presently a member of the Department of Administration and Higher Education. Panel members were contacted one time, by telephone, prior to engaging in individual activities. to confirm their par- ticipation and the suggested timeline for completion. Activities of the Panel of Experts A. Each member was provided, in a face-to-face encounter, an initial draft of the TPCI, a Panel of Experts' Feed- back Form (see Appendix C) and directions for complet- ing the intended task. 8. Each member was asked to complete the feedback form which consists of two parts: PART I --Item_Anglysis:--an evaluation of each item, in terms of clarity, relevance focus, etc. PART II--General Questions--an assessment of the overall qualities of the TPCI. Inquiries 81 relative to instrument length, breadth, format and utilization were included. The panel was encouraged to comment freely on both parts of the feedback form. STEP 5. Collection of Feedback Forms A. One week after receipt of the TPCI and feedback form, each panel member was asked to submit his/her reactions, in a face-to-face encounter. 8. During the feedback interview sessions, each panel mem- ber was provided an opportunity to directly report his/her ratings and reactions, item by item, and question by question to insure maximum communication efficiency. C. Participants were requested to surface any further comments relative to the items or format of the TPCI. 0. Panel members were also asked if they would be avail- able for consultation, provided further clarification of their reactions was warranted. Members were encouraged to contact the researcher if they wished to make any additional inputs. They were informed that feedback would be forthcoming in July, 1975 (see STEP 6). STEP 6. Each panel member was contacted one time, by letter (see Appendix I), subsequent to the collection of the feedback forms, thanking them for their assistance and enclosing 82 reference copies of the final revision of the TPCI, the TPCI Response Sheet, the TPCI Summary Data Sheet and the TPCI Scoring Grids. The Modification of theEThThigT'Draft of the TPCI Based Upon the Feedback’PFovidedTby théTPanelfioTTEiperts Inputs elicited from the panel of experts provided critical insights into the strengths and deficiencies of the initial draft of the TPCI. The activities of the panel performed the function of providing observa- tions and recommendations upon which further modifications were based. The data contained in the Panel of Experts' Feedback Form were analyzed item-by-item, as well as in a global manner. The Summary Data Form (see Appendix C) was developed to centralize data appearing on PART I - Item Analysis of the Panel of Experts' Feed- back Form. All opinions were then readily retrievable in an accurate and orderly manner. The initial of the panel member's surname was entered in the space provided on the Summary Data Form, corresponding with his/her response. An attempt was made to achieve consensus on each item in which divergent opinions were recorded. The arduous and time consuming nature of this task was recognized; however, the benefits derived from its com- pletion substantially outweighed its problems. Reactions to PART II - General Questions, of the feedback form were then reviewed. These inquiries related to characteristics of the TPCI in a macroscopic rather than a microscopic manner, assumed in PART I - Item Analysis. Responses were analyzed and divergent viewpoints were again addressed with the intention of attaining consensus. 83 All recommendations submitted by the panel of experts were utilized in the modification of the TPCI so that identified problem areas or sources of discrepancy associated with specific items and/or the instru- ment in general could be remedied. Significant changes in the initial draft of the TPCI occurred as a result of the feedback provided by the panel of experts. The length of the instrument was reduced by 14, from 127 to 113 items (see Appen- dix D); however, mgst_items were modified to a greater or lesser degree. Changes included minor alterations in sentence structure, word selection or emphasis, while other revisions addressed the need to include a referential base so that misinterpretation would be maintained at a minimum. An overview of some of the modifications is presented in the following (see Appendix D): l. Motivational Factors--two items were deleted, one item due to a lack of clarity, the other due to redundancy (ten items). 2. Services-~three items written in the conditional tense (by using the word "would") were considered somewhat ambiguous and were therefore deleted. A fourth item was also deleted due to a lack of clarity. Three items were included to add specificity to,and circum- vent, the conflicting interpretation of the term "ancillary" services--items relative to school social work, psychological and library services were included (seven items). 84 Physical Environmental Conditions--one item was deleted, its meaning was not sufficiently clear (nine items). Group Cohesiveness--one item was deleted, its meaning was described as being included in another item in the subscale. One item was added. Specifically, the addition was a reclassification of an item included in the Principal Leadership Behavior subscale (seven items). Matter (Materials, Supplies,_Equipment)--no significant changes were made in this subscale. However, minor modifications were made for all items (six items). Teacher Decision-Makingf-the "conditional'I quality of items including the word “would“ was omitted. Four items were deleted as they were perceived redun- dant (seventeen items). Principal Leadership Behavior--one~item was reassigned to the Group Cohesiveness subscale. Four items were added as reclassifications from the Communication Relationship subscale. Three items were deleted-- two for a lack of clarity, one due to redundancy (twenty- nine items). Information-~no deletions. Minimal word changes were made (fifteen items). 85 9. Communication Relationshipr-four-items were reassigned to the Principal Leadership Behavior subscale. Two items were omitted due to a lack of clarity (thirteen items). Changes also occurred, in terms of the format utilized in the ini- tial draft of TPCI. The most appreciable modification was that the statement, "I hereby agree to have the results of my questionnaire identified so that my principal and I can further discuss my percep- tions," was deleted from the cover sheet. It was surfaced that this statement might introduce a socially desirable variable (willingness to self-disclose) which could potentially bias teachers' responses. Teachers not willing to sign the statement might perceive their reluctance as being interpreted by their principal as "having something to hide." To circumvent this identification, teachers could then sign the statement and proceed to mark their responses in a less than honest fashion. In order to corroborate the appropriateness of the changes made in the initial draft, through the responses of the panel of experts, a similar content validation procedure was incorporated in the second pilot study (Phase 7). Phase 6. The Development of_h_MEhhod of Scoring and Reporting the Results of the T The most important purpose of this research is to develop a vehicle which communicates accurate information relative to how teachers (and administrators) perceive various factors which purportedly influence their level of morale and job satisfaction. In order to derive an adequate understanding of the data communicated by utilizing the TPCI, 86 it is essential that principals (or other first-line supervisory personnel) are provided the means to translate results into readily comprehensible information. Previously conducted research relative to the measurement of morale and job satisfaction and the opinions of persons knowledgeable in testing and measurement were utilized as a basis upon which the construction of the TPCI Scoring Grids has prOceeded. However, the research has provided only marginal assistance in the development of a scoring method which is relatively simple, accurate and easily understood. Attempts to utilize traditional statistical measures have been ruled out due to the inherent computational complexity and difficulty in interpretation. Therefore, the focus of the dialogue with measurement experts became one of trans- lating the accuracy associated with recognized statistical procedures into a format which would be manageable for principals. It was determined that an efficient scoring technique based upon mean data would be one in which principals could easily "eyeball" results and generate conclusions. A Likert scoring system consisting of five categories of agreement- disagreement was applied to each item. The items were constructed so that the polarity indicating satisfaction was the responses strongly egeee.and egeee, while strongly disagree and disagree represented the dissatisfaction end. The neutral response was undecided. Scoring weights for each item ranged from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly dis- agree) while the range of total scores was computed by multiplying the weights by the number of items. 87 The TPCI Summary Data Sheet (see Appendix E) has been designed to be used as a record of all response scores, as well as those scores calculated from the formulas presented in the following: Determining the Subscale Mean Score for an Individual Resppndent: 1. Add the response scores for items responded to within a sub- scale. 2. Divide this sum by the number of items responded to within the subscale (carry all division to the nearest two decimal places). 3. Repeat Steps 1 and 2 for all subscales. Determinipg the Subscale Mean Score for a Group of Respondents: 1. Add the response scores for items responded to within a subscale for the group of respondents. 2. Divide this sum by number of items responded to within the subscale by the group. 3. Repeat Steps 1 and 2 for all subscales. Determinipgythe Overall Profile Score (Grand Mean) for an Individual Respondeht: 1. Add the total subscale response scores for the respondent. 2. Divide this sum by the number of subscales responded to by the individual. 3. Repeat Steps 1 and 2 for each respondent. Determining the Overall Profile Score (Grand Mean) for a Group of Res- pondents: 1. Add the response scores for the items responded to for all subscales for the group of respondents. 88 2. Divide this sum by the number of items responded to in all subscales by the group. Determining the Mean Response Score of a Single Item for a Group of Respondents: 1. Add the response scores of the item for the group of res- pondents. 2. Divide this sum by the number of individuals responding to the item. 3. Repeat Steps 1 and 2 for those items you wish to compute an average response score. It is important to note that if more than twenty (20) per cent of the items in a subscale are not answered, the subscale is NQI_to be included. Results can then be recorded on the appropriate TPCI Scoring Grid: 1. Overall and Subscale Profile for a Single Respondent (see Appendix E) 2. Overall Profile for a Group (see Appendix E) 3. Subscale Profile for a Group (see Appendix E). The utilization of these profile forms can afford precise analysis of group or individual data, in terms of a subscale or overall profile score. Therefore, the opportunity is provided to determine how a group of teachers might respond to the overall instrument or to specified subscales, as well as how individuals would differ on their overall profiles or subscale scores. Some of the pitfalls of solely providing group results can then be circumvented. 89 Phase 7. The Sec6hd’PTT5t Study The second pilot study was conducted on a broader scale than the first effort. The purposes of including this phase in the overall design are: l. to determine internal consistency (reliability) measures for each subscale, as well as for the overall instrument, by utilizing the Coefficient Alpha technique; 2. to administer the TPCI to~a teaching staff of an ele- mentary school; 3. to gather reattions and observations of the TPCI from elementary school teachers by means of the Feedback Form for Content Validation (see Appendix F) with the intent of further refining the instrument; 4. to demonstrate that the TPCI will be acceptable to those participating teachers and generalizable to the popula- tion randomly selected for the field test (Phase 9)--in terms of content, relevance and format. Therefore, the second pilot study tended to perform the function of a preliminary test of several notions, suggestions and recommenda- tions surfaced by the survey of related literature (Phase 1), the first pilot study (Phase 2) and the panel of experts (Phase 4), as well as to provide coefficients relative to the internal reliability of the instrument. The second pilot study was conducted in a suburban elementary school in Mid-Michigan, representative of the school sampled for the 90 first pilot study (Phase 2) and those selected for the initial field test (Phase 9). Twenty-two teachers and one principal participated in the second pilot study. The following steps represent an analysis of the procedures utilized in conducting the second pilot study: STEP 1. STEP 2. The Coordinator of the Elementary School Principals of the district was contacted, by telephone, on one occasion, to explain the overall purpose of the research and to request permission to discuss the proposal with the principal of the school selected for the study. After being granted the opportunity to further pursue the project, the principal of the selected school was contacted on two occasions: A. By telephone, explaining the purpose of the overall research, briefly outlining the function of the princi- pal and the teachers in the second pilot study, request- ing his participation, and arranging a convenient time to further discuss the proposal. In a face-to-face encounter, providing further delinea-- tion of the research project, the second pilot study, the role of the participants, and requesting that the principal discuss the proposal with the teaching staff to determine whether or not they wish to become engaged in the study. Every effort was made to obtain good rapport with the intended participants. Preliminary dialogue also identified: STEP 3. STEP 4. 91 1. who will score the instruments; how and by whom the data will be analyzed; how and when the results will be made available; who will see the data; 0'! 4:- 0) N o o o o the benefits that will emerge from completing the TPCI; 6. a suggested timeline in which the activities are to occur. After securing the commitment of the principal and staff to participate in the study, the principal was contacted by tele- phone for the purposes of restating the importance of their commitment, as well as confirming the convenience of the pro- posed timeline. In a face-to-face encounter (without the presence of the prin- cipal), prior to being administered the TPCI, the teachers participating in the study were provided a brief explanation of the nature of the research, their role as participants and a suggested timeline for completion of the instrument and feedback form. Due to the potential for unearthing volatile teacher percep- tions, it was explicitly stated that participating teachers would be assured of the confidential nature of their responses. It was explained that on the cover of each TPCI appeared an instrument number. This coding was stated as being included for purposes of data collection and analysis only. STEP 5. 92 It was critical for the development of the TPCI that each teacher complete and evaluate the instrument in an atmos- phere representative of his/her typical working environment without fear of retribution by the principal, for truthful responses. It was assumed that assuring confidentiality might foster or maintain the appropriate climate for com- pletion of the instrument in an honest, open and trans- parent manner. Teachers were asked to perform two basic tasks during the pilot study: A. to complete the TPCI and to submit their responses to the researcher upon his return to the school building at the conclusion of the school day; to complete the provided feedback form in which they were asked to respond to inquiries related to each item, with the intent of identifying structural errors, as well as to react to the instrument in general. Requests were made to indicate any items which were unclear, confusing or irrelevant to the teacher- principal interface. Provisions were made on the feedback form so that comments relative to the overall construction and format could be solicited and that structural components which detract from one's ability to complete the instrument quickly and accurately could be identified and subsequently remedied. Each feedback form was accompanied by a cover letter STEP 6. STEP 7. STEP 8. 93 reinforcing the purposes of the form (see Appendix F). The teachers were informed that the researcher would return on the following school day to retrieve the completed feedback forms. Upon completion of the time- line for both tasks the participants were thanked for their cooperation and told that feedback relative to the results of the pilot would be forthcoming in a period of two weeks. The principal (in isolation) was asked to complete the TPCI as he perceived the teaching staff would respond. This step was included in the pilot study so that the principal and staff might be provided a framework to further discuss congruent and divergent elements of the interface, not for specific research purposes. The principal was informed that the researcher would return at the end of the school day to pick up the com- pleted form. Feedback relative to the results of the second pilot study was provided in a face-to-face encounter with the principal so that he/she may share the information with staff with the inten- tion of comparing his/her perceptions with the actual responses of the teachers. In addition, it was also illustrated that these data could be utilized as a basis upon which further dialogue with staff could be anchored. Participants in the second pilot study were contacted on one occasion, by letter (see Appendix I), subsequent to the com- pletion of the study. They were thanked for their assistance 94 and copies of the final revision of the TPCI, the TPCI Response Sheet, the TPCI Summary Data Sheet and the TPCI Scor- ing Grids were provided for their reference. Phase 8. The Revision of the TPCI Incorporating the Feedback Provided by the Respondents in the Second Pilot Study The TPCI was revised based upon an analysis of the following sources of data provided by administering the instrument to participants in the second pilot study: 1. Coefficient Alpha scores (internal consistency) for each subscale, as well as the overall instrument; 2. correlational matrices comparing all 113 TPCI items; 3. feedback forms soliciting inputs relative to item clarity and relevance, as well as responses to gen- eral inquiries evaluating overall qualities of the instrument. It is important to note that the aforementioned data sources were not considered independently, rather an attempt was made to identify consistent or pervasive areas of strength and deficiency. Analysis of Coefficient Alpha Scores and Correlational‘MEtrices Coefficient Alpha was used as a measure of internal consistency on a set of teacher ratings. As a reliability measure, Alpha is considered to be the mean of all possible split-half coefficients. It is expected that a high Coefficient Alpha will give greater credibility to the inter- Pretability of the teacher-principal interface ratings. 95 Internal consistency is a function of the number of items on a test and the homogeneity of those items. Therefore, the greater the number of items and the greater the homogeneity of those items, the greater the internal consistency. A Coefficient Alpha score for the TPCI was calculated at a .98, while individual subscale reliability coefficients are listed in the following table: Table 3 Coefficient Alpha Scores for TPCI Subscales Subscale Coefficient Alpha Score Motivational factors .95 Services ' .59 Physical environmental conditions .80 Group cohesiveness .73 Matter (materials, supplies, .69 equipment) Teacher decision-making .83 Principal leadership behavior .95 Information .89 Communication relationship .91 96 It was determined that modification would be appropriate for those subscales in which "low" reliability coefficients were calculated. Services, Matter and Group Cohesiveness subscales, having Alpha scores less than .75, were identified as requiring revision. It was in these areas that the refinement process commenced. The six remaining sub- scales were also addressed with modifications being made on the items exhibiting weak relationships with the rest of the subscale statements. Services--Items 12 and 25 illustrated a low positive correla- tion with other subscale statements, while item 4 correlated negatively with four of the six remaining items (see Table 4). These items, as well as those remaining in the subscale were reworded in an attempt to more adequately (consistently) measure the sub- scale variable. Table 4 Intercorrelational Matrix for TPCI Subscale: Services Subscale Alpha Coefficient: .59 5"?ng e 4 12 25 33 79 84 92 4 1.00 12 -.37 1.00 25 .20 .20 1.00 33 0 .12 .40 1.00 79 -.31 .22 .56 .38 1.00 84 -.12 .33 .27 .40 .54 1.00 92 -.18 0 .08 .36 .46 .28 1.00 97 Matter (Materiele, Supplies, Eguipment)--Item 113 had a low positive ' correlation with other subscale items and consequently was reworded. Other items exhibited a moderate, positive inter- correlation, suggesting little need for modification (see Table 5). Table 5 Intercorrelational Matrix for TPCI Subscale: Matter (Materials,_Supplies, Equipment) Sfibscale Alpha Coefficient: .69 “figs"; 14 6O 72 83 108 113 14 1.00 60 .11 1.00 72 .27 .23 1.00 83 .28 .05 .41 1.00 108 .23 .66 .50 .41 1.00 113 .01 .47 .04 .08 .28 1.00 Groungohesiveness--The correlations calculated for this subscale were characterized by relatively equal, moderate and posi- tive scores. However, items 24 and 85 exhibited inconsis- tent and low correlations, respectively (see Table 6). Both items were restructured. 98 Table 6 Intercorrelational Matrix for TPCI Subscale: _§roup Cohesiveness Subscale Alpha Coefficient: .73 Shhhghge 24 32 43 78 85 88 95 24 1.00 32 .03 1,00 43 .34 .12 1.00 78 .61 .06 .32 1.00 85 .04 .13 .24 .19 1.00 88 -.04 .69 .35 .15 .03 1.00 98 .50 .55 .50 .56 .01 .43 1.00 Physicel Environmental Conditions--Correlations were observed as Teacher being generally within a moderate, positive range. Osten- sibly, items 37 and 64 weakened the overall reliability of the subscale due to negative and low (positive) relation- ships with remaining subscale items (see Table 7). Item 37 was reworded and no change was made in item 64. Decision-Making--Coefficients for fourteen of the seventeen items in the subscale were moderately positive. Items 35, 55, 57 and 66 illustrated marginally positive or negative relationships with other subscale statements (see Table 8). Items 55 and 57 were deleted and items 35 and 66 were reworded. 99 Table 7 Intercorrelational Matrix for TPCI Subscale: Physical Environmental Conditions Subscale Alpha Coefficient: .80 Stagggge 23 37 46 51 61 64 77 105 106 23 1.00 37 .37 1.00 46 .36 .04 1.00 51 .44 -.18 .63 1.00 61 .44 .36 .43 .34 1.00 64 .33 .61 -.04 -.26 .35 1.00 77 .08 -.05 .49 .55 .61 .05 1.00 105 .19 .14 .22 .03 .48 .33 .50 1.00 106 .21 .41 .59 .34 .63 .39 .46 .34 1.00 Information--Based upon the strong, positive correlations obtained in this subscale, no substantive changes were made (see Table 9). Communication Relationship--Generally, strong, positive relation- ships were observed among items in this subscale. However, item 41 was negatively correlated with two items, not correlated at all with two items and exhib- ited a marginal relationship with two other items (see Table 10). Consequently, item 41 was reconstructed. 100 .0 oo.— mm. mm. mm. no. me. he. em. me. em. mo. mp. mp. mm. mm. cm. em. cop oo.~ mo. mm. mm. em. mp. mm. mp. so. em. ¢F.1 ep. kc. up. FF. me. mm .. oo._ Pm. me. NN. mo. NF. mm. mm. no.1 mm. wo.1 me. me. Fm. NN. em oo.F me. we. vo. mm. mm. mm. No. no.1 eo.1 ep. we. mp. pm. om oo.p mm. n~.1 wm. em. mm. Po. mo. mo. we. mm. ow. em. mm oo.~ op. mp. me. no. mo.1 up. pm. mo. mm. mm. mm. om oo._ mN. Fm. Fo.1 mo. mm. me. mo. em. co.1 mm. mu oo.P no. mm. om. mo. mo.1 0N. mm. mo. ow. ms oo.p o v—. he. Fm. mo. mm. wm. mp. no oo.F m—.1 —o.1 no.1 mm. mm. mp. mp. mm oo._ mm. mo. op. Po. FF.1 mm. mm oo.~ oF. mo.- wm. mm. mm. mm oo.p mp. mm. mm. mp. mm oo.~ mo. wo.1 mp. mm oo.— nv. up. mm oo.— mm. mm oo.P m men: oo— mm em oa mm om mm mm no mm mm mm mm mm mm mm m mpmumnzm mcwxmzicowmwooo Legummp mm. m wFQmF ”pcwwoweewoo asap< wpmumnzm umpmumaam Home com chpmz PacowpmymecoucmucH 101 oo._ em. om. No. om. ~_. _8. oe. mm. mm. om. _m. mp. me. No. eo_ oo._ Km. m_. m_. em. mm. mm. mm. mm. me. e_. mm. mm. we. Km oo._ ,4. cm. No. 54. mm. ,8. mm. mm. mm. me. Km. mm. mm oc.F em. on. me. em. Fe. em. KN. mm. ee. am. we. mm co.” mm. mm. .m. 8N. em. ee. KP. No. we. mm. mm oo._ EN. mm. mo. Po.- me. mm. mo. om.- me. Be oo._ mm. oe. mm. om. mm. mm. em. mm. me oo., em. em. 4e. 4e. __. mm. we. we oo._ mm. _m. me. we. Km. mo. oe oo._ em. em. KN. me. 80.- mm oo._ om. mm. em. _m. EN 00., we. em. ee. a, oo.~ Fe. Fm. m_ oo.F we. __ oo._ o, 2: B e... 8 mm 2. me we 8 mm a t 2 : 2 image? em. neceee_ceeoo eee.< epeumesm cowpmscomcH "mFmomnam Home com xwepcz PacowpmpmecouemucH m anmh 102 oo._ we. ,8. cm. o mm. mm. oe. mm. mm. am. we. mm. Noe oo._ em. mm. me. me. we. em. mm. mm. mm. we. me. am oo.p _m. e_.- me. mm. mm. mm. mm. em. Nm. em. _m oo._ EN. mm. mm. oe. mo. RN. _8. me. Fe. me oo.~ Pm. mo. me. o FF.- em. _F. mm. _e oo._ o“. mm. em. em. om. me. em. _m oo.F me. me. me. om. _m. me. om oo.F om. we. em. mm. mm. om oo._ om. ee. KN. me. me oo.~ Fe. mm. _m. e_ oo.P mm. me. o oo._ mm. m oo._ _ NS 8 a 8 z 8 on 8 2 S e m P a wwwmeefism pm. ”pam?0wmmmou mgap< mqumnam awsmcowumpmm cowpmupczesou OF mpnmh "mpoumnzm Home Lee chumz chowumpmccoucmch 103 Motivational Factors--Based upon the strong, positive relationships among items in this subscale no major modifications were made (see Table 11). Principal Leadership Behavior--Intercorrelational scores for this subscale were generally in a moderate, positive range (see Table 12). No substantial changes were made based upon this data, excepting the deletion of item 2, due to a consistent nominal or negative relationship with other subscale items. An intercorrelational matrix was also computed to determine the degree in which TPCI subscales were related (see Table 13). It is ir11:eeresting to note that Services, Physical Environmental Conditions ar1<1 Matter subscales appeared to correlate more strongly with each other “triairi with any of the other subscales. On the other hand, coefficients ft)!“ Motivational Factors, Group Cohesiveness, Teacher Decision-Making, p““iiricipal Leadership Behavior, Information and Communication Relation- Sh‘i p subscales seemed to indicate strong inter-scale relationships. This dichotomy can be justified in terms of the variable purport- edly measured in each subscale. In the first instance, indirect dimen- 5Tons of the teacher-principal interface are being assessed. The items inCi'luded in the subscales--Services, Physical Environmental Conditions and Matter--tangentially define parameters of the interface, while thOse statements included in the remaining six subscales describe the Interface in a more direct manner. This phenomenon might also be explained in terms of influence or (“3ntrol factors. It can be reasoned that subscales Services, Physical 104 oo._ mm. me. _8. mm. _m. Km. mm. “8.. cm. FF_ oo._ _e. mm. _8. mm. 85. me. me. we. mop oo._ em. me. me. me. me. me. mm. No_ oo._ em. me. me. en. an. we. we 09., «m. Re. OK. om. mm. mm oo._ he. em. me. me. Fe oo._ me. _n. we. ON oo._ mm. mm. ee oo._ me. an oo._ mm ___ 89— NO_ mm mm _E om ee mm mm emummnrm . mm. ”eeeeeeeceou weep< epaemezm weapon; pmcowpm>wpoz "upmumnam Home com chpmz chowpmpmccooemch :. wSm... 105 1 Table 12 Intercorrelational Matrix for TPCI Subscale: Principal Leadership Behavior Subscale Alpha Coefficient: .95 _4_' Subscale 2 5 7 8 13 18 26 34 38 48 49 50 54 Items 1.00 .44 1.00 .04 .37 1.00 -.10 .47 .54 1.00 -.02 .30 .78 .46 1.00 18 .11 .31 .48 .29 .68 1.00 26 .23 .51 .34 .33 .27 .35 1.00 34 .09 .46 .58 .42 .59 .53 .35 1.00 38 .25 .54 .40 .48 .42 .53 .42 .40 1.00 meU'IN 48 .37 .58 .42 .41 .38 .36 .46 .64 .56 1.00 49 .10 .36 .51 .48 .49 .33 .40 .36 .29 .42 1.00 50 .20 .69 .26 .38 .03 .15 .22 .49 .37 .29 .17 1.00 54 .24 .55 .70 .37 .44 O .37 .58 .43 .51 .66 .61 1.00 58 .54 .67 .46 .34 .51 .49 .31 .63 .34 .65 .18 .46 .42’ 59 .22 .41 .69 .32 .59 .44 .06 .75 .24 .49 .35 .40 .59 62 .41 .32 .18 -.09 .15 .29 .26 .20 .39 .26 .22 .34 .42 65 .34 .51 .34 .29 .32 .26 .26 .19 .58 .33 .65 .21 .52 68 .09 .05 .18 .15 .24 .36 .01 .30 .47 .31 .42 .22 .53 69 -.03 .25 .36 .30 .33 .26 .33 .61 .58 .51 .57 .30 .55 74 .12 .44 .55 .44 .64 .39 .64 .44 .58 .58 .50 .04 .38. 76 .40 .33 .53 .32 .32 .28 .32 .41. .22 .55 .59. .26 .63 86 .56 .17 .16 .35 .27 .43 .51 .29 .23 .41 .52 .34 .36 91 .42 .59 .42 .30 .27 .45 .13 .32 .58 .43 .37 .56 .68 93 -.12 .39 .42 .36 .45 .42 .05 .41 .30 .54 , .54 .30 .47 96 .36 .61 .10 .19 .12 .27 .65 .32 .43 .55 .37. .10 .23 101 .07 .53. .54 .59 .52 .52 .35 .64 .38 .57 .59 .51 .70 103 -.26 .14 .60 .48 .65 .53 .37 .42 .30. .24 .70 -.O1 .50 110 .01 .60 .58 .80 .48 .51 .29 .47 .62 .49 .54 .52 AB 112 .18 .54 .48 .36 .53 .49 .53 .22 .53 .47 .53 .17 .48 106 74 .110 112 B 59 . 62 65 68 69 76 86 91 93 96 101 103 .00 .68 1.00 .23 .35 1.00 ‘2 .17 .46 1.00 07 .23 .49. .39 .00 06 .36. .22 .43 .60 1.00 38 .41 .42 .49 .19 .51 1.00 46 .38. .41 .29 .62 .33 .37 1.00 62 .33 .33 .43 .14 .11 .40 .59 1.00 47 .48 .66 .59. .53 .22. .25 .48 .40 1.00 34» .55. .26- .36 .22. .31 .35 .33 .29 .50 1.00 29 .13 .29 .50 .02 .39 .59 .22 .52 .28 .27 1.00 57 .71 .19 .34 .29 .46 .52 -.51 .57 .51 .64 .29 1.00 12 .44- .09 .33 .37 .45 .51 .30 .29 .27 .48 .25 .67 1.00 10 .51 .30 .49. .33 .39 .52 .34 .42 .68 .60. .30 .74 .58 '1.00 39 .26 .46 .54 .28 .31. .77 .47 .53 .38 .41 .48 .46 .42 .53 1.00 107 e.g.eo.ee.em oo._ mm. mm. mm. up. as. «N. mm. mm. cowpnurcaeeou oo.p um. um. Fe. em. mm. mm. em. cowu~ELoecH O 0 O O 0 O O L°w>mnmm 00.. mm. mu. mm. om. mm. mcwxmzucowmwomo conumwh oo.~ mm. Pm. mm. mp. cuppa: oo.P mm. me. on. mmmcm>wmmgoo nzoew . . . meowpwucoo oo _ Nu _m pavem22ocw>cm quvmagm oo.~ mm. meow>emm oo.p weapon. Focowum>wpoz “03 .1. S .0 01. w 39 33.0 5 13w ”.0 U Wu“. 3 a D. 0 J O U U. a D. O em m. .au ma n Wm may M mm mm m a... .....w m we .3 m. m. m a O l. D. 3.0 0 J A I..U D. a S 1. w m m. w w m .u. m .m. L s m. 2833 U11. 0 A w a S U U I... l. U [.1 D. S 1. D. d O O a X. S D. .L u I“ D. I? IL p U a 5 a mwpmumnzm Hugh FF< com mp chpmz PmcompmpmeeooemucH 6.88. 108 Environmental Conditions and Matter (which cluster together), are domains in which a principal and/or the teaching staff typically can or do exercise limited influence, while in the remaining subscales it can be argued that a principal and/or teachers have the opportunity to enact considerable influence or control. Therefore, those considerations which are readily shaped, modifed or resolved by the principal and/or teachers appear to be highly correlated. Ostensibly, concerns in which the prin- cipal and/or teacher influence cannot readily attain resolution, also exhibited strong intercorrelational scores. Analysis of Feedback Forms Completed by Participants in the Second Pilot Study The information provided by the second pilot study group, relative to specified structural components of the TPCI, was utilized in an attempt to remedy deficiencies that were surfaced. Participants were administered a feedback form with the assumption that their knowledge and expertise of elementary teaching, the conditions which subsume that activity, and their relationship with their principal would facilitate the identification of structural strengths and weaknesses in the instru- ment. Described in this section are the inputs generated by the second pilot group which were thoroughly analyzed and incorporated in the refinement of the TPCI. All reactions to PART I--Item Analysis of the feedback form were compiled in the Summary Data Form (see Appendix F). 109 Divergent viewpoints were addressed with the intention of making appropriate structural modifications so that the identified sources of disparity would be reconciled. Of the 113 items included in the TPCI, the respondents perceived six items as having questionable clarity, while an additional six items were considered having doubtful relevance. Items 2, 9, 13, 29, 49 and 74 were identified as not being clearly stated. Items 2, 29 and 74 were deleted, while the remaining items were reconstructed. Items 10, 12, 17, 33, 37 and 61 were considered potentially irrel- evant and, consequently, appropriate modifications were made. In PART II--General Questions, all respondents perceived the length of the TPCI as being adequate. Only one respondent did hot think the TPCI included all significant interface factors. Suggested was the inclusion of an item relative to planning time for teachers (a notion which had already been included in the instrument). Additionally, all respondents stated that the TPCI format is appropriate for the content area explored, as well as for the utilization by a principal with his/ her staff. All recommendations raised by the respondents were absorbed in the TPCI prior to distribution to the field study group (see Appendix G). An additional noteworthy modification in the format of the instru- ment was the development of the TPCI Response Sheet (see Appendix G). This refinement was made for reasons of convenience in scoring. Rather than paging through the instrument to determine ratings, all responses would be centralized on a single sheet. 110 As a result of the revisions made on the basis of the Coefficient l\1;3tia scores, the intercorrelational matrices and the feedback forms, e1 even items were deleted and numerable other statements were recon- structed. At this juncture, the TPCI consisted of 102 items, distrib- irteecl in the aforementioned nine subscales (see Appendix G). Phase 9. The Validation of the TPCI in an Initial Field Test The purpose of this final phase was to determine how successful the 113(31 would be in achieving the basic research question--Will the TPCI ffiariction as a communication channel or vehicle which transmits informa- ‘tican relative to teachers' perceptions of various dimensions of the work environment to their principal? In an attempt to bring closure to this question, the TPCI was administered to a sampling of teachers and principals in rural and Suburban elementary schools in an intermediate school district in Michi- Elan. The Ingham Intermediate School District (1150) was selected as an aiapropriate domain to field test the instrument (see Figure 10). The 1150 covers a geographic area of approximately 700 square miles '1r1 south-central Michigan. Public school enrollment totals nearly 70,000 students . Within the boundaries of the 1150, there are twelve constituent 5School districts, eleven of which were identified as rural and suburban, while the remaining district was defined as urban. The eleven rural ahd suburban school districts each have a student population of 5,000 o‘r‘less and the urban school district has a pupil enrollment of greater 111 .xvaum ucmmmca c. wouzpucm poc powgumwo Foosum mcwmcm4e eme..exeeem m F F .Semnnmz “ Apem>mz a mcwmcmb “mam .DUwcumwo _oo;um wpmwumecmch EmcmcH .op wesmwm 112 than 30,000 students. It is to a sampling of the eleven rural and suburban school districts that this phase of the research has been addressed. In the forty elementary schools, in the eleven constituent school districts, approximately 675 teachers are employed to instruct nearly 16,000 students. Nine elementary schools were randomly selected for the field test. However, one of the forty elementary schools was not included in the draw, due to participation in the second pilot study. Nine principals and approximately 100 teachers participated in this phase of the re- search. The rationale for selecting nine as the number of participating schools was one of convenience. Including other schools would have appreciably increased the already large number of teachers who were requested to complete the instrument, and perhaps would have rendered the initial field test unmanageable. The nine randomly selected schools were then randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups or to the control group. A total of six schools were assigned to the treatment groups, while three schools were included in the control situation. All nine principals were requested to complete the TPCI on two separate occasions (pre/post) as they perceived the staff would respond. A provision for feedback differentiated the treatment and control conditions. Only the six principals in the treatment groups received feedback relative to how the staff did respond to the instrument and comparing the principal's scores with those of the teachers. In the 113 I control group, however, the teaching staffs were not administered the TPCI; therefore, no feedback mechanism was established (see Table 14). Table 14 Initial Field Test Design 1 Condition Sghghls Sequence Principal's Pre-test + Feedback + Principal's Treatment (How would the (The teachers' Post-test Group 1 teachers respond?) responses) (How did the teachers ___. 5 respond?); Principal's Pre-test-+ Feedback + Principal's Treatment (How would the (The teachers" Post-test Giroup 2 teachers respond?) responses) '(How did the teachers reSpond?) Principal's Pre-test + No Feedback +-Principal's Control (How would the Post-test Group 3 teachers respond?) (How would the teachers respond?) The determination as to which schools were assigned to the first or the second treatment group was made on the basis of a comparison of the overall profile score the teachers achieved with overall profile score of their principal. The three schools in which the principal's and teachers' scores illustrated the greatest disparity were assigned to the first treatment group, while the second treatment group consisted of teachers and principals in the three schools, whose scores were most compatible. 114 Specific null hypotheses involving the principals' pre- and post- scores are as follows: 1. For Treatment Group One, feedback information relative to teacher ratings will not have an effect upon the post- scores of the principals. For Treatment Group Two, feedback information relative to teacher ratings will not have an effect upon the post- scores of the principals. For the Control Group, the lack of feedback information relative to teacher ratings will not have an effect upon the post-scores of the principals. Results associated with Treatment Group One, Treatment Group Two and the Control Group will not reveal differ- ent effects. The following steps summarize the procedure utilized in this phase: STEP 1. The 1150 Assistant Superintendent was contacted four times: A. By telephone, informing him of the nature of the proposed study, requesting his cooperation and an appointment to further delineate the research effort. In a face-to-face encounter, amplifying the purpose of the study, requesting his cooperation by specifically providing a list of contact persons in the randomly selected school districts, as well as requesting him to initially communicate with those identified persons relative to the intent of the study. STEPZ. 115 By telephone, determining if contact persons in the selected districts had been provided information about the study and gaining insight into their receptivity to further explore potential participation. By letter, thanking him for his assistance and enclosing reference copies of the final revision of the TPCI, the TPCI Response Sheet, the TPCI Summary Data Sheet and the TPCI Scoring Grids (see Appendix I). The identified contact persons.for districts in which schools were randomly selected to participate in the initial field test,were contacted four times. (These persons, who would eventually facilitate entry into the desired schools, res- pectively held such positions as Director of Special Educa- tion, Curriculum Director, Elementary School Principals' Coordinator and Assistant Superintendent for Instruction ). A. By telephone (from the IISD Assistant Superintendent), explaining the purpose of the study and requesting their cooperation. By telephone, amplifying their role in the study and requesting an appointment to further discuss the proposal. In a face-to-face encounter, describing: the purpose of the study, the instrument, the anonymity provision, the anticipated time commitment and timeline for completion (see Appendix H), as well as delineating some of the benefits derived from participating in the study. Favor- able consequences were stated as providing: STEP 3. 116 1. an opportunity for principals to gather information relative to teachers' perceptions of critical as- pects of their work environment; 2. an opportunity for staff to express their opinions regarding specific aspects of their teaching res- ponsibilities; 3. an opportunity for principals to predict how the teaching staff would respond to the instrument and to compare those predictions with the actual ratings of the teachers; 4. an opportunity for principals to be provided (guar- anteed) face—to-face feedback, in the form of the TPCI Summary Data Sheet and the TPCI Scoring Grids; 5. an opportunity for principals to develop a data base upon which the mutual (with staff) development of goals and objectives might be anchored. A request was made that the contact persons communicate with the principals of the selected schools, relative to the purpose of the study, etc. By letter, thanking them for their assistance and enclosing reference copies of the final revision of the TPCI, the TPCI Response Sheet, the TPCI Summary Data Sheet and the TPCI Scoring Grids (see Appendix I). The Elementary School Principals were contacted seven times: 117 By telephone (from the district contact person), explaining the purpose of the study and requesting their cooperation. By telephone, amplifying their role in the initial field test and requesting an appointment to further discuss their potential participation. In a face-to-face encounter--see STEP 2--as well as requesting them to have dialogue with their teachers to ascertain their feelings regarding participation in the study. In a face-to-face encounter (after preliminary arrange- ments had been secured), requesting completion of the TPCI in a manner representative of how their teachers would respond and asking them to return the instrument to the researcher at the conclusion of the school day. In a face-to-face encounter, providing feedback rela- tive to the teachers' group and individual scores (for only those principals in the treatment groups). Feed- back included the principal's and teachers' mean scores for the overall instrument and for each subscale (see Appendix H), as well as TPCI Scoring Grids illustrating overall profile and subscale scores (see Appendix H). The researcher and the principal had an opportunity to analyze these data, comparing scores, and thereby facil- itating the identification of areas of congruence and dissonance. Specific items were cited and discussed. 118 Principals were requested to further study the data for a duration of one week, with the intention of more accurately determining how well their perceptions were aligned with those of the teachers. In a face-to-face encounter, once again requesting com- pletion of the instrument in a manner representative of staff perceptions. After the principals completed the TPCI, it was asked if they wished to be made aware of their score immediately. All principals desired this type of feedback. The post administration was then scored and the principals were provided data relative to how their responses compared with those of the staff. Once again the principals were encouraged to share the feedback they had received with their staff in a manner comfortable to them. By letter, thanking them for their assistance, enclosing reference copies of the final revision of the TPCI, the TPCI Response Sheet, the TPCI Summary Data Sheet and the TPCI Scoring Grids for further utilization with staff (see Appendix I). STEP ‘4. Elementary School Teachers were contacted three times: A. In a face-to-face encounter (with their principal) explain- ing the purpose of the study and requesting their participation. By letter (hand delivered by the researcher), requesting completion of the TPCI and its return in the provided 119 envelope to the building secretary who, in turn, would give them to the researcher at the conclusion of the school day (see Appendix H). By letter, thanking them for their assistance and informing them of the information forwarded to their principal in STEP 3-G above (see Appendix I). CHAPTER IV RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Results of the Initial Field Test Four hypotheses were generated and evaluated in order to determine a nneasure of validity for the TPCI. Tested was the assumption that after being administered the TPCI and receiving feedback information, a parincipal's predictions of staff's perceptions of the teacher- . prrincipal interface would become more accurate. A t-test appropriate for a small sample and a design using repeated measures was employed for Hypotheses l, 2 and 3, while a one-way analy- sis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to test Hypothesis 4. The Scheffé post-hoc treatment was employed in an attempt to discern the location and inagnitude of the differences obtained in the ANOVA. . A significance level was set at .05 due to the small sample size, as well as in the interest of identifying significant differences if, in fact, those differences did exist. An overview of the findings is presented in the following (see Table 15): Null Hypothesis 1. For Treatment Group One, feedback informa- tion relative to teacher ratings will not have an effect upon the post-scores of the principals. 120 121 Table 15 T-Test Results for Hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 Condition n df Direction Alpha Level T-Score Decision Treatment Group 1 :3 2 one-tailed .05 5.5309* Reject Ho Treatment Group 2 3 2 one-tailed .05 .0304 Do not reject H 0 Control Group 3 2 two-tailed .05 -1.9749 00 not reject Ho *Significant P<.05 It was postulated that the principals whose pre-test ratings illus- trated the greatest disparity with those of the teaching staff would not become more compatible given the feedback condition. A t-score was calculated at 5.5309; therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of the research hypothesis. Null Hypothesis 2. For Treatment Group Two, feedback informa- tion relative to teacher ratings will not have effect upon the post-scores of the principals. It was hypothesized that the principals whose pre-test scores were most closely aligned with those of the teaching staff would not appre- ciably change subsequent to receiving feedback relative to the teachers. perceptions. A t-score was calculated at .0304; therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. 122 Null Hypothesis 3. For the Control Group, the lack of feedback information relative to teacher ratings will not have an effect upon the post- scores of the principals. It was assumed that no significant differences would be observed in the pre- and post-test scores of the principals who did not receive feedback, relative to their teachers' ratings. A two-tailed t-test was utilized to assess this hypothesis due to the fact that the direction of anticipated change in the scores could not be predicted with any accuracy. A t-score was calculated at -l.9749; therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. Null Hypothesis 4. Results associated with Treatment Group One, Treatment Group Two and the Control Group will not reveal different effects. A one-way analysis of variance was used to determine if the abso- lute differences in the pre- and post-overall profile scores (grand mean) of the principals differed significantly for any of the three conditions. It was expected that those principals participating in Treatment Group One would demonstrate greater changes in their ratings (in the direction of the teachers' scores) than respondents in the remaining conditions. It was also anticipated that participants in Treatment Group Two would exhibit marginal changes in their ratings, in the direction of the teachers' scores, while the principals in the Control Group would be expected to exhibit a nominal difference in ratings, but in an undetermined direction. 123 Results indicated that the difference in scores for Treatment Group One occurred in the anticipated direction while the ratings in the second treatment and control groups changed in both directions. The F-ratio calculated for the ANOVA was 5.67; therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of the research hypothesis (see Table 16). Table 16 One-Way Analysis of Variance Source of Variation SS df MS F Variance Between .102 2 .051 5.67* Variance Within .056 6 .009 Total .158 8 *Significant P<.05 A disadvantage of using the F-test in ANOVA when more than two groups or treatments are being compared is that only general conclusions can be drawn from the rejection of the null hypothesis. The Scheffé post-hoc comparison technique was used in an attempt to determine the size and origin of the group differences. Scheffé was selected in the construction of interval estimates of the contrasts of interest because of its ability to detect differences in complex comparisons (two or more groups or treatments). Two contrasts of interests were evaluated. The first compared ‘Treatment Group One with Treatment Group Two and the Control Group, 124 while the second contrasted the feedback conditions (Treatment Groups One and Two) with the Control Group. In both cases non-significant results were obtained. This finding indicated that the differences surfaced by the F-test were not attributable to either of the contrasts of interest. An additional (paired) comparison was generated and tested by utilizing the Tukey method, which provides a greater opportunity of detecting differences in comparisons of two groups or treatments. The contrast of interest was Treatment Group One with the Control Group. Once again, non-significant results were calculated. In each of the contrasts, the null hypothesis was not rejected; therefore, the significant differences evidenced by using the F-test were not located in the post-hoc comparisons. All comparisons of’ interest relevant to the intent of this study were tested, no additional contrasts were explored. Conclusions Regarding the Initial Field Test It is understood that any and all conclusions generated by the research described heretofore must be tempered with a statement relative to the small sample size utilized in each of the three conditions. Although over 100 persons participated in the initial field test, an "n" of three was assigned to each condition. Each of the "participants" represented a building principal, as well as the teaching staff, in the case of the treatment groups. The primary concern in the field test was with the pre- and post-test overall profile scores of the principals. 125 Therefore, the teachers upon which the feedback information was based were not included in the sample size. It is also recognized that the results obtained in the field test might not have a similar impact at some future point in time. It is possible to expect scores to become less compatible in time, as well as it is plausible to anticipate greater congruence. One of the critical determinants of the consistency (temporal stability) of the results presented in this section is the effort expended by principals and teachers in attending to and communicating the provided feedback infor- mation contained in the TPCI Summary Data Sheet and the TPCI Scoring Grids. Dialogue relative to the TPCI items themselves, as a source of information, may also, in the long run, affect the results presented forthwith. Hypothesis 1. Statistically significant results were reported for Treatment Group One, establishing a validity measure for the TPCI.‘ The principals whose pre-scores were most incompatible with the ratings of their teachers became significantly closer after being provided feedback (see Table 17). It is important to emphasize that the results of all three principals in Treatment Group One changed in the anticipated direc- tion; that is, closer to the ratings of the staff. Initially, the principals' scores represented a difference of .66, .44 and .81 with the teachers' ratings. After receiving feedback the principals' scores indicated a deviation of .29, .19 and .33, a change of .37, .25 and .48, respectively. 126 Table 17 Teachers' Scores, Principals' Pre- and Post-Scores, and Difference Scores for Treatment Group One (greatest disparity group) Subscale SCh°°1 1 see 1 _ i”. 8 $38 8 l m ‘55.. s: «so : 1 S- Q0 0.1"- QU GIN .2 m {353 3 w '8‘? 641 \ 86 ~56. 3:6 5'; 3:6 1': .98 ‘25: '58 32.2 '58 e_t ‘Motivational 3.20 3.78 58 2.89 .31 Factors Services 3.23 3.86 .63 3.57 .34 ,Physical ' Environmental 3.00 3.11 .11 3.33 .33 Conditions .Group . W Cohesiveness 3.48 4.00 .52 3.43 .05 Matter Materials, Supplies, 3.25 4.17 .92 3.50 .25 Equipment) Teacher Decision- 3.17 3.86 .69 3.29 J2 Making Principal '~ Leadership 3.20 3.96 .76 3.79 .59 Behavior Information 2.89 3.86 .97 3.29 .40 Communication Relationship 3.49 4.00 .51 3.83 .Biwes. Overall Profile 3.19 3.85 .66 3.48 .29 *The Principal did not respond to subscale score was calculated. more than 20% of the items; therefore, no 127 School 3 N meoom managemewo ‘1‘“ rd .38 .40 .10 .45 .22 .20 .42- - .13 .60 .33 ocoumipmom .m._ma_ucwem 4.00 3.14 3.44 4.43 4.00 3.64 3.79 3.57 4.08 3.76 p meoum . mesmemmmmo .— p .71 .59 .68 .62 .84 1.09 .71 .85 .81 meoumumem .m._mawocwca 4.33 3.33 4.22 4.40 4.28 4.37 4.15 4.33 4.24 weoom .mcmcummh O" 3.62 2.74 3.54 3.98 3.78 3.44 3.28 3.44 3.48 3.43 1 School 2 N meoum mucwemmmmo at .13 .25 .26 .28 .34 .04 .54 .31 .41 .19 .- LA. , ocoomiumoa Mm._oq.ucpea 3.67 3.00 2.89 3.57 3.83 3.00 3.50 2.79 3.67 P «Loom .. 88...... .57 .39 .48 .28 .34 .15 1.16 -17 .60 3.30 . ,.44 . mcoumumca. 2m.pmawu:wea .u..II1|.lIIIOII-'"Q I .ucoumw .mmeommhh 4.11 IL541 2.757" 3.14 3.15E 2.67 3.85 l 3.57 3.83 3.21 4.12 2.93 3.83 3.55 3.49 IL06 2.96 3.10 3.23.. 3.11. 128 Ostensibly, these findings are contingent upon the caliber of information provided the principals prior to the administration of the post-test. It was anticipated and corroborated that, given the sources of congruency and disparity between staff and principal and among staff themselves, the principals would be better able to identify staff's reactions. The decision to reject the null hypothesis in favor of treatment effects might assume added significance considering principals were provided a limited duration (one week) to assimilate the data contained in the feedback, prior to being administered the instrument a second time. It is anticipated that the discrepancy between the principals' scores and those of the staff would become proportionately smaller, as the period of time between the feedback condition and the post-test increased. In the case of this study, a one-week time frame did not preclude the acquisition of statistically significant results. However, the actual effect of an extended duration is not known at this juncture. It can also be concluded that the TPCI can effectively be utilized vvith elementary school principals and teachers whose perceptions of “teacher-principal interface components are varied and widespread. The ‘TPCI can be used to reduce the equivocal nature of perceptual or atti- tudinal variability between principals and their teaching staff regard- ing aspects of the interface they share. The propensity for principals to become more accurate in identify- ing teachers' attitudes becomes highly critical when one considers the potential impact substantive differences in administrative and staff perceptions of the teacher-principal interface have upon the functionality 129 of the elementary school system. By employing the TPCI, those principals who initially exhibited an inaccurate understanding of staff's perceptions were able to better represent the teachers' atti- tudes when asked to complete the instrument, after having been provided the feedback information. The ability of the TPCI to profile perceptual similarities and differences and its tendency to ameliorate serious variability in principals' and teachers' scores can be considered substantive findings. Hypothesis 2. Non-significant results were calculated for Treat- Inent Group Two. It was anticipated that principals whose pre-scores iwere most aligned with those of the teaching staff would not become significantly closer to the teachers' ratings after receiving feedback information (given the limited time period allocated to assimilate the data). However, as important as the achievement of statistical sig- nificance for this condition, is the tendency for elementary school principals who have already exhibited an ability to accurately predict staff's perceptions to become somewhat more accurate in their predic- tions after utilizing the TPCI. Neither of these considerations were corroborated for Treatment Group Two. One principal attained precisely the same pre-score and post-score, one principal's perceptions of staff's attitudes became slightly less accurate and one principal's perceptions of staff's attitudes became more accurate after being pro- vided feedback (see Table 18). The principal whose score remained the same illustrated only .04 difference with the staff's score. The principal whose post-score was more compatible with the teachers' ratings exhibited a change in the 130 Table 18 Teachers' Scores, Principals' Pre- and Post-Scores and Difference Scores for Treatment Group Two (closely aligned group) Subscale School 4 I m m ‘TF 71 - L... 8 :L 8 8 in ‘63- C MO 2 $- 0.0 (Dr- Q0 (UN 0 'l-U ‘- ‘l—U) ‘- 50) UV) CDC) Cl 00 US. :1 91-3- CH '4—5- 88 'EE :8 '28 t8 1—cn 0.0. 01/) an. em 4‘ Motivati°nal 3.54 3 11 43 3 44 10 Factors Services 3.81 3.71 10 3.86 .05 Physical Environmental 3.20 2.78 .42 3.22 .02 Conditions Group Cohesiveness 3.77 4.14 .37 3.86 .09 Matter 1 . Materials, Supp11es’ 3.67 3.67 .00 3.83 .16 1 Equipment) i Teacher Decision- 3.14 3.43 .29 3.28 .14 Making Principal Leadership 3.59 3.91 .32 3.58 .01 : Behavior 1 information 3.59 3.36 .23 3.43 .16 1 Communication Relationship 3.89 4.08 .19 3.92 .03 41 Overall 1 Profile 3.56 3.60 .04 3.60 .04 “L 131 School 6 N mcoom mucmcmmewo .33 .03 .13 .01 .41 .12 .06 .06 .29 .05 m.Fmamocwem oeoumuumoa 4.00 3.14 3.44 4.00 3.67 3.79 3.96 3.79 3.75 3.87 _ meoum wucmcmemwo .00 .26 .68 .15 .01 .48 .15 .59 .04 .24 oeoomimcm m._mawocwcm 3.67 3.43 2.89 3.86 4.17 3.43 3.75 3.14 meoum .mcmcummh 3.67 3.17 3.57 4.01 4.18 3.91 3.90 3.73 7 4.00 4.04 School 5 N mcoom mucwememwo .15 .57 .06 .57 .43 .27 .40 .43 .04 accumupmom m._ee.ee.ee 4.22 3.43 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.36 4.33 4.21 4.42 » 4.25 P mcoom mocmcmmmwn .15 .71 .05 .43 .10 meoumimcew n._ee.ee.ee 4.22. 3.57 4.11 4.86 .3.67 .34 .07 ' .29 ' .13 ’ .19.. 4.43 4.00, 4.07 4.25 v1.4.14 meoum. .. ....n...6...t...8.: 4407' 24% 4AM - 409 393 378 4438 .395 132 anticipated direction of .19. This result represented an overall .05 difference with the staff's score. It should be noted that the prin- cipal whose rating changed in the unanticipated direction by .11 was the only participant (in both treatment groups) whose post-test results were less accurate than the initial ratings. This principal became suspect of not cooperating with the intent of the research when he stated, "I didn't have much chance to look at this material (feedback information), but I'm going to." It is not being concluded that one of the three participants in treatment two biased the results; however, it is being suggested that the TPCI can be sensitive to slight differ— ences in administrator-teacher perceptions of the teacher-principal interface. Data supporting this assumption have yet to be surfaced. Hypothesis 3. The null hypothesis was not rejected and; therefore, it can be concluded that no treatment effects were observed in the Con- trol Group. It was anticipated that the principals' pre- and post-test results would not differ significantly, given a no-feedback condi- tion was operative and that no major changes were effectuated in the school environment relative to the perceptions of the teacher-principal interface. Considering the no-feedback condition, it was not likely that changes in the principals' ratings would occur in an "anticipated“ direction (see Table 19). Two principals' scores increased, one by .37, the other by .19. The third principal's rating decreased .23. Two of the three participating principals commented that they had anticipated changes in their scores, despite a no-feedback condition, 133 wwwwoea mp. mm.m on.m mN. mm.m Nm.m Nm. FN.e ew.m .Fmem>o . . . . . . . -H . .. e.g.co....ez .o mm m NN m mN oo 3 mN e mN N. e Nm m :o.pou.==EEou 3.. 00.3 mm.m om. om.m oo.e 3.. mm.m NN.m copumsgoec. . . . . . . . . . .o.>8;6m 3.3. mm mm m mm m 30 mm m co 3 me mm c mm 3 -cmuam. Puavucwee . . . . . . . . . mcwxwz No oo 3 mm m mm c. m cm m m. me m mN m icowmwomo Lacuna» . . . . . . . . . .pcmsawsum .mmwpaaam N. oo 3 N. e No om m N. e o. mm m mm m .mpewcoumzv .mppwz . . . . . . . . . mmm=m>wmmgou mN oo 3 .N m e. oo 3 mm m mm nm e .N m aaoew . . . . . . . . . meowpwucoo Pmpcwe oo. mm.m mm.m 3.. om.m 00.3 e... Nm.e m¢.m mmup>com 3.. mw.m mN.m FF. no.m mn.m NN. oo.e NN.m weapon. chowpm>wuoz em we 8... em. we 8.... nm we we 01: SL. 31.. 01... SI... 31.. 01: $1... 31.. J1... 1U .U J1... 1U .U J1... 1U .U 33 .3 S3 33 .3 S3 33 .3 S3 J SI... 3|... 1% SI? 0|? J 51.. 3|? .n. mm mm m 9.... ad a 58 od 3 a 1. a 1. o a 1. mwm. w mflm. Mwmw 3 3 51 $1 3 3 SI SI 3 3 SI 51 m .oocum N Poogom N Poogom upmumnsm mp mpnmh Aazocm xumnvmmm ocv asoew Foeucoo com mmcoum wocmcmmmwo new numom .18.; .mpmawucwee 134 because they had an opportunity to refine their perceptions of staff by giving some of the items considerable thought. Perhaps, the lack of significant results may also, in an indirect manner, attest to the temporal stability of the TPCI. Hypothesis 4. In the ANOVA the null hypothesis was rejected; therefore, it was concluded that differing effects can be associated with the two treatment groups and the control group. The magnitude and location of the differences was explored by employing post-hoc compari- son techniques. Conclusions relative to the size and origin of the differences surfaced by the F-test cannot be corroborated with the data obtained in the post-hoc treatment. All contrasts yielded non-significant results. However, it can be inferred that the differences lie within contrasts which are not considered relevant for the purposes of this study. Recommendations Provided by the Principals Participatipgyin the Initial Field Test In addition to the results of the tests of the four hypotheses, data were collected in the field test by administering a feedback form to the principals,relative to their perceptions of the TPCI, its admin- istration and utilization (see Appendix H). Of the nine yes-no inquir- ies, in which a positive response indicated agreement, seven were responded to in the affirmative by all participating principals. Further delineation of their ratings and recommendations is provided in the following outline (listed according to feedback question number): 135 A11 principals perceived TPCI items as being highly relevant. One principal noted that an item such as the one addressing the evaluation of the principal, although relevant, might be dictated by the central administration. Another principal commented, "A school where all of the statements were ans- wered in the affirmative would be perhaps ideal, but not very effective." All principals, excepting one, stated that the length of the TPCI is appropriate. 1 All principals agreed that the TPCI sufficiently addressed the salient dimensions of the teacher-principal interface. No recommendations were made relative to the need to develop additional items. All principals perceived the format of the TPCI as being appropriate. No suggestions surfaced. All principals perceived the feedback information as being understandable; however, one principal commented, "Some statements might be interpreted differently by different people." All principals reported that the TPCI generated information that was highly useful. It was noted by one principal that the TPCI "points up differences in perceptions and will be helpful in working with staff in areas of disagreement." Several principals explained that they were glad to have had the opportunity to participate in the field test. They anticipated much "soul-searching" in attempting to reduce 136 the disparity associated with administrative-staff perceptions of the interface. However, it was believed that the expected introspection would be directed at activities which might have a profound impact upon the operation of their school. All principals agreed that the information generated by using the TPCI should be shared with staff. Implicit in two reac- tions was the intent to partially or selectively disclose TPCI information. The extent to which principals wish to share TPCI information might be variable, as witnessed in the fol- lowing comments: "Some areas could be helpful in developing more common perceptions and improved understanding" and "The principal should determine what and how much should be shared, based on his knowledge of individuals on staff and past expea rience." When asked if the TPCI should be administered more than one time during the school year, five principals responded in the affirmative while four selected the negative alternative. One divergent viewpoint suggested the TPCI should be admini- stered every three years, due to the notion that it will require considerable time to change perceptions. It was also suggested that the TPCI should be administered on two occa- sions during the initial year of utilization (once to become familiar with the procedure and once to gather accurate per- ceptions); subsequently, it is to be administered one time per year. If the TPCI were to be administered on two occa- sions during each school year, it was recommended that the 10. 137 conclusion of the initial and final semesters would be most appropriate--perhaps in November and then again in April. It was also noted that the administration of the TPCI should be completed on a day(s) which does not immediately precede or follow vacation or holiday periods. All principals indicated they planned to use the results of the TPCI. The following strategies emerged as methods the principals intended to employ for the utilization of TPCI information: a. to provide staff the information prior to convening . group discussions; to organize the information in booklet form as refer- ence material and to utilize transparencies to share the data at staff meetings; to use the TPCI in areas where large differences exist to determine why and what can be done about these dif- ferences with staff; to use the TPCI as a method of self-assessment and to change situations to improve perceptions; to discuss the major dimensions of the TPCI with the teachers' Instructional ImproVement Committee; to utilize the information at in—service pre-school conferences, held in early September; to share the TPCI Scoring Grids with the teaching staff in an attempt to develop long-term strategies (prior- ties) relative to the identified problem areas; 11. 12. The as: The 138 to mutually develop specific goals and objectives, based upon objective data; to help establish 1975-76 objectives regarding the principal-teacher relationship. major strengths of the TPCI were reported by the principals it provides a comprehensive battery of relevant items regarding communication; it is important to know where the staff stands or how they feel about many statements on the TPCI; it can make the principal aware of morale problems and how his/her staff views the principal's role; it is an initial step in analyzing and planning action for change; it forces one to take a realistic look at his/her total job performance, particularly in the human relations area; it gives an idea of staff perceptions as opposed to how a principal sees staff perceiving building opera- tions and it provides information to be used with indi- viduals and groups, to improve overall staff relations and perceptions; it provides discussion points for establishing objec- tives. major weaknesses of the TPCI were stated as: d. 139 some questions seemed redundant; perhaps,a third party is needed to administer the TPCI and interpret the results; a more standardized means of interpreting the state- ments in the TPCI would make the results more valid. This may not be possible; the TPCI is too long. 13. With regards to future utilization of the TPCI, it was sug- gested that: a. the teaching staff be reassured that their principal was not formally being evaluated and that information would not be shared with the superintendent, and the TPCI would be very useful for eey_staff and principal. Additional Comments rendered by the principals participating in the field test included: a. "This was a very interesting experience; I need time to digest it"; "After taking the first instrument, I found I had time to evaluate my responses and think about the questions. The second time I took the TPCI, I felt I could give more accurate responses"; "I hope to use the TPCI with staff, in the beginning and end of the school year"; 140 d. "If I had more time to study the feedback, I believe the change in the results in second questionnaire would be more significant"; e. "Other principals in the district who usually veto participating in survey research want to utilize it. Why weren't they included in the study?"; f. "It was difficult to separate my perceptions from those of the staff"; 9. "The feedback was great. I will use the TPCI with staff--it will be a useful tool"; h. "The questions are super. It should be marketed." Recommendations for Further Research In this study, elementary school principals and teachers in rural 311d suburban districts were sampled. In terms of future research effort, 1't is suggested that: 1. a larger sample size be used to test the sensitivity of the TPCI in identifying and communicating marginal disparities between principals' and teachers' perceptions of the inter- face they experience; 2. urban centers be utilized as a sample population; 3. a time period, greater than one week, be established between providing feedback information and the principals' post-test; 4. the TPCI be modified and utilized with special education .staff and first-line administrators; 10. 11. 141 the TPCI be modified and utilized for use with secondary level school personnel; alternate forms of the TPCI be developed for utilization with such "support systems" as ancillary personnel, secretarial staff, etc.; an additional measure of internal consistency for the TPCI be calculated, perhaps by using COefficient Alpha; a measure of the stability of the TPCI be calculated by using a test re-test situation; the results of administering the TPCI to the field test group be further substantiated (validated) by utilizing a concurrent validation technique, such as correlating the TPCI with another assessment tool or by use of inde- pendent observation; the collection of TPCI's be conducted in a central loca- tion, other than the office of the principal--such as the teachers' lounge--or that all the TPCI's be administered by the researcher in a face-to-face encounter, thereby guaranteeing immediate and untampered collection upon completion; a "coorientation" model be explored for future adminis- tration of the TPCI. Specifically, both principals and teachers would be requested to complete the form on two separate occasions. In the initial administration, participants would be instructed to respond by indicating their own perceptions. In the final administration, 142 teachers would be asked to respond in a manner representative of how their principal would react to the instrument, while the principal would be requested to perform a similar task in predicting the teachers' ratings; 12. follow-up correspondence be initiated with the participants of the initial field test to determine whether or not the results of the TPCI were useful in developing, modifying or maintaining aspects of the teacher-principal interface. Recommendations for Administeringethe TPCI The TPCI has been designed to be used by an elementary school prin- cipal with his/her staff of classroom teachers. Primarily, the instru- Inent has been developed to provide teachers an opportunity to describe various aspects of the interface they share with their principal. With minimal modifications in directions, the TPCI can be utilized by the principal to describe his/her own perceptions of the interface or to describe how he/she predicts the staff will respond to the instrument. Teachers can also be directed to complete the form in a manner repre- sentative of how their principal will respond or how they perceive their principal will respond in predicting their (teachers') responses. The instrument can be administered individually or in a group. It is not essential for the person completing the TPCI to write his/her name on the response sheet. The name of the building principal might be required if the administration of the school is shared equally between or among two or more persons and/or a comparison of the principal's and staff's ratings is intended to ensue. 143 Although it is not essential, efforts should be made to have respondents indicate their name on the form. If teachers would be willing to identify themselves, better utilization of the data would then be possible in surfacing and addressing their individual needs. This approach permits a definition of the source from which specific perceptions emerged. . The loss of anonymity is accompanied by a potential fear of retri- bution for honest responses; therefore, the quality of the teachers' ratings may be appreciably impaired. Teachers may then attempt to mark responses in a manner pleasing to their principal and not how they perceive the items. However, with the staff and administration concurring with the rationale and agreeing to identify themselves on the form, individual results can be made available so that the principal and teacher can compare and contrast their respective perceptions of TPCI items. Further analysis of the variability of individual teacher's scores might then become possible. If identification in this fashion is not plausible, attempts should be made to determine how each teacher per- ceives the responses of the group. This task can be accomplished through the utilization of staff meetings or personal interviews in which each respondent would be provided an opportunity to express reac- tions to the data included in the TPCI Summary Data Sheet and the TPCI Scoring Grids. In explaining the purpose and nature of the TPCI prior to its administration, it is necessary to emphasize that participants respond to the item as accurately as possible, as it applies to their school 144 and specifically, to the relationship with their principal. Whenever appropriate, respondents must be assured that their results will not be made available to persons other than those they have indicated should share the information. It is also assumed that the nature of the teacher-principal inter- face is a variable and dynamitally changing construct. Therefore, it is anticipated that over a period of sufficient duration, perceptions and attitudes will become modified. In order to maintain accurate information relative to staff's changed or stabilization of opinion, it is suggested that the TPCI be administered at least one time during each school year. Implicit in some of the morale research is the notion that an outside agency or third party should be utilized in an investigation which probes and might have a profound effect upon administrator-staff relationships. The rationale for such a recommendation include reasons such as: l. morale instruments are difficult to construct; morale instruments are difficult to interpret; morale instruments are lacking in the field of education; teacher cooperation is difficult to obtain in a self-study; 01 h (A) N o o o 0 commercial agencies have skills beyond most administrators in this particular area; 6. it is often difficult for administrators to perceive their own situations; \I o confidentiality is not readily guaranteed in a self-study. 145 The TPCI addresses some of the problems in conducting a self-study of morale or job satisfaction as it relates to administrator-staff relationships. First of all, there is no need for a principal to construct his/her own instrument thereby duplicating research that has already been conducted. Interpretation of results can be facilitated by the various sum- mary data techniques and strategies included in administering and analyzing the TPCI. For example, the TPCI Summary Data Sheet and TPCI Scoring Grids, as well as personal interviews with staff, can poten- tially reduce the equivocal nature of interpreting results. The responsibility for ascribing specific meaning to a set of data obtained by using the TPCI should be equally shared by administrators and staff. Teacher cooperation is not difficult to secure, providing teachers are included in all of the preliminary planning of the assessment program. If they do not fully understand and appreciate the values to be derived in such a study, the effort may ultimately fail. Being included in the discussion and decision-making process from the onset will foster teacher support and cooperation. The planning stage should also take into consideration the way in which the results will be used. Plans should be made, in tentative form, for a series of meetings to consider the results of the survey, and a plan should be considered for putting the recommendations into action. This will help perpetuate the notion that the administration is being completely honest and straightforward about the proposal. Commercial agencies do have expertise in the area of morale or Job satisfaction investigation. However, the present function of the 146 principal is broad-based and varied. School principals have an extremely important role to play in the development and maintenance of high staff morale and job satisfaction. Their ability to accept and meet the challenges of relating to the needs of a highly trained and specialized staff must be given appropriate consideration. This new role mandates further exploration. In terms of confidentiality, it is intended that a principal utilize the TPCI with his/her staff in an open and honest manner. The 'sharing of the teachers' and principal's responses is to be encouraged. Administration, scoring and interpretation can be a function of the cooperation of staff and administration. Information can and must be made available so that individual perceptions are respected and addressed. Despite the cautions stated above, a school system should not post- pone a self or third party study until obvious signs of malcontentment appear (rapid turnover, absenteeism, tardiness, excessive griping, lack of cooperation, etc.). The development of specific strategies in order to circumvent the pitfalls of the self-study method can be best achieved by the mutual efforts of the administration and staff. The third party approach is a viable alternative for evaluation; however, a self-study strategy has considerable merit and can be effectively IJtilized. Implications for Administrators Administrators are consistently confronted with similar perplexing Problems relative to staff morale and job satisfaction. It is apparent 147 that too frequently teachers have been treated alike. They are denied their natural and legitimate needs for individuality, independence and equality when considered collectively. What is satisfying for one teacher might very well be a "turn-off" for another. As a result of collective treatment, individual overall growth potential has been frus- trated. Perhaps, this condition helps clarify the rise of unionism in teacher groups, which in reality might be another way of compensating for stifled communication channels which prohibited self-expression and, consequently, self-actualization within the public schools. Argyris (l969) aptly described the problem when the efforts of individual teachers striving to grow, develop and enhance their sense of innerworth are blocked by faulty administration-teacher interactions: [W]hen he [teacher] is not permitted to truly actualize his potential that he makes a decision to 'simplify' his person- ality, making money and other material factors more important. It is as if the employee says to himself, 'I want to be a healthy, creative human-being; I cannot be,'. . . therefore, I will say 'To hell with my total personality,‘ and place the major emphasis on money (p. 196). West (1972) hypothesized that as a consequence for such "molding" many teachers who might have been best suited for teaching have become dissatisfied by their loss of identity and ability to manipulate environ- tnental factors and have been driven out of the mainstream of effective- riess or out of the school completely. Unable to make more salient c:ontribution to the school organization, teachers frequently turn in (iespair toward less gratifying aspects of their work environment: [T]o champion wages, fringe benefits and in so doing they make issues out of what would ordinarily never see the bar-. gaining table. The individual-organizational conflict [admin- istrator-staff] runs rampant in the schools as money demands cloak the real problem (p. 250). 148 It is obvious that there are numerable strategies which can be implemented to counteract the daily dilemmas encountered by administra- tors. Research studies have indicated that the key to the situation rests upon administrator-teacher relationships, specifically, the teacher-principal interface. The principal exercises a significant role in the establishment and maintenance of morale among the staff in his/her school. How well the principal functions and the degree to which the staff is involved in school operations will help determine the morale of the school. In order to more efficiently deal with the multifaceted and changing nature of the interface, the following general statements are listed as suggestions: 1. Lines of communication must be clearly established and maintained between the teaching staff (and non-teaching staff) and the principal. A lack of communication will most surely prohibit understanding of one another's per- ceptions of the interface and will deter the proper morale status. In communicating with the staff, the principal should be careful to demonstrate respect for the teacher as an individual with worth and dignity and as a profes- sional qualified to perform the role for which he/she was employed. 2. Opportunities must be provided so that teachers can exer- cise more autonomy in making decisions. Extensive col- laboration and consultation with staff are suggested. When teachers are involved, their understanding of the functions of the administrator increases, and this 149 positively affects teacher morale. The administrator should remind the staff that he/she is legally and profes- sionally responsible for making some decisions, but that he/she respects their opinions and ideas and will use them when possible. Matters that can be decided by, and which affect, staff should be referred to them for con- sideration and possibly for a decision. When teachers have had some input in the development of policies by which they work, they will feel more commonality with the goals of the staff as a whole. Involvement in the manage- ment of the school can transform many uninterested, apathetic bystanders into active participants. 3. Efforts must be taken to consistently provide recognition for teaching-related success. Although recognition does not have the profound impact of the actual success, it has been identified by teachers as a measure of success. The domains of communication, participative decision-making and recognition suggest an inexhaustive variety of administrative behaviors. Conjured up might be such activities as: frequent classroom visitations; cooperative planning of staff meetings; increased individual responsi- bility in developing and implementing instructional programs; activities for developing professional skills; identifying and providing opportuni- ties for teachers to experience personal and professional success; expressing gratitude for successful work effort by means of telephonic, written or face-to-face feedback, etc. The list continues, as far as one's imagination can reach. 150 In order to introduce greater specificity to the suggestions stated above, in terms of providing teachers' perceptions of the inter- face, the use of the TPCI is suggested. By utilizing the TPCI: 1. present conditions can be accurately assessed; 2. an analysis of the potential gap between present and optimal conditions can be conducted; 3. concrete steps can be taken to improve and/or reinforce present conditions; 4. a re-assessment of conditions can be utilized to deter- mine the effectiveness of the action plan and modification. Insights into the kind of intervention technique or plan of action which would be appropriate for each staff member might become less equivocal after having employed the TPCI. Strengths, as well as weak- nesses, of the teacher-principal interface are surfaced in understand- able, behavioral terms. Given this kind of information, opportunities can be developed which seek to balance external controls (which tend to dictate interface outcomes) with internal controls (which tend to perpetuate satisfaction and self-directedness). Implicit in the attempt to seek internal-external harmony in the teacher-principal interface is the development of more clearly defined, individual-oriented alternatives than those general statements suggested previously. The data generated by using the TPCI can provide the specificity essential for relating to individual needs of teachers. Irrespective of the assessment tool, individualization with staff is no mean task. However, the need to attend to the uniqueness of each teacher remains corroborated throughout the literature. 151 The words of Saul Alinsky used to introduce this research might have struck a somewhat ominous note relative to one's destiny at home, work or play. Efforts are being, and have been, expended to place the destiny of education in the hands of teachers, administrators, parents students, etc. The challenge seems monumental, but nonetheless attain- able. Subscription to the following notion might provide the impetus necessary to sustain this challenge: Each idea not yet realized curiously resembles a utopia; one would never do anything if one thought that nothing is possible except that which already exists (Simone de Beauvoir). REFERENCES REFERENCES American Association of School Administrators. Morale for a Free World. Twenty-Second Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: The Associa- tion, 1944. American Association of School Administrators. Staff Relations in School Administration. Thirty-Third Yearboék. wwaShington, D.C.: e ssoc1ation, . Anderson, Beverly S. "Systems and Ecosystems Terms." Unpublished Instructional Materials, Michigan State University, 1972. Argyris, C. "Individual Actualization in Complex Organizations." Organizations and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools, Eds. Thomas J. Sergiovanni and Fred D. Carver. New York: MCGraw Hill Book Company, 1969, pp. 189-199. Arnold, D. S. "Morale as Influenced by Participating in Group Planning and Action." Educational Research, Vol. 32 (1953), p. 209. Barry, Franklyn. "Factors Affecting Administrative Morale." Unpub- lished Doctoral Dissertation, Syracuse University, 1956. Bidwell, Charles E. "The Administrative Role and Satisfaction in Teaching." Educational Sociology, Vol. 29 (September, 1955), pp. 41-47. Blocker, C. E.. and Richardson, R. C. "Twenty-Five Years of Morale Research: A Critical Review." Educational Sociology, V01. 36 (1963), pp. 200-210. Braem, William. "An Investigation of the Significance of Morale Fac- tors as Judged by 150 New Jersey Teachers." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Teachers' College, Columbia, Missouri, 1950. Bredemeier, Harry 0., and Stephenson, Richard M. The Analysis of Social Systems. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1962. Burk, Frederick. "The Withered Heart of the Schools." Educational Review, Vol. 34 (1907), pp. 448-458. Burton, William H. "The Teacher's Morale as an Important Factor in Teachin Success." California Journal of Elementary Education, Vol. 6 gMay, 1938), pp.‘216-226. 152 153 Byrd, O. E. "Factors in Mental Health." National Education Association, Vol. 49 (1960), pp. 77-78. Chase, F. S. "Factors for Satisfaction in Teaching." Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 33 (1951), pp. 127-131. Cohen, G. J. "A Study of the Socio-Economic Status of the School Com- munity and the Morale of the Teaching Personnel in New York City." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, New York University, 1959. Cook, Edward V. "Leadership Behavior of Elementary School Principals and the Organizational Climate of the Schools They Administer." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Rutgers State University, 1968. Coverdale, G. M. "Some Determinants of Teacher Morale." Educational Review, Vol. 26 (November, 1973), pp. 30-38. Ellenberg, F. C. "Factors Affecting Teacher Morale." NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 56 (December, 1972), pp. 37-45. Evans, Helen Marie. Map_the Designer. New York: MacMillan Company, 1973, p. 3. Franks, Daniel T. "A Study of Teacher Morale as Related to Selected Personal and Professional Factors." Unpublished Doctoral Disserta- tion, University of Indiana, 1963. Fraser, Graeme S. "Organizational Properties and Teacher Reactions." Comparative Educational Review, Vol. 14 (February, 1970), pp. 20-29. Friesen, 0. "Variations in Perceptions of Organizational Climate." Alberta Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 18 (June, 1972), pp. 91-99. Garrison, K. C. "Comparative Responses of Teachers and Student Teachers to Various Items on the Teachin Situation Test." Elementary School, Vol. 45 (February, 1945), pp. 334-339. Gregorc, Anthony F., and Hendrix, David F. "Are Turned-Off Teachers Turning Off Your Schools?" School Management, Vol. 17 (March, 1973). p. 33. Griffiths, Daniel E. Human Relatjons in School Administration. New York: Appelton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1956. Gurin, G.; Veroff, J.; and Feld, S. Americans View Their Mental Health. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Gurin, Patricia; Gurin, Gerald; Lao, Rosina C.; and Beattie, M. "Internal- External Control in Motivational Dynamics of Negro Youth." Social Issues, Vol. 25 (1969), pp. 29-52. 154 Hall, A. D., and Fagan, R. E. "Definition of Systems.“ Modern Systems Research for Behavioral Scientists, Ed. Walter Buckley. Chicago: Alaine Puhiishing Company, 1968, pp. 81-92. Halpin, Andrew W., and Crofts, D. B. The Dr anizational Climate of Schools. Midwest Administration Center, 1963. Hand, Harold. "What Makes High Teacher Morale?" Educational Leadership, Vol. 5 (1948), pp. 279-280. Hedlund, P. A., and Brown, F. S. "Conditions that Lower Teacher Morale." Nations Schools, Vol. 48 (1951), pp. 41-42. Hemphill, John K., and Coons, Alvin E. Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. Ohio: Ohio State UniVersity, 1950. Hersey, R. B. "Emotional Factors in Accidents." Personnel, Vol. 15 (1936), pp. 59-65. Herzberg, Frederick, et a1. Job Attitudese: Review of Research and Opinion. Pittsburgh: PsychologicaTTServices,“1957, p. 279. Herzberg, Frederick; Mausner, Bernard; and Snyderman, Barbara Block. The Motivation to Work. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1959. Hoppock, Robert. Job Satisfaction. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1935. Ingemi, John B. "A Study of Personality Factors Affecting Teacher Morale and the Implications for Personnel Policies and Practices in the Westwood Consolidated School System." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Columbia University, 1957. Johnson, Helen M. "Teaching in a New School." Educational Leadership, Vol. 27 (March, 1970), pp. 556-559. Juckett, E. A. "Staff Morale." NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 3 (1950), pp. 158- 166. Katz, 0., and Kahn, R. The Social Psychology of Orgenizations. New York: John Wiley afSons, 1966. Kenneke, Larry J. "Job (Dis)satisfaction." Industrial Arts Education, Vol. 28 (May-June, 1969), pp. 14-16. . "A Review of Factors Related to Teacher Satisfaction." Inaustrial Teacher Education, Vol. 7 (Spring, 1970), pp. 43-46. Knox, W. B. "A Study of the Relationships of Certain Environmental Factors to Teaching Success." Experimental Education, Vol. 25 (December, 1956), pp. 95-151. 155 Koura, Hussein S. "An Experimental Study of Students' Achievement in Relation to the Morale of Selected Secondary School Teachers." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1963. Leibson, Edward. "Administrative-Staff Relationships and Their Effects upon the Climate of the Elementary School." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 22 (1962), p. 3492. '7 Leighton, Alexander. "Applied Science of Human Relations." Personnel Administration, Vol. 10 (1947), pp. 4-6. Leiman, H. I. "A Study of Teacher Attitudes and Morale as Related to Participation in Administration." Unpublished Doctoral Disserta- tion, New York University, 1961. Leipold, S. D., and Yarbrough, J. W. "What 1600 School People Think About Teacher Morale." American School Board, Vol. 119 (1949), pp. 29-30. Linder, E. H. "The Secondary School Principal and Staff Morale." American School Board, Vol. 131 (1955), pp. 25-27. McCluskey, H. Y., and Strayer, F. L. "Reactions of Teachers to the Teaching Situation: A Study of Job Satisfaction." School Review, Vol. 48 (October, 1940), pp. 612-623. McLaughlin, J. W., and Shea, J. T. "California Teachers; Job Dissatis- factions." California Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 11 (1960). pp. 216-224. Michaeles, J. V. "Teachers Speak Out on Teacher Morale." National Education Association, Vol. 35 (1946), pp. 592-593. Miller, Antoinette. "Teachers Say Better Salaries Boost Morale." Texas Outlook, Vol. 41 (March, 1948), pp. 26-28. Monford, I. 8. "Factors Influencing the Work of Teachers in Fairfax County, Virginia." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1956. National Education Association Research Bulletin. "Are Teachers Satis- fied with Their Working ConditibnéT" V01. 47 (March, 1969), pp. 6-7. Nations Schools. "Teacher Morale is Important but Gains may be Secon- dary," Vol. 41 (March, 1948), pp. 26-28. Natzke, John H., and Bennett, William S. "Teacher Aide Use and Role Satisfaction of Inner-City Teachers." Educational Urban Society, Vol. 2 (May, 1970), pp. 295-314. Nelson, Robert H., and Thompson, Michael L. "Why Teachers Quit." Clear- ing House, Vol. 37 (April, 1963), pp. 467-472. 156 O'Connor, W. F. "A Study of Some Selected Factors Related to Teacher Morale." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University, 1958. Oppenheimer, J. J., and Britton, J. H. "Faculty Morale." Higher Educa- tion, Vol. 23 (October, 1952), pp. 383-386. Redefer, Frederic L. "Factors that Affect Teacher Morale." Nations Schools, Vol. 43 (February, 1959), pp. 59-62. Robinson, H. Alan, and Connors, Ralph P. "Job Satisfaction Researchers of 1961." Personnel and Guidance, Vol. 41 (November, 1962), pp. 240-246. Roethlisberger, F. J.; Dickson, W. J.; and Wright, H. A. Mana ement and the Worker. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1943. Ross, Walter E. "A Study of Personality Factors Affecting the Morale of Teachers of Two Rural School Systems in New York State and Including Comparison of Findings with Those of a Similar Study Completed for a New Jersey Suburban School District." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, New York University, 1960. Roth, L. J. I'A Technique for Determining the Source of Teacher Job Dissatisfactions." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University, 1956. Rotter, J. B. "Generalized Expectancies for Internal vs. External Control of Reinforcement." Psychological Monographs, Vol. 80 (1966), pp. 1-28. Schultz, R. E. "Keeping Up Teacher Morale." Nations Schools, Vol. 50 (1952), pp. 53-56. Sergiovanni, Thomas J. "Factors Which Affect Satisfaction and Dissatis- faction of Teachers." Educational Administration, Vol. 5 (1967), pp 0 66-82 0 Sharpe, R. T. "Differences Between Perceived Administrative Behavior and Role Norms as Factors in Leadership Evaluation and Group Morale." Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 16 (1956), p. 57. Shilland, P. 0. "Teacher Morale Survey." Educational Forum, Vol. 13 (1949). pp. 479-486. Silverman, Martin. "Principals: What are You Doing to Teacher Morale?" Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol. 43 (April, 1957), pp. 204-210. Strickland, B. F. "A Study of Factors Affecting Teachers' Morale in Selected Administrative Units of North Carolina." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Carolina, 1962. 157 Sulli n Harr NStack. The Inter ersonal Theory_of Psychiatry, New 1For .y W. Norton—X‘Cbmpahy: 1953. Talacchi, S. "Organizational Size, Individual Attitudes and Behavior: An Em irical Study. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 5 (1960, pp. 398- 420. Tirpak, Richard D. “Relationship Between Organizational Climate of Elementary Schools and Personal Characteristics of the School's Principal." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1970. Von Bertalanffy, Ludwig. "General Systems Theory - A Critical Review." Modern Systems Research for Behavioral Scientists, Ed. Walter Buckley. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company,71968. Von Burg, Fred. "Faculty Morale Rests with Administrators." Review of Educational Research, Vol. 33 (October, 1963), pp. 261-269. Vroom, V. H., and Mann, F. C. "Leader Authoritarianism and Employee Attitudes." Personnel Psychology, Vol.13 (1960), pp. 125- 140. Walker, C. R. "Life in the Automatic Factory." Frontiers of Industrial Relations, Ed. R. D. Gray. Pasadena, California: Institute of Technology, 1959. West, Phillip T. "Self- Actualization Resolving the Individual- Organizational Conflict. " Clearing House, Vol. 47 (December, 1972), pp. 249-252. Worthy, James C. "Factors Influencing Employee Morale." Harvard Busi- ness Review, Vol. 28 (January, 1950). , APPENDICES APPENDIX A CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE FIRST PILOT STUDY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OE EDUCATION EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN - 48824 DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION APPENDIX A July 1, 1974 INITIAL CORRESPONDENCE TO THE POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS IN THE FIRST PILOT STUDY (Name of Potential Participant) DeAnza Elementary School 3120 Stockton Place Palo Alto, California 94306 Dear (Name of Potential Participant): The purpose of this letter is to request your services as a participant in a pilot study which focuses upon an exploration of factors which affect morale and job satisfaction among teachers. This pilot study is part of a broader research effort in which the primary Objective is to develop a survey instrument which communicates teachers' perceptions about factors which are said to influence classroom effectiveness. Of major interest in how teachers perceive their relationship with their principal. The function of a pilot study member will involve participating in a small discussion group in which you will be asked to relate present and past teaching experiences. It is anticipated that each discussion group will consist of three to four members and extend for a period of approximately one and one-half to two hours. I will be in Palo Alto from August 5 through August 9, 1974. It is intended that three discussion groups be convened during that time. Tentatively, the discussion groups will be held at 10:00 a.m., in the home of Marge and Tom Collins, 3950 Duncan Place, Palo Alto. After you have considered my request, please fill out and return the enclosed postage paid post card. If you have reason to contact me by telephone, please call: (517) 349-0296 (home) or (517) 355-6631 (Michigan State University). Thank you for your essential assistance. Sincerely yours, Richard I. Aquilina Graduate Assistant Special Education Administration RIA/am 158 Enclosure 159 FEEDBACK POST CARD USED BY THE POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS IN THE FIRST PILOT STUDY PLEASE RETURN TO: Richard I. Aquilina 2275 Knob Hill Drive #9 Okemos, Michigan 48864 _‘ 3) NAME DATE: PLEASE CHECK ONE: I will be able to participate in the pilot study I will not be able to participate in the pilot study IF YOU ARE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE, PLEASE CHECK ONE: I wish to participate in discussion Group 1, Tuesday, August 6th, at 10:00 a.m. r I wish to participate in discussion Group 2, Nednesday, August 7th, at 10:00 a.m. I wish to participate in discussion Group 3, Thursday, August 8th, at 10:00 a.m. PLEASE RETURN THIS CARD BX JULY 10, 1974 THANK-YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE 160 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824 DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO THE PARTICIPANTS July 20’ 1974 IN THE FIRST PILOT STUDY (Name of Participant) DeAnza Elementary School 3120 Stockton Place Palo Alto, California 94306 Dear (Name of Participant): Thank you for agreeing to participate in the pilot study. I anticipate your assistance will provide meaningful insights upon which much of the overall research effort can be directed. The following is a list of pilot study participants according to the groups which have been requested: Tuesday, August 6 (10:00 a.m.) GROUP 1: Opalene Mitchell Wednesday, August 7 (10:00 a.m.) Ken Sanner GROUP 2: Karen Poutala Lynn Faust Lana Spencer Dick Brandon Thursday, August 8 (10:00 a.m.) GROUP 3: Marge Collins Will Klamm Jean Styles If these assignments are prob1emmatic for.you, please feel free to contact me. I will be giving you a call when I arrive in Palo Alto. Thanks again for your help. Sincerely yours, Richard I. Aquilina Graduate Assistant Special Education Administration APPENDIX B INITIAL DRAFT AND SUBSCALE COMPOSITION OF THE TPCI APPENDIX B INITIAL DRAFT OF THE TPCI EUBEQSE: INSTRUMENT NUMBER THIS QUESTIONNAIRE HAS BEEN PREPARED SO THAT YOU CAN INDICATE HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT SPECIFIC BEHAVIORS 0R ACTIVITIES REGARDING YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR PRINCIPAL. YOU ARE ASKED TO ANSWER EACH ITEM ACCORDING TO HOW YOU THINK THE SITUATION EXISTS IN YOUR SCHOOL. YOU ARE NOT ASKED TO JUDGE THE DESIRABILITY OF THE ITEM. EACH ITEM SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. THIS IS HQ: A TEST OF ABILITY OR CONSISTENCY IN MAKING ANSWERS. THE ONLY PURPOSE IS TO ALLOW YOU TO DESCRIBE. AS BEST YOU CAN. SOME ASPECTS OF YOUR ENVIRONMENT WHICH AFFECT YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR PRINCIPAL, AND ULTIMATELY YOUR CLASSROOM EFFECTIVENESS. AHQNIMIII: EVERY EFFORT WILL BE TAKEN TO ASSURE COMPLETE CONFIDENTIALITY. YOUR ANSWERS WILL‘NQI BE SEEN BY YOUR PRINCIPAL. NAMES OF TEACHERS. PRINCIPALS AND SCHOOLS WILL NQI_BE IDENTIFIED. THE QUESTIONNAIRE WILL BE SCORED AND ANALYZED BY THE RESEARCHER. THE FINDINGS THAT WILL BE PRESENTED WILL BE GENERAL IN NATURE, PRESERVING YOUR ANONIMITY. HOWEVER, IF YOU WISH TO COMMUNICATE YOUR INDIVIDUAL FEELINGS DIRECTLY TO YOUR PRINCIPAL AND WISH TO BE IDENTIFIED, PLEASE SIGN THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: ¥*#******¥********ti*************#*********¥***********#****¥**** I HEREBY AGREE TO HAVE THE RESULTS OF MY QUESTIONNAIRE IDENTIFIED SO THAT MY PRINCIPAL AND I CAN FURTHER DISCUSS MY PERCEPTIONS. SIGNATURE: DATE: **#****#*#***fifit#*******#***##tti**************¥***************** REMEMBER. IF YOU Do ufll SIGN THE RELEASE STATEMENT, YOUR INDIVIDUAL SCORES WILL NOT BE IDENTIFIED. DIBEQIIQNS: SAMELE! 1. PLEASE BEAQ_EACH ITEM CAREFULLY. 2. PLEASE luluK ABOUT How MUCH YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE ITEM. 3. PLEASE SELEQI THE RESPONSE WHICH MOST CLOSELY REPRESENTS YOUR FEELINGS. 4. PLEASE MABE_AN_X ON THE RESPONSE You HAVE SELECTED. 5.. PLEASE B§§EQND_IQ_ALL ITEMS. I filfigfl§L1_A§BEE_WITH THE ITEM. SA A U D SD I AQBEE WITH THE ITEM. SA A U D SD I AM UNQECLQEQ ABOUT THE ITEM. SA A U D SD I Q15A§BEE,WITH THE ITEM. SA A U D SD I STRONGLY_Q1§A§3§§_WITH THE ITEM. SA A U D so P EA T N T A N N I TE Y0 R P N E. BY R N * * Y N 161 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 162 I FEEL FREE TO SPEAK ABOUT MY JOB IN AN OPEN AND HONEST MANNER WITH MY PRINCIPAL. MY PRINCIPAL TRIES OUT NEW IDEAS BEFORE WE ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE SPECIFIC CHANGES. MY PRINCIPAL HAS CLEARLY INDICATED HIS/HER ROLE IN OUR SCHOOL. IN OUR SCHOOL, CUSTODIAL SERVICE IS AVAILABLE WHEN NEEDED. MY PRINCIPAL ASKS ME TO PERFORM TASKS WHICH ARE RELEVANT AND WORTHWHILE. MY PRINCIPAL FREQUENTLY PROVIDES FEEDBACK ABOUT MY EFFECTIVENESS AS A TEACHER. MY PRINCIPAL ENCOURAGES FEEDBACK FOR ACTION HE OR SHE TAKES. MY PRINCIPAL SETS DEADLINES WHICH ARE REASONABLE. MY PRINCIPAL UNDERSTANDS THE KIND OF PROBLEMS I FACE IN THE CLASSROOM. IN OUR SCHOOL, I SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS OF EVALUATING MY PRINCIPAL. I HAVE EASY ACCESS TO A PROFESSIONAL LIBRARY. MY PRINCIPAL ENCOURAGES ME TO SHARE NEW INFORMATION. IN OUR SCHOOL, CLASSROOM AIDE ASSISTANCE IS AVAILABLE WHEN NEEDED. MY PRINCIPAL MAINTAINS ACCURATE RECORDS SO THAT MISMANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES IS AVOIDED. IN OUR SCHOOL, AVAILABLE SUPPLIES ARE OF GOOD QUALITY. MY PRINCIPAL ACTS UPON REQUESTS I MAKE FOR INFORMATION NEEDED TO PERFORM MY JOB. MY PRINCIPAL IS ACCESSIBLE. IN OUR SCHOOL, BULLETIN BOARDS ARE A SOURCE OF USEFUL INFORMATION. PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SD 50 SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 163 MY TEACHING DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ARE RELATED TO MY TRAINING, SKILLS. AND INTERESTS. SA MY PRINCIPAL USES A METHOD OF COMMUNICATION WHICH IS PLEASING TO ME (EXAMPLE: FACE—TO—FACE COMMUNICATION AS OPPOSED TO CONTINUAL MEMOS). SA MY PRINCIPAL MAKES HIS/HER ATTITUDES AND OPINIONS KNOWN TO THE GROUP. SA MY PRINCIPAL IS AWARE OF CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE. SA MY PRINCIPAL PROVIDES A RATIONALE FOR TAKING SPECIFIC ACTION. SA MY PRINCIPAL KEEPS ME-INFORMED OF NEW TEACHING METHODS AND MATERIALS. SA IN GENERAL. DECISIONS IN OUR SCHOOL ARE SHARED BY THE PRINCIPAL AND THE STAFF. SA OUR SCHOOL BUILDING Is REGULATED AT A COMFORTABLE TEMPERATURE. SA IN OUR SCHOOL, TEACHERS HAVE FUN WORKING TOGETHER. SA ANCILLARY STAFF ARE THERE WHEN I NEED THEM. SA MY PRINCIPAL TREATS TEACHERS FAIRLY AND EQUALLY. SA IN OUR SCHOOL, TEACHERS SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE IN THE DETERMINATION OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. SA IN OUR SCHOOL, I SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASSIST IN THE SELECTION OF CURRICULUM MATERIALS. SA MY PRINCIPAL GIVES CREDIT WHEN CREDIT IS DUE. SA MY PRINCIPAL COMMUNICATES IN AN HONEST AND OPEN MANNER. ' SA OUR SCHOOL FACILITIES ARE ADEQUATE FOR ME TO DO MY JOB. SA MY PRINCIPAL ALLOWS TEACHERS FLEXIBLE SELECTION IN PURCHASING INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES.SA PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE > )> :> 1) CCC SO SO SD SD SD SD SD SO SD 50 SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. SO. 51. 52. I64 I MEET WITH MY PRINCIPAL OFTEN ENOUGH. MY PRINCIPAL PROVIDES OPPORTUNITIES FOR TEACHERS TO WORK TOGETHER. CLASSROOM AIDE ASSISTANCE WOULD HELP ME DO A BETTER JOB. MY PRINCIPAL SHOWS A WILLINGNESS TO MAKE APPROPRIATE CHANGES. IN OUR SCHOOL, I SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN DECIDING HOW FUNDS WILL BE SPENT. MY PRINCIPAL MAKES ME FEEL CONFIDENT IN MY WORK AS A TEACHER. MY CLASSROOM IS EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO OTHER IMPORTANT FACILITIES IN THE BUILDING. MY PRINCIPAL USES AN EFFECTIVE METHOD OF EVALUATING MY TEACHING PERFORMANCE. IN OUR SCHOOL, STAFF MEETINGS ARE A SOURCE OF USEFUL, TIMELY AND BELIEVABLE INFORMATION. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN EVALUATION REPORTS IS USEFUL FOR IMPROVING MY CLASSROOM PERFORMANCES. MY PRINCIPAL VISITS MY CLASSROOM ENOUGH TO KNOW MY STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES. I AM SATISFIED WITH THE NUMBER OF CONFERENCES AND WORKSHOPS I ATTEND EACH YEAR. MY PRINCIPAL SEES TO IT THAT THE STAFF'S WORK EFFORTS ARE COORDINATED. MY PRINCIPAL GIVES RECOGNITION TO THE CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY INDIVIDUAL TEACHERS. MY PRINCIPAL PROVIDES INFORMATION THAT IS USEFUL. TIMELY AND BELIEVABLE. IN OUR SCHOOL, THERE IS A PLACE FOR ME TO RELAX ALONE WHEN NECESSARY. I HAVE EASY ACCESS TO AN INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS CENTER. PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SD SO SO SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 50 SD SD SD SD SD 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 165 MY PRINCIPAL ENCOURAGES AND ACCEPTS DIFFERENCES OF OPINION. MY PRINCIPAL GENERALLY MAKES ACCURATE DECISIONS. MY PRINCIPAL SEES TO IT THAT IRRELEVANT DUTIES DO NQI INTERFERE WITH MY JOB. IN OUR SCHOOL, THERE IS AN ADEQUATE WORK AREA FOR TEACHERS. MY PRINCIPAL TRIES TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF TEACHING BY SETTING UP IN-SERVICE PROGRAMS. I SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP DECIDE WHAT SUPPLIES WILL BE PURCHASED FOR MY CLASSROOM. MY PRINCIPAL PROVIDES PLANNING TIME FOR RESEARCHING OR TRYING OUT NEW IDEAS. MY PRINCIPAL MAKES DECISIONS WHICH ARE IN LINE WITH THE GOALS OF OUR SCHOOL. I SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR MY CLASS. MY PRINCIPAL'S MAJOR FOCUS IS UPON THE EDUCATION OF OUR STUDENTS. THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR OUR SCHOOL HAVE BEEN CLEARLY DELINEATED. IN OUR SCHOOL, I SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP MAKE CLASS SCHEDULING DECISIONS. IN OUR SCHOOL, TEACHERS SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP DECIDE WHAT WILL BE TAUGHT IN THEIR CLASSROOMS. MY PRINCIPAL WOULD SUPPORT ME IN CONFLICT SITUATIONS. MY PRINCIPAL WELCOMES AND ACTS UPON SUGGESTIONS MADE BY STAFF. IN OUR SCHOOL, CURRICULUM MATERIALS ARE PLENTIFUL. OUR SCHOOL BUILDING IS DECORATED TASTEFULLY. MY PRINCIPAL SETS EXPECTATIONS ACCORDING TO AN INDIVIDUAL'S STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES. PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SO SO SD SD SD SD 50 50 SD 50 SD SD SO SO SO SD 50‘ 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. B7. 166 MY PRINCIPAL CONSULTS THE TEACHING STAFF BEFORE ACTING UPON A MAJOR ISSUE OR MAKING IMPORTANT CHANGES. SA IN OUR SCHOOL, COOPERATIVE TEAMWORK EXISTS. SA MY PRINCIPAL MAKES WORKING CONDITIONS AS SATISFACTORY AS POSSIBLE. SA DUR SCHOOL BUILDING IS WELL LIGHTED. SA MY PRINCIPAL RUNS MEETINGS IN A WELL-ORGANIZED AND EFFICIENT MANNER. SA IN OUR SCHOOL, TEACHERS SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE IN THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT PROGRESS REPORTS WILL BE USED FOR PUPIL EVALUATION. SA MY PRINCIPAL GIVES ME FREEDOM TO USE MY OWN JUDGEMENT IN SOLVING PROBLEMS AND TRYING OUT NEW IDEAS. SA MY PRINCIPAL SEEKS OUT NEW WAYS OF DOING THINGS. SA MY PRINCIPAL HANDLES STAFF COMPLAINTS AND PROBLEMS FAIRLY AND SYMPATHETICALLY. SA MY PRINCIPAL KNOWS THAT IS REWARDING TO ME. SA MY PRINCIPAL ENCOURAGES ME TO WORK TO MY FULLEST POTENTIAL. SA IN OUR SCHOOL. INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIPMENT IS AVAILABLE WHEN NEEDED. SA IN OUR SCHOOL. I SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP DECIDE WHICH JOURNALS OR TEXTS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR TEACHER USE. SA MY PRINCIPAL FEELS ACCOUNTABLE FOR ACHIEVING THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF OUR SCHOOL. SA MY PRINCIPAL MANAGES SCHOOL EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS IN A WAY WHICH CONSIDERS TEACHERS' INTERESTS AND DESIRES. SA AT OUTSIDE MEETINGS, MY PRINCIPAL EXPRESSES VIEWS WHICH REPRESENT STAFF OPINION. SA IN OUR SCHOOL. THERE ARE COMFORTABLE EATING AND LOUNGE AREAS FOR TEACHERS. SA PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SO SO SD SO SO SO SO SD 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 104. 167 MY PRINCIPAL ENCOURAGES TEACHERS TO WORK AS A TEAM. CUSTODIANS PROPERLY MAINTAIN OUR SCHOOL. IN OUR SCHOOL, I SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP DECIDE WHAT WILL BE DISCUSSED DURING STAFF MEETINGS. MY PRINCIPAL IS A GOOD LISTENER. IN OUR SCHOOL, 1 SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SELECT THE SPEAKERS AND SUBJECT MATTER FOR WORKSHOPS AND IN-SERVICE ACTIVITIES. IN OUR SCHOOL, INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIPMENT IS OF GOOD QUALITY. ANCILLARY STAFF ASSISTANCE WOULD HELP ME DO A BETTER JOB. IN OUR SCHOOL, TEACHERS WORK TOGETHER. MY PRINCIPAL IS NQT OVERLY CONCERNED WITH DETAIL. MY PRINCIPAL IS A MAJOR SOURCE OF JOB—RELATED INFORMATION. MY PRINCIPAL PROVIDES OPPORTUNITIES FOR TEACHERS TO VISIT TOGETHER AND SHARE CLASSROOM EXPERIENCES. MY PRINCIPAL PROVIDES RECOGNITION OF SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE. ‘ IN OUR SCHOOL, TEACHERS SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE DECISIONS REGARDING THE COMPOSITION OF THEIR CLASS. MY PRINCIPAL WORKS WITH ME INDIVIDUALLY TO HELP IDENTIFY WAYS OF IMPROVING CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION/ CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT. MY PRINCIPAL PROVIDES RECOGNITION OF MY SKILLS AND ABILITIES. SECRETARIAL STAFF ASSISTANCE IS USUALLY AVAILABLE FOR TEACHER USE. MY PRINCIPAL KNOWS WHERE AND WHEN THERE ARE PROBLEMS IN OUR SCHOOL. PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SD SO SO SD SD SD SD SO SO SO SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 168 IN OUR SCHOOL, I SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE IN THE DETERMINATION AND EVALUATION OF POLICIES AND PRACTICES. MY PRINCIPAL LETS ME KNOW WHEN I DO A GOOD JOB. MY PRINCIPAL REQUESTS ALL TEACHERS TO FOLLOW THE SAME RULES AND REGULATIONS. MY PRINCIPAL CONTACTS ME REGULARLY. MY PRINCIPAL MAKES ME FEEL LIKE I AM PART OF THE SCHOOL 'TEAM'. THE METHOD OF EVALUATING MY CLASSROOM PERFORMANCE IS, IN PART, DETERMINED BY ME. IN OUR SCHOOL, I SHOULD HAVE THE FREEDOM TO USE MATERIALS AND METHODS I BELIEVE ARE MOST FRUITFUL FOR MY STUDENTS. WHEN I NEED ASSISTANCE, I CAN TURN TO MY PRINCIPAL FOR HELP. SA. SA SA SA SA SA SA SA MY PRINCIPAL PUBLICIZES IMPORTANT SCHOOL FUNCTIONS.SA SECRETARIAL STAFF ASSISTANCE WOULD BE HELPFUL IN GETTING MY WORK DONE. MY PRINCIPAL SEES TO IT THAT WHEN THINGS NEED TO BE DONE, THEY GET DONE. MY PRINCIPAL ENCOURAGES PARTICIPATION IN SEMINARS, CONFERENCES AND WORKSHOPS. THE LOCATION OF MY CLASSROOM PROMOTES SOCIAL CONTACT WITH OTHER STAFF MEMBERS. I SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP DECIDE WHAT EQUIPMENT WILL BE PURCHASED FOR MY CLASSROOM. MY PRINCIPAL LETS ME KNOW I AM CONTRIBUTING TO THE OVERALL SUCCESS OF OUR SCHOOL. OUR SCHOOL BUILDING HAS FURNITURE WHICH IS FUNCTIONAL AND COMFORTABLE. PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE SA -SA SA SA SA SA SA SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD 121. MY PRINCIPAL 169 REINFORCES THE POSITIVE ASPECTS OF TEACHER BEHAVIOR. 122. IN OUR SCHOOL, CURRICULUM MATERIALS ARE OF GOOD QUALITY. 123. MY PRINCIPAL USES CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM. 124. MY PRINCIPAL LETS TEACHERS KNOW WHAT IS EXPECTED OF THEM. 125. MY PRINCIPAL MAKES ME FEEL I AM INVOLVED IN THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF OUR SCHOOL. 126. MY PRINCIPAL WORKS OUT A PLAN BEFORE TAKING ACTION. 127. IN OUR SCHOOL, SUFFICIENT SUPPLIES ARE AVAILABLE FOR CLASSROOM USE. SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SD SD SD SD SD SD SD ******tit****************¢***********#*********** THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ESSENTIAL ASSISTANCE *****************************************#**#**** TOTAIJOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOUOOIOOO 127 170 SUBSCALE COMPOSITION OF THE INITIAL DRAFT OF THE TPCI SUBSCALES . Motivational Factors Services Physical Environmental Conditions Group Cohesiveness Matter (Materials, Supplies, Equipment) . Teacher Decision-Making Principal Leadership Behavior . Information . Cowmunication Relationship w 12 10 21 29 15 ITEM 32, 41, 49, 80, 81, 99, 102, 106, 119, 121, 123, 125 4, 13, 28, 38, 89. 94, 103, 114 26, 34, 42, 51, 56, 69, 74, 87, 117, 120 27, 37, 72, 88, 95, 98, 109 15, 68, 82, 93, 122, 127 10, 25, 30, 31, 35, 40, 58, 61, 64, 65, 76, 77, 83, 85, 90, 92, 100, 105, 110, 111, 118 2, 5, 8, 14, 19, 22, 29, 39, 43, 48, 54, 55, 60, 62, 66, 67, 7o, 73, 75, 78, 79, 84, 86, 96, 101, 104, 107, 115, 126 11, 12, 16, 18, 24, 44, 45, 47, 50, 52, 57, 59, 63, 97, 116 l, 3, 6, 7, 9, 17, 20, 21, 23, 33, 36, 46, 53, 71, 91, 108, 112, 113, 124 APPENDIX C FEEDBACK FORM (SUMMARY DATA FORM) USED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE PANEL 0F EXPERTS APPENDIX C FEEDBACK FORM (SUMMARY DATA FORM) USED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE PANEL OF EXPERTS .m Gowumwso ou wcoamou Ommmam .m .OOOHPQHQ mommm mnu OH mucmaaoo Hmaowufiwvm ham mxwa owmmam .w .O>Humaumuam mumwunouaam onu vanoum QHOHHO O wsH3mHv Kn uncommon Mao» OOMQHOCH was coaumoav sumo vamp mmmmHm .K monHmMDO Ausm any vmmu ommoam .H mHmWA63o: .mHmwAm£ unmasuumaHIOAO RH voawuuuoo nevuq onu mo Ham .Ouamfiao>doo Hack Mom . .uauaauumafi Onu mo doaumuamwuoa Honuunm PH coaucouum oanwuovumaoo ROPHw On Hafia van voaooaos OHM nonconmou vwvomo Mao» .uaoabuumafi onu mo mowuwamav HHOHOPO onu ou UPHOOHOH maowumoov Hmuoaow ou on Haas mu .BUUH AOPHDO scum poops muoaumoav ou vaommou ou vmxmu on HHHP do» .uoxomm HOOK PH vomoaoao unmasuumafi ucoammommm mo>u=m on» wswvuwwmu muoqummsv ou maoauommu Hack OHQHHOO ou mu snow mafia mo mmomusm may wmmmmmmm nKaH .GH HHAS< ”mamsm may no cha azmezoo mom zmom Muamnumm 171' ‘\ 172 \ \ xu \Hm x? \— Hm .5888. um O>Huoauumcou mom: Hmnaocfius A: .mNH \ \ x a s .HQHPOCOA K >k H 5H >Hu >k H. nonomou mo muomama OPUHmom Ono moouomawou Hmawocaum A: .HNH \ x x x \s .Hoonom Mao mo mmmoosm l \fk H. \«H x Hank \{Hl 3.3.26 2.3 on wcaunnwuusoo an H aosx OE mama Hmnaocwua Kr .oHH \ x s K ‘ s .nofi voow m ow H K X.‘ H LIN. *Hl >Hu awn...» Sax 08 mum." Homage—"Hm. ht .00." 4. x x \ w A 663236 was 6:36 E O6 Q XHW XQ >Hl >HH oauaawooou 33>on Hmafiosaua >2 .moH \ s s .ooauauomuma uowuonsm mo l X .H. L H K >Hu oauacwooou movgoun Hmafioswua 3.“ 6m ‘4‘ _x~ s mnx s a .Huauaouoa umoaflsm “a on xuos ou k \fHk Hu‘ \S u ka we mowuuaoosm Hoaaoaqum be .3 V, s x N s .65 ou wofivuoaou Q xqu XHH Lam.» H xk OH Dana 93on 3305.3 >2 .om s \ x x x .muonomou .4 E SH >Hm x u M. 2:31:65 .3 Bus 6:363 Iauusoo Gnu ou Gofiuwamoo Ion mo>wm Huaaoawun A: .mq \\ x x \ .Honommu \ k CANE me >Hk x Hu a mo xuoa bu OH ucogmcoo Homm ma mmxua Humaoafium bx .HB .696 OH uwvouo soar \ x a x u >\H.~u \er \IHK x «h .3636 $53 3325.3 >2 .2 mmoaoHHQZIH mnm hzmzbmhwzH PZMmemmmm>m:m mzh uc. Co )4 .P‘IIIAV- C'nJ¢'->’ In) - 0- ul.) 9 In ,r-III- III- mHmWAHu \wa ¥\H\ H4 Emu Human F8335 :3 Q X\ _ 4. w .u‘ x. 53389 A .Hoosom .50 L. H S: RH. NH 86688 836368 .3 \H.‘ K H a .309. Hauuufi a ow GE 36: u‘ x u \AWH‘ xmnw \ 3 oz 3:33.33 «38 863363 .3 xx s x u \AH. 305 3.805 woos H can: u u a“. Em >43 H x m a... .8352 .3 .60 mo: s s MW”: OHAOHHOPO .OH oosuummOmu \ x m aooumnoHo Hoonou Mao . u x u XHM \QHQ ~H\ . o o . :H 2 x u outflow cup on Rona OHOOHHOPO OH H Hvoumao .Hoonom Mao 6H .4 s x N K xHu me NH; xx 335% I N 3328 l H. K mucus—9,6,3 .Hoonou 25 no oz .. on 05 OH OP 0 an» 02 mm; oz. mm» 02 mm» as H Hoou OE magma HOQHWGHHQPMM .mNH «um—=0”: NHWQHUPHHQ oz mm» HUSUO mo wGOHumflnv Hfimfiu SUH3 . vOumum usm comm GPO: mum 6 IBM Baum wHHOOOH wmsoow oco manmcoHumeu >HHMOHO wucmEEoo 8 2.3 OH Q o a am: 33500 as: on» on new H M ED: 05 5 OH Am Onu moo >OHOH «0 mchm a 3 as: of 6H 8 of 3 Ms m amuH A< mkmmaxm Lo Bmz< m m:._. quxaepmzH quzmmmmmm>mmm Oz» Lo mHm>aouo Haowoaaua mm .mm x x x \ .uwsumwou mcaxmoa Ed u‘ \(H u >Hm \AHKK >Hm 965 whoa—ous Joan—um .30 cu KN mmmzm>Hmmzoo .595 I o miommom \ 2 \ \ x \ .oanuuuomfiou van K >Hu >Hm x H k H x u HmoOHuun—d mu 5025 ouuuaauam no: mafiuafisn Hanson uno .oNH \ x x x \ ~ .uuuaama mmoum uonuo k X“. R >Hl h. >H >Hu— 5a.; 3353 2308 «38.0.3 acoummmao 55 mo coauouoa 05H .NHH xx x x x x x s .mumnouwu you momma K x» u FHA > H u x» u uwaaoa van 938%. 353.3250 mum «Mona .Hoonoa use aH .nw m;~ \ x ‘ x . .5 i. H > u Ea: Q . u > u .303 a.“ $53.25 .3050 .25 :2. - w. x x \ ~ .h . H ~ x .3333”. K x u xqu \. HQ Hu wouauouov ma 953.25 Hoosom .25 .oo ~ \ \ s x x s H ~ H 6.3523”. you «mum 3.33 muuavuou u HQ > u x» Hm »u on ma mums”. .Hoonum .30 EH .3 x \ x x . x s \ .hummmuuma . K LHu \IHu. ¥Hu >Hm $53 .25: “823 ca 05 you woman a ma upon“. .Hoosom.,m.ao 5 :3 x x x x x \ .waaoaazn any aw l me. >Hu > Hm >Hm moauzwomw pontoon: .350 cu anfimmmoou haauum.o« acoummuao >7 .mo oz an» oz mm» oz mm» oz ; mm» oz mm» «Hmawocwug wmswufi Hausa saw womumum umnuo mo mcofiummav m>m5 muonumwu haumwao ucmoomomo wawouma wmaoom mcL mawnmcowumam Emu“ wnu law Emu“ m Emu“ owmucoo Emu“ may a» ucm>maop mo magnum mucmaaoo G 9.3 «H Am 93 mH Am msu moon An— son; an» mH A 2.3 3 3 am: B whammxm mo Juz<¢ mxh >m hzuzaapnzu hzuznmmmm<->m>¢=m mzh mo ZOHP szbzou mom "210m ¥Uqm>m:m WE. “no :3 :24) 23.“ 2.23.. (Jinn. u. UL K kg XWs \RH.‘ .H. *m .88: 500.88.? you 35838.: 8.8 3.2528 £88328 .Hoonom use cH .BNH s s s s s 33:25 coon mo 8.8 «Haauuuma u \fiku >Wu XHH >H® aaaaoauuauaoosum .30 :H .3: s x s x x s ~ 33.329 voow mo 3 “28.8218 l \.H\u \rHu \THQ ¥Hk Huaoauoaumafi 7.6058 .30 .5 .mm s x x s 6288a u. > u XHH x..me >H~K 6853 353.228 8.“ unmaowsuo Hmaowuunuumaa .Hoonum uao aH .Nm \ x x \ ~ w . Hawauauao mum maafiumuqa K XHK \stu \..H\u \(Hu 5283.28 .Hoosum .50 GH .3 \ .huaamav ooow no can u wam 38 \FHW H x m 83.38 823.325 425.8 use 3 .3 fizmzfiacm £3628 £3825 amass. .. m 3888 \ \ s \ \ .:Ed0u: u hum. \rnu xHu‘ x Hu Sofia 2: «a ta 5 H 95 H83 88 8383 Huouoaaua 32 .moa \ s s s s \ 88285898 800.8833 l >Hm \fuu x .u E 8.858 38 nonuawou 33> ou muunomou you mmwuwQSuuonno movfiroun ~250qu h: .ma \ s >WV \ \ .uunumwou K XHQ u L Hm u *H #83 8.85083 .Hoonum .50 cu .3 V ~ N s \ \rflu L b x s H .83 m 8 3.83 ou l LHK x. u 8.85083 88935098 Hmoauauua >2 .3 Rs \Wx \ \ HN .3928 vies—88... u‘ \a u u \. Hu \5 u 822238.800 .Hoonom .25 cH .2 oz . an» oz mm» oz mm» oz mm» oz mm» . «Hmofiocwuo ~98: H85 :33 2888 uwsuo mo wcofiummav 8>mn mumzummu zaumwao acmocmamo wcfiommfl ~m=uom m: mafizmaowumamu Smog msu I5 .8: m .8: 53:8 8: 85 3 8988» no wowcmwe 386500 Au 8.: 3 C 85 3 Am 85. 80o A .8: m5» 3 G 8.3 3 Am :8: 2 whammxm mo .55: mt... >3 mHm.S0: uHaozm H .Hoozom poo :H .«o x x xx \ \ .mmmHo bu How mug l \fflu \“Hu \THm 5““ Iuomfino can mHuow m5 oawaumumv ou huficauuonao an o>m£ oHvonm H .H@ s x x s \ .aooummeo %8 you ommmnuuam \ s u XHu XHm— LHQ >Hu 3 H35 moHHmasm ”5:3 mowuuv 30: cu unassuuoaoo cm w>m£ vasonm H .mm s \ . a me om \ x s use m up HHH3 monam so: HvH w an \AHK \..H\u XHK >Wm GH mummHoHuumm ou zuHaauuomao an m>ms vHaonm H .Hoonum use :H .oq \_\ x s \ .moHHmaam m \fHu XHm XHK xwm cam mHmHuMuma Hmcowuuaumefi waHmmcounn :H soauoonm mHonmHm mumnomou monHa Hmmfioaaua k: .mm x x x s s . Hmwuwuma aanuHuusu Ho aOHuomHmm u \fH‘u XI.“ xHu sank .23 :H ”$33 3 huwaauuomao cm m>an vHaozm H .Hoozua uao aH .Hm \ x x \ .mm>Huumnno van u u XH s» Hm sszsu mHmow mo GOHuwnfiEuumo 05 ca manna ou huHaSuuonao an w>m£ oHaonm mumzummu .Hoonum “no cH .om ss \ s s s \ .mmmum mnu can Hunquaaua H >Hu x u XH l .H. x u 05 .3 @323 0.3 Hoonom use aH mcoamHomo .Hmuocom aH .mm \ \Hx .HmaHoaHua \ .x x s s s be wawumsHm>o mo mmmooum map m \IHm u *Hu XHK a.“ 032303qu on mafia—59230 am m>m£ anosm H .Hoosom use 6H .CH GZHMm£ mumsummu hHumeu ucmocmauo wsvamH wmauom moo manmaoHumHm aouH map . IcH amuH m amuH chucoo EmuH msu ou ucm>me Ho wchmma mucmaaoo Ao wsu mH Am 0:» mH Am mnu @009 An amuH mzu mH A mnu mH Am amUH A< €5.33. ”5 is... a: z A Easfima Ezmmmmfiéia a: “a on._. 53.28 mo... "55m 5583 mHmwA —ZU—ZDJ 23L "EZDL KJIDJUUL \ s x x x \ XsH~ 50.3.3.3: 3.2509: 25 923 u xHu \rHH >Hh~ u 13.33 Mom .333 now—Ham can mum lawman on» uuonm ou muHcSuuoaao nu o>us vHsonu H .Hoonum Mao aH .Nm \ s s \ .mwaHumua u. xu. Xqu \RHD >qu Human 9526 333qu on HHHB ads: okuov “Hon ou huwasuuomao cu o>os vHaosm H .Hoonuo uao :H .om \ s \ \ .uuufiuou van mucououaw u \fiHu H. x. u \ame. H > u .muofimou 303250 sown? >2» u :H mHuHumuma van unnamaavo Hoonom mowaaaa HaaHoaHua >2 .mm x s s \ .um: umnuuou you oHpuHHm>u u >Hu >H® LHm Hm. r mp H33 353 no «Hague—n swag: uvaoov mam: ou huannuuoaao an 0>u£ vHaonm H .Hoonom uao aH .mm s s s s s .mduva and uao k me. VHu \KHm \fHu wear“. 33 «601—89 w5>Hom aw ucqamwvafi can as on: ou abdomum «a uo>fiw Hanuoawua A: .sn v x x x s \ .aoauanHu>m l Cu >Hu . stu XHm .3an now can; up H33 uuuonou aloumoun nuns mo sowumcaahmuuv mnu aw mums» ou huwaauuomno an u>un wHaonu mumnuamu .Hoonuu use :H .05 x s \ ~ s s \ .maooumouHu Hausa l xHu >Hm >Hu XHu a.“ “Ewan“. on H33 ”:33 «macaw 9H»: ou huaaauuoaao an u>an vHaonm unusuamu .Hoonum Mao :H .no oz an» ozL mm» oz mm» oz may oz mm» meaHocaua 353 32: 53 $3.3m nonuo mo mcoaumoav ‘ m>m£ muoauumu zHumeu ucwvcmamu wcfivmmH Hmauow mac mnwnmcoHumeu amuH mcu 1:“ amuH m awufi :Hmucoo aoufi mnu cu ucm>mHmu mo maficmws mucmEEou Au may mH Am wsu mH Am mnu mmoa An Emu“ mcu mH AU osu mH Am amuH A wpxmaxm m: 4mzm mHm>q PZuzzmhmzH hzwzmmummm>m3m muh mo .20—23). 23.0 (JCGDUJL s ‘ s \ .00000>0 00 000000000 00 .u & >Hu \rHU xxu 000E0w0008008 0000 00 0000000 00000000 00H000H06 H00000000 Ax .0H \ xSHs ‘ s \s .0H00000000 000 00003 A .u XHm u \r .Hu >H 00030000 0000 H00H00H00 be .m \ x . x \ s s .0H00300003 u x w \rHu \. H h. \rHu 000 000>0H00 000 0303 000000 000w000 00 0a 0300 H00H00H00 %2 .m ~ .0000000 00000000 l s s s s s 0300 00 00000000 000 03 000000 >H.\u \{Hu XHH PHm 0000.“ 300 000 00.25 30000000 0»: .N MoH>0£ 0H0000 H .wHH \ s s x x s .00000000 53 000 H00 0 l >Hs >Hh— XHH XMw .0050 0008 000 0>0HH00 H 0000000 000 0H0000000 000 00 6000000 000 0>00 0H0000 H .H00000 000 0H .HHH xx s s x x s .08 hp 000H800000 .0000 H. >Hu \fHu \th‘ >ku 00 .00 000008000000 000000.30 ma w0H000H000 00 000000 00H .oHH \s x s s s .000000000 000 00H00H00 u > u H. X m \7H Q in 00 000000.226 000 0000000000000 000 00 00000 00 h0000000000 00 0>00 0H0000 H .H00000 000 0H .mOH \ . \ s x \ \ 000H0 0H000 mo 00HOH000 l run >hu \A Hu— stm I000 000 w00000000 000000000 0300 00 A0000000000 00 0>00 0H0000 00000000 .H00000 000 0H .ooH oz nu» oz mm» oz mmw oz 0 mmwm oz may . 0H0 00000 008000 00050 0003 ~000000 00000 00 000000000 0>0£ 00000000 >H000H0 000000000 w0H000H 000000 000 0000000000H00 0000 000 I00 5000 0 0000 0000000 8000 0:0 00 000>0H00 00 w00000a 00000600 A0 000 0H Am 0:0 0H Am 000 0009 An 8000 0:0 0H A0 000 0H Am E00H A< Whammxm to .5245 my: >m mHm>Am 0H0 >H u 00 00000 000.08 0.000000000 00.0 .No x x s 0 \ s .000000 000 00 00000 0 0H0 E x H u H > 0 $0 0003 0000 a0 0.8 00003 000000000 00008 000000000 0: .8 ~ 0 x x x s s .00... .00 0003 0000 u h“ >Hu LHku >Hu I00000 000 00 000000 000>0H0000 . -. r . 0000 00 00 0000 000000000 02 .m 0 A MWW Em— XHxQ \Hm .000000000 00000000 000008 00000000» 000000000 0: ém 0 x x x s ~ .00000000000 l >H‘u >Hu XHu >Hm 0000000000 0003 0.00000 000 0000 00 00 0000 000000000 .0: .00 x x x 0 00000000000 u me hm \AHWu >~Hu w0000000 06 w0000000>0 00 0000.06 0>0000000 00 0000 000000000 0: .m0 ¢ hm 3 \WM. X H~u 0000000 00000000000 000B 00 0000w000003 0 03000 000000000 00 .0m w >~ m >W~u \Rqu x HRH 30000000 000 000000 00000000 000000 000000000 0: .mm >st x \ ‘ s .0000 00 00 0000 0000 A u .H > u xHu. >H u 00w0000 00 00030 00 000000000 00 .NN xx x 0 0‘ .000000000 000 .000000 .w0000000 0 r0“. x H u > H u >Hu .00 00 0000000 000 00000000 I00000000 000 000000 00000000 0: .00 oz 00» oz mm» o 00% oz 4 00» oz mm» 0000000000 000000 00000 0003 0.000000 00000 00 000000000 0>00 00000000 0000000 000000000 w000000 000000 000 0000000000000 8000 000 I00 5000 0 0000 0000000 8000 000 00 000>0000 00 0000000 35508 G 9: 00 C 05 00 8 2: 008 S 030 000 00 8 0.: 00 8 030 a 1. mh¢m0xm mo Auz<0 mxk >m mHm>0 0.200.200 «00 ”55.0 ¥u00=0 .00 0003 00003 000000000 0: .000 ‘0 0 0 \ Jms . 3 00000000 000000 000 0 u x. u XHu \a qu \, .0 000030 000 00 000000000 00 .00 a m . x \ x 0 \ .co0a0mo 00000 u >Hu \fHu X Hu xH 000000000 00003 03003 0000000000 000000000 06 .00000008 0000000 04 .00 as s m x s .000000 000 00 0030000000 u ¥Hu >H\u lHu Hu 000 00000 000 w00>00000 000 00000000000 00000 000000000 00 .00 0 N. .000000000000800 \ \ \ \ ~ u ¥ u .H. >Hu \. Hm >Hu 00 000000 06000000 000 0000000600 00000 0000000 000000000 0: .00 >un W~ \ \ x \ .000000 00000 00 Q x» u 5H“— xHu 0.003 300 000 00000 000000000 00,. .00 \ a 0 x \ 0 .ll . .000008 u \Gu xHu \AHH. LHsu 000000000 000 000000000I0003 0 00 00000008 0000 000000000 0x .mm 10. x x x . .00000000 00 u ¥Hu H. >l XHu .H \fu 000000000000 00 0000000000 0000003 00008 000000000 >r .mn u 030$ ‘00de \KHD H >xu 0000000003 000 0000000000 00000030000 00 00 m00000000 . 000000000000 0000 000000000 02 .00. k K.“ >~HW \KHM \WA . 00000 00 000E 0000000ww00 0000 0000 000 00000003 000000000 0: .00 oz 00» oz 000 oz 000 oz 000 oz 000 . 0000000000 005000 00000 0003 0000000 00000 00 000000000 0>00 00000000 0000000 000000000 0000000 000000 000 0000000000000 5000 000 I00 6000 0 8000 0000000 0000 000 00 000>0000 00 0000000 00005800 A0 000 00 Am 000 00 Am 000 0000 An 5000 000 00 A0 000 00 Am 6000 A< m0¢m0xw mo 002<0 0:0 >0 00000u>x:m 0.0... mo ”2000 0055000 2000 hzuhzou mom 18] .aoaumauomca mana>maaon can uauaau .Hsmom: mo oouaom a mum mwcwumma mmuum .Hoosomuab :H .qq \ \ x x \ .mamwumuma u g \szu. > Nu XHW vca 23505 magnommu awn mo vmauomaa as unmox Hwaaocwun h: .cm \ x \ \ \s .aoauwauomcfi u E wa \uu \AHu Hummus mo Gannon a 9.3 acumon caumaflan .Hoonumuuo cH .wH \ \ ss \.\‘ \ .noh he anompmn on A ¥HK xHu \. H“ E wovoma coaugowcfi pom 338 H mummavou con: muom Hmnuucwum hz .oH Q )WH‘ \ XNH‘ H M .aoaumauomaq 39H 9.85m u H \. u u > ou ma mummy—5060 Hugging m: .2” x x x \ .>umun«a Hmcoammomoum m me E x H“. xH‘u m 3 $33 $3 «>2 H .3 onHHu \IHu .ocov up 3 name an??? cafe umsu ufi ou mmom Humaucaua m: .mHH s \ .mw V‘x \ . :w x. . mcowuma mu vaa mmaau K XHK u— } HM. LHu 95m 05 30:8 3 mumnomwu Ham mummaumu Humaunaua u? .noa xx xx x x x x \ .Hoosom .30 k m .Hu >Hu XHu g guano“; «pm 935 sun? can mumgz maoax Hmaauafiua >z .qOH Dz Lnu; oz mmw 02 mm» oz mm». oz mm> Namafiocfiua wmamua ufimnu nuwa wvuumum umnuo mo wcoaummsv m>mc mumnummu >Hpmmao ucwccmamw wcfivmma wmsoom mco mnwsmcowumamu Emu“ msu is“ Emuw m Emu“ :fimucou Emufi mnu cu ucm>wamu mo wcficmma wucmEEoo Au mnu mH Am wzu mH Am mzu mmoa An Emu“ wsu mH AU wzu mH Am EmuH A< nhxumxu mo 4u=u>m=m mrh mo mHm>A3 W~M>4U>-DU Hi... v.0 :3 M 5 <3 u J<> L 2|. .SLQU :Ck u paral. .J H~<£Q 4 -..~_...,.. . ill‘lllllllllll‘ll ‘ .Illllul III] I. I l‘ Il-J‘lll lll J \Illlll‘ll‘ 182 mHs \ \ s s \r u s .H . $9233.33 was i LHQ \’ \(Hu .mmufluummaoo .mumaaamm a.“ 63qu :33qu mowmuaooam Han—3.5.3 xx .03 x x » x s s ~ ~ 5032535 gagging mo \rHu \Iqm >Hu XHn— mun—Sm hands a ma Han—«05.3 u: .3 . w x s x s 6335.3“. m Hu XHm XHU stL 3.30? dump «>2.— Hoocum uao pom mo>Huomhno cam macaw use .mo w x x s \ .33: 30a uao u \bKn >u >Hu H >u muffin. no wagoumumou now 08.3 wcaacmHm.nmmv«>oun Hwaauafiun h: .mm x x s x \ s~ .mfiduwoum mow>ummlnw a: m >Hm >Hu \lHu bu wcwuumm .3 magnouuu mo 5.32.6 «5 9,3953 m3": Hamwonfiua >2 .un N \ V \ ‘ \ \rH H . .9350 3333a 3830335 u n— \..u x u H x u am 3 mucouu hmmm 98: H .3 s s . x \ ~ s man—«kronmn u \bHu \IHh— 3W“. Hm > ":8 .3083 £359.. 3 umnu aoaumauomaa mova>oum Hmnuuaaua >2 .om \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ‘ do?» :23 vcwuum . u. xuu >Hn~ x Hum > H‘u H maonmxuoa wax mmuaouomaou mo Hue—5: on”. £33 vmawmaumm an H .3 w‘~ \ s \ .mouauauo “an x m u \KHw >Hu x» Hu— qu 608330 .3 wagoumaa now Hanan: ma muuomou nowuwsam>o 5 emaauunou gauge—poms.“ 2.5. .3 Dz an» oz mmw 0% mm% oz - mm» 02 , mm» mamawoaaun ~95: .505 nut.» $3.3m umcuo mo wcoaummav m>wn mumnoumu kaumoao uamvcwamw wcfinmma wmaoom mac mawnmcowuwamu Boga «ca 15 Emu.“ m am: :Hmucou am: 93 cu uam>mamu mo wcwcmma 3558 8 9: 3 a 9: 3 a 2: $8 8 am: 2: 3 8 2: fl 2 5: 2 mhxmaxm mo 4mz<¢ mzh >m pzuzampm=H hzuzmmmwg a>u>g=u “2» mo on~ hzmpzou go; 3&0.» mega—mum mHm>A2 .mm s s s . s .mnouw «nu ou A >qu XHQ Xmmm \mnm goax maowafimo 95 335.33 am: no mu: moxma Huawocaua >2 .HN \ x s .Amoaua Huuauuaou \ s q 3 wmmomao ma cowumowaafinou m Xu H. \fH‘u ¥HU u moamnoulmoum .395me we ou mafimooan ma soap: cowuauwanaaoo . - mo vosuma a mum: Hmmwonwun >2 .ON A >H~u \pwsu ¥~Hsu hum. .mHn—«mmooua 3" Hmaaucwum m2 .2” “Ha ~ \ \ .aboummuao u. x n. >H¢ >Hu y, H“. 23 5 33 H 3028“ mo 33 . . onu avauuouovc: Hanaoawun A: .m . ~ u \rHu >~H~u \AWE E 6033 mam no on coauom you xumnwwom mmmuuaouau Hmnwoaaua hr .5 ~ w H“ s s x s .uanuumu a ma ¢ \. >Hu \. H u \Ime mmuaoflfluoummo bu uzomm 3330mm mowa>oum hauaoawuum Humflocwua h: .c s s \ { m \,H H s \ .Hoonum 0:» u. \r u x Hsu R a.“ «Hon .3: no ma: van—nudge.“ hauauau mun Hmnwuawun xx .m s x s s \ .Hmafioaaua ma nuw3 Rwanda n. >Hu \THm \IHW \Hw ummcon can ammo as afi no.” he anon“ Mumam ou «mum meu H .H mHmmonHmn mumsoumu haummau ucwvamamv wcwvmma «macaw mco mgw:m:0fiuaawu Emufi ecu Isa Emufi m smug afloaaou amuw Tnu cu uam>mawu mo wcwcmwaL mucoaaoo Au msu ma Am mnu mH Am may amen An awn“ mnu mH Au «cu mH Am amUH A :u... mhzmmxm n—D 4min. Ur; >m mHmWA _Zu_ZDJ v.3... mg u>u>z=m mzh mo n 53.... {JIM-3......- . 184 \ s \ s \ u E xHu xHu km. .85“, a. 3:25 2 Es 306x muonumou mama Huowucfiuo >3 .qNH - _~\ s s ~ .maoauocsm Hoosum uauuuooaw Q xHu >Hu XHW \{ku mmuwoznao Hmoaoawuo >2 .m: u x < x s ~ .mao: uom Huowoaauo >6 ou auau n‘ >Hsu XHu >Hu XHH. duo H consuming coma H :95 .2.“ -~ s s \d .>Humaawmu Q LWQ ¥Hu >H~u >~H~u ma mucoucoul amoaoauuo mm .pr l *«H.@ >~H~u >~qu \. Him .umamum: ooow a ow Humauaauo >2 :3 \s s s ‘ .momamzu n. u stu >Hu \KH‘W uguuoqfiw wawxua no mama.“ heads a con: magnum ouomon mmduo wag Iaommu any muasmaou Hanaoawuo >z .H> \ ~ s . mH~ me .coaawoo mo mmoamummmao munmoom H Xqu >Hu \' u \I u on.» wwwousooam Haawoafium >2 .mm x ‘ ~ ~ ~ s \ s .mmmmoaxwwz u \rH‘u >Hu >HU \AHH can unawauuum 330:3 cu swoon» acoummoao >3 muama> Hmowuawuo >z .oq ~,\ ~ M s .nwuoao & xHu Xqu > H& \Hsu amuwo Han—«25.3 >5 :33 $05 H .om oz nn> oz mm> oz mm> oz. mm> oz mm> «Hmafiuawu wmauua Hausa nuw womuMum umzuo mo wcowummoo w>m£ mumnomwu >Hummao unmocmomo wcfiomma «macaw moo mafiachfiumHu smug wcu now Emu“ m smug camuaoo EMufi m5» ou ucm>oHo mo wowcmwa mucmaaoo Au mgu mH Am ms» mH Am may moon Ao smug osu mH A may mH Am awuH A< mhxumxm no Auzn mHm>am>m=m m3. m0 28.5335, hszzoo mo... 3.20m xu mom 30> MzuHHm=v Hamuo>o mnu m>ouoafi ou oamaaoumu 90> amu momomzo Hmaoaufioom umnz xx ‘thmu "mwzmzzoo mm> uwmmum wafizuumu um: no man nuaa Humaoaauo m >9 aoaumuaawu: How mumauoouaom unauom msu «H x x x H u 5.2828 mm> pomuoanxm «mum uamucoo mnu cu wumHuoouomm uauaauumcu mfinu mo umauom mnu mH \ s \AhHfiu “mHzmzzoo mm> wamofiuafiuo yawnu zufis mofinmcowumamu Hausa aw mumnummu aumuaoa sown: muouumm unmowmuawfim mnu no Ham omoaauca unwaauumca mnu mum \ H k " mfizgoo mmw wwumaooom ucmaduumcw msu mo auwcmfi mnu mH .m .H mmzommmm mzo mqomHU mm' UNNKHDB) CI [HSNHEE CD SHKMBLY [HSNHEE 50 SD 50 50 SD SD $0 $0 SO SO SD SD 50 50 SD 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 193 MY PRINCIPAL COMMUNICATES WITH ME REGULARLY. MY PRINCIPAL MAKES ME FEEL LIKE I AM PART OF THE SCHOOL 'TEAM'. THE METHOD OF EVALUATING MY CLASSROOM PERFORMANCE IS IN PART DETERMINED BY ME. MY PRINCIPAL ALLOWS ME TO USE MATERIALS AND METHODS WHICH I BELIEVE ARE MOST FRUITFUL FOR MY STUDENTS. WHEN I NEED ASSISTANCE. I CAN TURN TO MY PRINCIPAL FOR HELP. MY PRINCIPAL PUBLICIZES IMPORTANT SCHOOL FUNCTIONS. MY PRINCIPAL SEES TO IT THAT WHEN THINGS NEED TO BE DONE. THEY GET DONE. MY PRINCIPAL ENCOURAGES TEACHER PARTICIPATION IN EDUCATIONAL SEMINARS. CONFERENCES AND WORKSHOPS. THE LOCATION OF MY CLASSROOM PROMOTES SOCIAL CONTACT WITH OTHER STAFF MEMBERS. THE FURNITURE IN OUR SCHOOL IS FUNCTIONAL AND COMFORTABLE. MY PRINCIPAL REINFORCES THE POSITIVE ASPECTS OF MY TEACHING BEHAVIORS. CURRICULUM MATERIALS AVAILABLE FOR USE IN MY CLASSROOM ARE OF GOOD QUALITY. MY PRINCIPAL USES CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM WHEN DEALING WITH ME. MY PRINCIPAL LETS TEACHERS KNOW WHAT IS EXPECTED OF THEM PROFESSIONALLY. MY PRINCIPAL MAKES ME FEEL WHAT I DO IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF OUR SCHOOL. MY PRINCIPAL WORKS OUT A PLAN BEFORE TAKING ACTION. SUFFICIENT SUPPLIES (PAPER. PENCILS. ETC.) ARE AVAILABLE FOR MY CLASSROOM USE. SUKNGLY NHEE SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA W AOEE > UNDECIDED C [HSNHEE O SUKDBLY [HSNEEE SD 50 SD 50 SO SO SD 50 SD SO SO SD SD SD SD 50 194 SUBSCALE COMPOSITION OF THE REVISED FORM OF THE TPCI SUBSCALES Motivational Factors Services Physical Environmental Conditions Group Cohesiveness Matter (Materials, Supplies. Equipment) Teacher Decision-Making Principal Leadership Behavior Information Communication Relationship To TM! 0 O O O O O O ..... Q # 0F ITEMS 10 17 29 15 ITEMS 107. 109. 111 4, 12. 25. 33. 79. 84. 92 23, 37. 46, 51. 61. 64. 77, 105. 106 24, 32. 43. 78. 85. 88, 98 14, 60. 72, 83, 108, 113 9. 22, 27. 28. 35, 55. 57. 66. 67, 73. 75. 80, 82. 9o, 94, 99. 100 2, 5, 7. 8, 13, 18, 26, 34. 38. 48. 49. 50. 54, 58. 59. 62. 65. 68. 69. 74. 76, 86. ‘91. 93. 96. 101, 103. 110. 112 10. 11, 15. 17. 21, 39, 40, 42, 45. 47, 52. 53, 56. 87, 104 1, 3, 6, 16, 19, 20. 30, 31, 41, 63, 81, 97. 102 APPENDIX E TPCI SUMMARY DATA SHEET AND SCORING GRIDS APPENDIX E TPCI - SUMMARY DATA SHEET _ INSTRUMENT NUMfiER/RESPONSE SCORE* _ TOTAL MEAN SUBSCALE/ITEM | [ (ITEM) (ITEM) MOtivational Factors 31 39 61 62 79 85 6 98 100 Total Subscale Mean Subscale Services 11 23 28 6 74 82 Total Subscale Mean Subscale Physical Environ- mental Conditions 21 32 41 4 3 6 Total Subscale Mean S Group Co 1 22 2 38 68 7 78 88 Total Subscale Mean Subscale *Instrument numbers are to be entered at the top of each column. Individual responses (rpnnnnnp nnnrp‘ rn innrrnmpnr {fans are rn he entered under each instrument number. 196 INSTRUMENT NUMBERlRESPONSE SCORE? TOTAL MEAN SUBSCALE/ITEM (ITEM) (ITEM) Matter (Materials. 3 lies 42 52 63 73 7 102 Total Subs MBan Subscale t Teacher Decis 8 2 25 7 65 7O 72 80 84 Total Subscal Mean Subscale Principal Leader- Bh Behavior 4 6 6O 6 76 81 83 86 2 1 Total Mann (duhannI I.“ 197 INSTRUMENT NUMBERI‘RESPONSE SCORE" J SUBSCALE/ ITEM TOTAL MEAN (ITEM) (ITEM) Information 9 10 13 15 19 34 35 37 4O 46 47 49 77 Total Subscale Mean Subscale Communication Relationsh 1 2 14 17 18 26 36 54 71 87 1 Total Subscale Mean Subscale GRAND TOTAL Subscales GRAND MEAN Subscales TPCI SCORING GRID I!) s? M N v-I MOST DESIRABLE LEAST DESIRABLE dIHSNOIlVWSH NOILVDINONNOO NOIIVWBOSNI BOIAVHaa dIHSBSOV31 1vaIDNIad ‘ l SNvaW—NOISIDSQ HEHDVHW (INBWdInoa ‘sadedns - ‘ S'TVIBSIVW) 831le DATE: T OVERALL AND SUBSCALE PROFILE FOR A SINGLE RESPONDENT INSTRUMENT NUMBER: MOST DESIRABLE SSBNBAISBHOO anBS I 5 4 3 198 SNOILIQNOO WVLNENNOUIANB 1VDISAHd SBDIAHBS SHOLDV WVNOILVAILON EWIJOHd WWVBSAO LEAST DESIRABLE TPCI SCORING GRID mammzoz HZmzomHmzH n1 . . S me(MmeQ meo .dqmuluaHMGQWIHUMH 199 TPCI SCORING GRID mammznz HzmznmkmzH all . I“ meé A U D SD 1 AGREE WITH THE ITEM AS IT APPLIES TO MY SCHOOL. SA X U 0 SD 1 AM UNDECIDED ABOUT THE ITEM AS IT APPLIES TO MY SCHOOL. SA A X D SD I Q1§A§355_WITH THE ITEM AS IT APPLIES TO MY SCHOOL. SA A U X so I STRONGLx QISAQBEE WITH THE ITEM AS IT APPLIES TO MY SCHOOL. SA A U D M ELEASE TURN THE PAGE AND INDICATE YOUR RESPONSES ON THE TPCI RESPONSE SHEET 211 1. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. IS. 16, 17, 18. 19. 20, 21. 212 I FEEL FREE TO SPEAK ABOUT MY WORK IN AN OPEN AND HONEST MANNER WITH MY PRINCIPAL. MY PRINCIPAL HAS CLEARLY INDICATED HIS/HER ROLE TO THE STAFF. CUSTODIAL SERVICE IS ADEQUATE IN OUR SCHOOL. MY PRINCIPAL ASKS ME TO PERFORM TASKS WHICH ARE RELEVANT AND WORTHWHILE. MY PRINCIPAL ENCOURAGES FEEDBACK FROM TEACHERS FOR ACTION HE/SHE TAKES. MY PRINCIPAL SETS DEADLINES WHICH ARE REASONABLE. MY PRINCIPAL UNDERSTANDS THE KIND OF PROBLEMS I FACE IN THE CLASSROOM. I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE EVALUATION OF MY PRINCIPAL. I HAVE EASY ACCESS TO A PROFESSIONAL LIBRARY. MY PRINCIPAL ENCOURAGES ME TO SHARE NEW INFORMATION WITH HIM/HER. AS WELL AS WITH THE STAFF. PARAPROFESSIONAL AIDE ASSISTANCE IS ADEQUATE IN OUR SCHOOL. MY PRINCIPAL ADEQUATELY MANAGES SCHOOL RESOURCES. MY PRINCIPAL ACTS UPON REQUESTS I MAKE FOR TEACHING-RELATED INFORMATION. MY PRINCIPAL IS ACCESSIBLE. IN OUR SCHOOL. STAFF BULLETIN BOARDS ARE A SOURCE OF USEFUL AND TIMELY INFORMATION FOR TEACHERS. MY TEACHING DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ARE RELATED TO MY TRAINING. SKILLS AND INTERESTS. MY PRINCIPAL USES A METHOD OF COMMUNICATION (FACE-TO-FACE. TELEPHONE. WRITTEN, ETC.) WHICH IS PLEASING TO ME. MY PRINCIPAL GENERALLY STATES A RATIONALE WHEN HE/SHE TAKES SPECIFIC ACTION. MY PRINCIPAL KEEPS ME INFORMED OF NEW TEACHING METHODS AND MATERIALS. MAJOR DECISIONS IN OUR SCHOOL ARE GENERALLY MADE BY THE PRINCIPAL AND THE STAFF. OUR SCHOOL BUILDING IS MAINTAINED AT A COMFORTABLE TEMPERATURE. PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 213 22. TEACHERS IN OUR SCHOOL ENJOY WORKING TOGETHER. 23. SUPPORT STAFF SERVICES (FOR READING. MATH, SCIENCE, MUSIC. ART. ETC.) ARE ADEQUATE IN OUR SCHOOL. 24. MY PRINCIPAL TREATS TEACHERS FAIRLY AND EQUITABLY. 25. TEACHERS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP DETERMINE THE OVERALL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR OUR SCHOOL. 26. MY PRINCIPAL COMMUNICATES WITH ME IN AN HONEST AND OPEN MANNER. 27. MY PRINCIPAL PROVIDES OPPORTUNITIES FOR TEACHERS TO WORK TOGETHER. 28. SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK SERVICES ARE ADEQUATE IN OUR SCHOOL. 29. MY PRINCIPAL SHOWS A WILLINGNESS TO MAKE APPROPRIATE CHANGES. 30. I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN BUDGETING THE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR OUR SCHOOL. 31. MY PRINCIPAL MAKES ME FEEL CONFIDENT IN MY WORK AS A TEACHER. 32. I AM PLEASED WITH THE LOCATION OF MY CLASSROOM WITH RESPECT TO OTHER IMPORTANT FACILITIES IN THE BUILDING. 33. MY PRINCIPAL USES AN EFFECTIVE METHOD OF EVALUATING MY TEACHING PERFORMANCE. 34. IN OUR SCHOOL, STAFF MEETINGS ARE A SOURCE OF USEFUL AND TIMELY INFORMATION. 35. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN MY EVALUATION REPORTS IS USEFUL FOR IMPROVING MY CLASSROOM EFFECTIVENESS. 36. I AM PLEASED WITH THE NUMBER OF TIMES MY PRINCIPAL VISITS MY CLASSROOM. 37. I AM SATISFIED WITH THE NUMBER OF EDUCATIONAL CONFERENCES AND WORKSHOPS I ATTEND EACH YEAR. 38. MY PRINCIPAL SEES TO IT THAT STAFF WORK EFFORTS ARE COORDINATED. 39. MY PRINCIPAL GIVES RECOGNITION TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF INDIVIDUAL TEACHERS. 40. MY PRINCIPAL PROVIDES TEACHING-RELATED INFORMATION THAT IS USEFUL AND TIMELY. 41. IN OUR SCHOOL, THERE IS A QUIET PLACE WHERE I CAN RELAX ALONE. 42. I HAVE EASY ACCESS TO AN INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS CENTER FOR TEACHERS. PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. SO. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 214 MY PRINCIPAL ENCOURAGES AND ACCEPTS DIFFERENCES OF OPINION. MY PRINCIPAL GENERALLY MAKES APPROPRIATE DECISIONS REGARDING MATTERS WHICH AFFECT ME. IN OUR SCHOOL. THERE IS AN ADEQUATE TEACHER WORK AREA FOR PLANNING/CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT. ETC. MY PRINCIPAL TRIES TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION BY SETTING UP IN-SERVICE PROGRAMS. MY PRINCIPAL PROVIDES TEACHERS PLANNING TIME FOR RESEARCHING OR TRYING OUT NEW IDEAS. MY PRINCIPAL MAKES DECISIONS WHICH ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF OUR SCHOOL. THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR OUR SCHOOL ARE CLEAR TO ME. MY PRINCIPAL SUPPORTS ME IN CONFLICT SITUATIONS. MY PRINCIPAL WELCOMES AND ACTS UPON SUGGESTIONS MADE BY STAFF. IN MY CLASSROOM, CURRICULUM MATERIALS ARE PLENTIFUL. OUR SCHOOL BUILDING IS TASTEFULLY DECORATED. MY PRINCIPAL CONSULTS THE TEACHING STAFF BEFORE ACTING UPON A MAJOR ISSUE OR MAKING IMPORTANT CHANGES. UUR SCHOOL BUILDING IS ADEQUATELY LIGHTED. MY PRINCIPAL RUNS MEETINGS IN A WELL-ORGANIZED AND EFFICIENT MANNER. I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP DECIDE THE FORMAT OF THE PROGRESS REPORTS USED WITH MY STUDENTS. ‘ MY PRINCIPAL ALLOWS ME TO USE MY OWN JUDGEMENT IN SOLVING PROBLEMS AND TRYING OUT NEW IDEAS. MY PRINCIPAL SEEKS OUT NEW WAYS OF DOING THINGS. MY PRINCIPAL HANDLES STAFF COMPLAINTS AND PROBLEMS IN A FAIR AND EQUITABLE MANNER. MY PRINCIPAL KNOWS WHAT IS PROFESSIONALLY REWARDING TO ME. MY PRINCIPAL ENCOURAGES ME TO WORK TO MY FULLEST POTENTIAL. IN OUR SCHOOL. INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIPMENT IS AVAILABLE WHEN NEEDED. I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP DECIDE THE PROFESSIONAL JOURNALS OR TEXTS AVAILABLE FOR TEACHER SELF-DEVELOPMENT. PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 215 IN OUR SCHOOL, THE PRINCIPAL AND TEACHERS JOINTLY DECIDE WHICH INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS, SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT WILL BE PURCHASED. AT OUTSIDE MEETINGS, MY PRINCIPAL EXPRESSES VIEWS WHICH REPRESENT STAFF OPINION. THERE ARE COMFORTABLE EATING AND LOUNGE AREAS IN OUR SCHOOL. MY PRINCIPAL ENCOURAGES TEACHERS TO WORK AS A TEAM. LIBRARY SERVICES ARE ADEQUATELY PROVIDED FOR MY STUDENTS. I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP DECIDE WHAT WILL BE DISCUSSED DURING STAFF MEETINGS. MY PRINCIPAL IS A GOOD LISTENER. I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP SELECT THE SPEAKERS AND SUBJECT MATTER FOR WORKSHOPS AND IN-SERVICE ACTIVITIES FOR OUR SCHOOL. THE INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR MY CLASSROOM IS OF GOOD QUALITY. SERVICES OF A SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST ARE ADEQUATE IN OUR SCHOOL. TEACHERS IN OUR SCHOOL WORK TOGETHER COOPERATIVELY. MY PRINCIPAL IS NQI EXCESSIVELY CONCERNED WITH DETAIL. MY PRINCIPAL IS A MAJOR SOURCE OF TEACHING-RELATED INFORMATION. MY PRINCIPAL PROVIDES OPPORTUNITIES FOR TEACHERS TO VISIT TOGETHER AND TO SHARE CLASSROOM EXPERIENCES. MY PRINCIPAL PROVIDES RECOGNITION FOR SUPERIOR TEACHING PERFORMANCE. I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE DECISIONS REGARDING STUDENT PLACEMENTS THAT AFFECT THE COMPOSITION OF MY CLASS. MY PRINCIPAL WORKS WITH ME INDIVIDUALLY TO HELP IDENTIFY WAYS OF IMPROVING CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION/CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT. IN OUR SCHOOL. SECRETARIAL SERVICE IS ADEQUATE. MY PRINCIPAL KNOWS WHEN AND WHERE THERE ARE PROBLEMS IN OUR SCHOOL. I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP DETERMINE AND EVALUATE THE POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF OUR SCHOOL. MY PRINCIPAL PRAISES ME WHEN I WORK EFFECTIVELY. MY PRINCIPAL HAS ESTABLISHED THE SAME RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR ALL TEACHERS. PLEASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 216 87. MY PRINCIPAL COMMUNICATES WITH ME REGULARLY. 88. MY PRINCIPAL MAKES ME FEEL LIKE I AM PART OF THE SCHOOL 'TEAM'. 89. MY PRINCIPAL AND I MUTUALLY DETERMINE THE METHOD OF EVALUATING MY CLASSROOM PERFORMANCE. 90. MY PRINCIPAL ALLOWS ME TO USE MATERIALS AND METHODS WHICH I BELIEVE ARE MOST FRUITFUL FOR MY STUDENTS. 91. MY PRINCIPAL PUBLICIZES IMPORTANT SCHOOL FUNCTIONS. 92. MY PRINCIPAL SEES TO IT THAT WHEN THINGS NEED TO BE DONE, THEY GET DONE. 93. MY PRINCIPAL ENCOURAGES TEACHER PARTICIPATION IN EDUCATIONAL SEMINARS, CONFERENCES AND WORKSHOPS. 94. THE LOCATION OF MY CLASSROOM PROMOTES SOCIAL CONTACT WITH OTHER STAFF MEMBERS. 95. THE FURNITURE IN OUR SCHOOL IS FUNCTIONAL AND COMFORTABLE. 96. MY PRINCIPAL REINFORCES THE POSITIVE ASPECTS OF MY TEACHING BEHAVIORS. 97. CURRICULUM MATERIALS AVAILABLE FOR USE IN MY CLASSROOM ARE OF GOOD QUALITY. 98. MY PRINCIPAL USES CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM WHEN DEALING WITH ME. 99. MY PRINCIPAL LETS TEACHERS KNOW WHAT IS EXPECTED OF THEM PROFESSIONALLY. 100. MY PRINCIPAL MAKES ME FEEL WHAT I DO Is DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF OUR SCHOOL. 101. MY PRINCIPAL WORKS OUT A PLAN BEFORE TAKING ACTION. 102. A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF SUPPLIES (PAPER. PENCILS. ETC.) ARE AVAILABLE FOR MY CLASSROOM USE. THANK YO FO Y R E ENT A STAN E 217 TPCI RESPONSE SHEET 15. METRUMENT NUMBER _§1: SA = STRONGLY AGREE A = AGREE U = UNDECIDED D = DISAGREE SD = STRONGLY DISAGREE 1 SA A U D SD 27. SA‘A U D SD 53 SA A U D SD 79. SA A U D SD 2. SA A D SD 28. SA A D SD 54. SA A U D SD 80. SA A U D SD 3. SA A D SD 29. SA A 0 SD 55. SA A U D SD 81. SA A U D SD 4. SA A D SD 30. SA A D SD 56. SA A U D SD 82. SA A U D SD 5. SA A D SD 31. SA A D SD 57. SA A U D SD 83. SA A U D SD 6. SA A D SD 32. SA A D SD 58. SA A U D SD 84. SA A U D SD 7. SA A 0 SD 33. SA A D SD 59. SA A U D SD 85. SA A U D SD 8. SA A D SD 34. SA A D SD 60. SA A U D SD 86. SA A U D SD 9. SA A D SD 35. SA A D SD 61. SA A U 0 SD 87. SA A U D SD 10. SA A 0 SD 36. SA A D SD 62. SA A U D SD 88. SA'A U D SD 11. SA A D SD 37. SA A D SD 63. SA A U D SD 89. SA A U D SD 12. SA A D SD 38. SA A D SD 64. SA A U D SD 90. SA A U D SD 13. SA A D SD 39. SA A D SD 65. SA A U D so 91. SA A U D SD 14. SA A 0 SD 40. SA A D SD 66. SA A U D SD 92. SA A U D SD SA A D SD 41. SA A 0 SD 67 SA A U D SD 93. SA A U D SD SA A D 50 42. SA A 0 SD 68. SA A U D SD 94. SA A U D SD SA A D SD 43. SA A D SD 69. SA A U D so 95. SA A U D SD SA A D 50 44. SA A D SD 70. SA A U D SD 96. SA A U D SD SA A D SD 45. SA A D SD 71. SA A u D SD 97. SA A'U 0 SD SA A D SD 46. SA A D SD 72. SA A U 0 SD 98. SA A U D SD SA A D SD 47. SA A D SD 73. SA A U D SD 99. SA A U 0 SD SA A D SD 48. SA A D SD 74. SA A U D SD 100. SA A U 0 SD SA A D SD 49. SA A D SD 75. SA A U D SD 101. SA A U D SD SA A D SD 50. SA A D SD 76. SA A U D SD 102. SA A U 0 SD SA A D SD 51. SA A D SD 77. SA A U D SD SA A D SD 52. SA A D so 78. SA A U D SD SUBSCALE COMPOSITION OF THE FINAL 218 REVISION OF THE TPCI SUBSCALES Motivational Factors Services Pnysical Environmental Conditions Group Cohesiveness Matter (Materials, Supplies, Equipment) Teacher Decision—Making Principal Leadership Behavior Information Communication Relationship # OF ITEMS 9 14 24 14 ITEMS 42, 102 58, 80, 24, 48, 6o, 86, 34, 47, 18, 87. 39, 96, 11, 82 32, 67, 27 , 88 52, 20, 64. 84, P 29, so, 66, 92, 10, 35, 49, P 26 , 91 61, 98, 41, 94, 62 , 100 45 , 95 68, 30, 7o, 90 12, 43, 56, 81, 101 15, 40, 93 14. 54, 57, 72, 16, 44, 59, 83, 19, 46. 17, 71, APPENDIX H THE INITIAL FIELD TEST OF THE TPCI: AN OVERVIEW PRESENTED TO CONTACT PERSONS AND POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS; PRINCIPAL'S FEEDBACK FORM (SUMMARY DATA FORM); TPCI SUMMARY DATA AND SCORING GRID FEEDBACK INFORMATION; AND CORRESPONDENCE TO THE PARTICIPANTS APPENDIX H AN OVERVIEW OF THE INITIAL FIELD TEST PRESENTED TO CONTACT PERSONS AND POTENTIAL PARTICIPANTS Purpose: Instrument: Angnimity: Schools §§lected For the Field Test: To develop a communication instrument which provides an assessment of factors which affect the level of morale or job satisfaction among teachers. is to develop a questionnaire which affords teachers the opportunity to report their perceptions of factors which may influence their classroom effectiveness. In addition, principals will be given an opportunity to gather data which indicates how individual teachers vary in their perceptions of the work environment. Finally, the information gathered may be utilized as a data-base upon which the mutual (teacher and The intent principal) development of goals and objectives can be founded. The questionnaire will consist of approximately 100-125 items. For each item, respondents will be asked to mark an X on one of five responses: strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and strongly dis- agree. General areas which are explored include: communication, relationship, information, matter (materials, supplies, etc.), leadership behavior, motivational factors, physical environmental conditions, group cohesiveness, services (ancillary, secretarial and custodial), and teacher decision-making. Responses will NOT be seen by persons other than the researcher and the respondents. principals and schools will NOT be used. Names of teachers, -Every effort will be taken to assure complete confidentiality. The following nine (9) elementary schools have been randomly selected for the field test: a Elementary School District Principalfi Phone # Glencairn East Lansin Myles Harriman 351-6241 Jefferson Mason Gary Peraino 677-3381 Diamondale Holt Dean Adams 646-6747 Pinecrest East Lansing: Dallas WEggner 337-2042 North Aurelius Mason Dwight Sinila 676-2455 Steele I» Mason James Harvey 676-1061 Midway Holt Kent Thibaudeau 699-2185 Wilcox Holt , Jack CraLg; 694-8111 Central East Lansing Headmistress 332-1614V Sharon Cardwell 219 Time Commitment: Design: 220 The following is a breakdown of schools by district: A) B) A) B) of Schools Select 3 3 3 In six (6) elementary schools, the researcher is required to meet with each principal for 1/2 hour on three (3) occasions. Therefore, the total time to be spent with each of the six (6) principals will be 1-l/2 hours. In the same six (6) elementary schools the researcher is required to meet with members of the teaching staff for 20-30 minutes. Therefore, the total time to be spent with six (6) teaching staffs will be 113-1/2 hour. In the remaining three (3) elementary schools, the researcher is required to meet with each principal for 1/2 hour on two (2) occasions. Therefore, the total time to be spent with each of the three (3) principals will be 1 hour. In six (6) schools, teachers will be asked to complete the survey instrument. The principal will also be asked to complete the form, as he or she perceives the staff would respond. Approximately, a week later the principal will receive information indicating how closely his or her score compared with the staff's. After having an opportunity to assimilate the feed- back, the principal will once again be asked to complete the form (as the teachers perceive the items). In the three (3) remaining elementary schools, there will be a NO FEEDBACK condition. There- fore, principals will be asked to complete the form on two occasions without being provided any information relative to teachers' perceptions. #‘of Schools Conditions 6 A. Principal's Pre-test B.’Feedback to Post-test 3 A. Principal's Pre-test B. Principal's Postftest Principal (Staff's scores) C. Principal's Timeline: 221 A) For the six (g) "feedback" schools the following schedule is suggested*: lst visit with principal and staff: MAY 5,6,7,8 or 9 2nd visit with principal, only: MAY 12,13,14,15 or 16 3rd (Final) visit with principal, only: . MAY l9,20,21,22 or 23 B) For the three (8) "non feedback" schoo1s the following schedule is suggested*: lst visit with principal, only:4f MAY 5,6,7,8 or 9 2nd (Final) visit with principal, only: MAY l9,20,21,22 or 23 *It is suggested that meetings occurring after the first visit be conducted on the same day of the week as the initial visit. For example, if the first visit occurs on Monday, May 5, the second visit is to occur on Monday, May 12 and if there is a third visit it would occur on Monday, May 19. FEEDBACK FORM (SUMMARY DATA FORM) USED BY THE PRINCIPALS PARTICIPATING IN THE INITIAL FIELD TEST Are the items included in the TPCI relevant? COMMENTS: Is the length of the TPCI appropriate? COMMENTS: Have all the major aspects of the teacher- principal interface been sufficiently addressed in the TPCI? COMMENTS: Is the format used in the TPCI appropriate? COMMENTS: Does the TPCI provide information which is understandable? COMMENTS: Does the TPCI provide useful information about your teaching staff? COMMENTS: 222 (II-=9) PLEASE CIRCLE ONE RESPONSE YES 9 YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO N0 N0 10. ll. 12. 13. 223 Does the TPCI provide information which should be shared with your teaching staff? COMMENTS: Should the TPCI be administered more than one time during the school year? COMMENTS: Do you plan to use the results of the TPCI? COMMENTS: How do you plan to use the results of the TPCI? What are the major strengths of the TPCI? What are the major weaknesses of the TPCI? What recommendations can you make regarding the future utilization of the TPCI? ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: PLEASE CIRCLE ONE RESPONSE YES YES YES NO N0 N0 224 TPCI SUMMARY DATA FEEDBACK INFORMATION Note: 9119Alh-Principa1's Pre/Post Scores; 9019-9109-Teachers' Scores. INSTRUMENT NUM RESPONSE SCORE* m 0. h TOTAL MEAN '” ' (ITEM) ITEM) SUBSCALE/ITEM 5 $1.513 i a § § 8 ( Motivational ' ' ' *Instrument numbers are to be entered at the top of each column. Individual responses ------------ ‘ ”- ‘nn'w- man" irnms are to be entered under each instrument number. GQ'J SUBSCALE/ ITEM Matter (Materials , INSTRUMENT NUMBER RESPONSE SCORE* TOTAL ( ITEM) MEAN (ITEM) 226 INSTRUMENT NUMBER RESPONSE SCORE* SUBSCALE/ ITEM c. \ §§§ *“Nii & (ITEM) (ITEM) ' TOTAL MEAN OVERALL AND SUBSCALE PROFILE FOR A SINGLE RESPONDENT 5/16 / 75’ DATE: INSTRUIENT NUMBER: ‘M‘M (”'le PR6 -TEsT 5750355) 227 TPCI SCORING GRID FEEDBACK INFORMATION ID 4’ M N 1 T MOST DESIRABLE LEAST DESIRABLE dIHSNOIiVWBU NDIiVDINnNNOO NDILVNHOdNI HOIAVHBB dIHsaaova1 1VdIDNIad I ' l . SNIXVH-NOISIDBO HEHDVB (lNENdInOE ‘SSIdenS ‘ ‘SWVIHEIVNI HELLVN SSBNSAISBHOQ dnosa SNDILIONDO WVLNENNUHIANB WVDISAHd SBDIAUBS : J SUDLDV WVNDILVAILOW 31I508d WWVBSAO ‘MOST DESIRABLE LEAST DESIRABLE |___ 228 mama—2;. EmzamszH mar tum mumw NW. EMS.» swuw mus mm. mm...» . um. «.83 «we; .1 . a meEHmwo . ”.65:me ...mo dag 229 mmwmzaz hzmzamhmzH ESE: E E. mm: m...» as E. as macaw «as HIT \fi ma(mummo meémwg FM(m_ P93 H IUI Jl IIIJIIII a II LU N Illl II III. N :H .7 I: I: ll .1 LI. M III I l' K' 'I -IIIIIIII III I.‘ O. OI OOH M lll IJI II S III IJII c m m wdémmmo gmnmmo J82 a“: NE? SE . 965E 3222232 .5888 macaw < mom qumomm m4