AREAS OF EEEEEEEEEEET EEED DESEGEEEEEEEEE BNTh'E _~ ‘ *
EEEEEEEE DEGREE 0F EEEEEEEPEEEEEE 0E EEEE ? ‘ _
scum: EEED EEEE WWI-“yum? EN THE EEEEEEEEEEG __ ’
END m EHE EMEEEEEEEEE EEEOEE OF CEEEEEECEEEEE; , ~-

coEEEOEEEETs or A EEEEEEEE EUEEEEEEEEEE ‘PRQGRAM ' '

Thesis for the Begrcenf Ph. D.
‘ EEECEEEEE EEEEE ‘UEEEEEESEEE?
' RUDI mac

1973 .

.. ;2£Kir;‘d

  

 

Ifllllllllllzllflllslllll Elm fl “will W I

 

LIBRA R Y
Michigan State

University

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
'Areas of Agreement and Disagreement in the Relative Degree
of Participation of the School and the University in the

Planning and in the Implementation of Curricular Components
of a Teacher Education Program

presented by
Rudi Alec

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D

 

degree in Education

 

a'or professor

Datew

0-7 639

 

 

flea/'7'

~ Ea
7w

,,./*'iT"‘s:..
gm: ".1 "1
\E ‘
35L.

 

ABSTRACT

AREAS OF AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT IN THE RELATIVE
DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION OF THE SCHOOL AND THE
UNIVERSITY IN THE PLANNING AND IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF CURRICULAR
COMPONENTS OF A TEACHER

EDUCATION PROGRAM

BY

Rudi Alec

The "partnership" approach to teacher education has
been an avenue strongly advocated by educational estab-
lishments. They hold the point of View that the preparation
of teachers ought to be a shared endeavor involving the
university and the public school.

The purpose of this study was to determine if public
school, college of education, and college of arts and
science personnel agree to the relative degree of partici-
pation the school and the university ought to have in the
planning and implementation of a teacher education program.

The population sample chosen for this study consists
of faculty members from the Lansing Elementary Public
Schools, from the College of Education and from the depart-
ments of arts and sciences at Michigan State University
who are presently involved in the preservice education of
teachers. Thirty-five members from eaCh of the three groups

supplied the data used for this study.

Rudi Alec

A questionnaire, which was specifically constructed
for this study, was sent to individual members of the sample
population to obtain their opinions concerning the degree of
participation they perceive the school and the university
to have if a partnership to teacher education were to be
employed. The results of the questionnaire were analyzed
in terms of agreement or disagreement in regard to the rela-
tive degree of participation the school and the university
ought to have in the functions: (1) defining objectives,

(2) implementing, and (3) evaluating.

The respondents to the questionnaire were asked to
determine the relative degree of participation the school
and the university ought to have in the functions in refer-
ence to five curricular components of a teacher education
program. The curricular domains were: (1) academic dis-
ciplines, (2) human learning, (3) curricular content of
the elementary school, (4) strategies (methods) and (5)
teaching process (clinical experience).

The conclusions that were reached as a result of
this study are:

1. That members of the school, the college, and
the university agree on the degree of participation the
school and the university ought to have in these curricular
areas of a teacher education program: academic disciplines,
human learning, and the curricular content areas of the

elementary school.

Rudi Alec

2. That differences among the groups exist in the
degree of participation the school and the university

ought to have in the curricular areas termed strategies and

 

in the clinical phase termed teaching process. The school

 

and the university differed in opinions on strategies. The

 

school and the college differed in opinion on the teaching
process.

3. That the school, the college, and the university
agree on the degree of participation the school and the

university ought to have in the functions, implementing

 

objectives and evaluation process.

 

 

4. That a difference between the groups exist in
the degree of participation the school and the university
ought to have in the function, defining objectives. The
school and the university differed in opinion.

The college and the university agreed in all aspects
as to the relative degree of participation they viewed the
school and the university to have. The differences that
were found were: the school and the university differed in

Opinion on the function, defining objectives, and in the

 

curricular area, strategies; the school and the college

 

differed in opinion in the curricular area, teaching

process.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT AND DISAGREEMENT IN THE RELATIVE
DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION OF THE SCHOOL AND THE
UNIVERSITY IN THE PLANNING AND IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF CURRICULAR
COMPONENTS OF A TEACHER

EDUCATION PROGRAM

BY

Rudi Alec

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Elementary Education

1973

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my committee members, Dr.
Louise Sause, Dr. Roy Wesselman, and Dr. Charles Blackman,
for their guidance throughout the dissertation and for the
valuable contribution to my educational experiences at
Michigan State University.

I want to especially thank my committee chairman,
Dr. Perry Lanier. He has provided a vast number of experi-
ences which have broadened and extended my professional
career. His classes, his guidance, and his friendship have
been continuously rewarding both professionally and personally.

I would also like to express my appreciation to Dr.
James Snoddy for providing varied professional opportunities
which have enhanced my education. Much thanks should also
be given to Robert Wilson, the statistical consultant, for
his valuable time and expertise.

I want to express my sincere thanks to the faculty
members of Michigan State University and of the Lansing
Public Schools. The data supplied by them was invaluable
to this study.

It is difficult to isolate all of the individuals
who have given me the encouragement and the incentive to
pursue my education. I would like to however, express my
thanks to my mother, Anna Alec, and to Mrs. Kathryn Beachem,
for their faith in me and for their supportive role in my
educational career.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Need . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 2
Purpose . . . . . . . 4
Specific Objectives of the Study . . . . 4
Theory . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Assumptions and Limitations . . . . . . 8
Population Sample . . . . . . . . . 9
Definition of Terms Used . . . . . . . 9
Implications . . . . . . . . . . 11
Overview of the Study . . . . . . . . 11
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . 13
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . l3
School-University Role in Teacher
Education Development PrOposed . . . . 16
Total University Approach . . . . . . 19
Existing College-School Cooperative
Ventures . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Future Directions: A Change is Advocated . 30
Experimental Designs in Teacher Education
Instigate Change (Models Propose School-

University Involvement) . . . . . . 35

Clinical Professor . . . . . . . . . 37

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . 44
Introduction . . . . . . . . . 44

Sample Description and Selection Process . 45

Questionnaire Construction . . . . . . 47

iii

Chapter Page

Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . 51
Analysis Model . . . . . . . . . . 51
Hypotheses Tested . . . . . . . . . 53
Organization of Data . . . . . . . . 53
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 0 C I O O C O O O O 56

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Results of the Questionnaire . . . . . 56
Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . . 57
Interpretation of Means . . . . . . . 58
Restatement and Analyses of the

Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . 58

 

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
V . S UMMARY AND CONCLUS IONS . . . . . . . . 7 6
smnmary O O O O O O O O O O O O 76
conCluSionS O O O O O O O O O O O 79
Discussion of Results . . . . . . . . 81
Future Implications . . . . . . . . 84

BIBLIOGMPHY O O O O O O O C O I O I C O C 87

APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O O C C O O O 93

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Analysis of Variance Table--Sources
of Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Liberal and Conservative F of
Reference Table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Confidence Intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Confidence Intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Confidence Intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7o
Perceived Degree of Participation . . . . . . . 82

Figure

1.

LIST OF FIGURES

Repeated Measures of Analysis of
Variance Model. . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

52

 

'IEF'
‘ Q

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Introduction

 

Schools have cooperated in teacher education pro—
grams and have supplied the "clinic" in which the prospec-
tive teacher could practice and apply the skills of teaching
which were learned in the university. Cooperation as it
usually exists may be viewed in a very restrictive sense.
The schools have provided the locus for prospective teachers
to practice in the classroom setting. The planning and the
development of the activities and experiences have been the
responsibility of the college or university. Critics of
teacher education, as well as members of the profession and
teacher educators themselves, have strongly voiced that a
partnership between the universities and the schools, either
in the total program or in various components, ought to be
the route in teacher education.

"Universities and colleges . . . can and should take
leadership in developing wise cooperative ventures in teacher
education with their professional colleagues in the schools"
(37; p. 67). This point of view was strongly voiced by the
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education's
Subcommittee on School-College Relationships in Teacher
Education. Their report goes on to say:

1

 

To cooperate or not to cooperate is not the issue.
Schools and colleges will have to do this in one

way or another unless either one of the institutions
takes complete command. This would be turning the
clock back either to the state normal school or to
the old teacher institute run by a dominating school
system (37; p. 67).

Matthew J. Trippe, in describing Triple T (TTT)
around the country, stated:

The major concerns of the Triple T Project are two- f
fold: (1) the alienation between the school of
education and the rest of the university and (2)

the alienation between the university and the public
schools (44; p. 72).

 

If we can believe that this strong declaration made H
by the AACTE advocating school-university approaches is to
be a future direction of teacher education program develop-
ment and if the concerns of the Triple T Project are to be
considered, then steps might be taken to initiate coopera-

tive endeavors.

Need

 

In a survey conducted for the AACTE by the Subcom-
mittee on School-College Relationships in Teacher Education,
153 institutions which were involved in cooperative school
activities recommended these three guidelines:

1. that cooperative arrangements, if they are to
have any lasting power, need to be contracted
for or at least spelled out, in a mutually
develOped statement.

2. that sound practices in maintaining workable
and empathetic human relations need to be
considered as projects develop by sharing the
ideation process among school and college
personnel.

3. that means for cooperative decision making,

and then execution of the decisions need to

be institutionalized sufficiently to make

clear the role responsibility and channels of

communications (37; p. 68).

In View of these recommendations and assuming that
an institutional partnership is a route that might be
taken in planning future teacher education programs, there
is a need to determine the role the members of the involved
institutions perceive the school to have and the university
to have in the development and implementation of such a
program. Once these roles are defined, then each one's
place in a cooperative venture, through participation by
both parties, can be found and it will be more possible to
decide who should be responsible for what (37; p. 65). The
delineation of tasks helps the participants understand
their position and those of the other members, ". . .
thus the clarification of roles should result in more effec-
tive and efficient task performance" (14; p. 169).

Based on this assumption that the clarification of
roles helps to delineate areas of responsibility, it may
be important to know where roles are perceived similarly
and differently by the school and the university.

An agreement among participants as to the role the
school and the university ought to play in setting objec-
tives, in the implementation process, and in the evaluation
process should provide vital data to teacher education

planning and development teams. If differences in percep-

tions exist, these differences could be a source of problems

 

among participants. Knowing where these differences lie
may be important because they could be a major source of
problems which might be minimized or resolved if they

could be identified and dealt with before they become prob-

lems.

Pu ose
The purpose of this study is to determine if the
public school, college of education, and the college of
arts and science personnel agree on the relative degree
of participation the school and the university ought to
have in the planning and in the implementation of basic

curricular components of a teacher education program.

Specific Objectives of the Study

 

The specific objectives of this study are to seek
answers to the following questions:

1. Is there agreement among the three groups
(school, college and university) in regards to the relative
degree of participation each group views the school and
the university to have in a teacher education program com-
prised of the curricular components termed, academic dis-
ciplines, human learning, content of the elementary school,
strategies, and teaching process?

2. Is there agreement among the three groups in
regards to the relative degree of participation each group
views the school and the university to have in each of the

curricular components?

3. Is there agreement among the three groups in
regards to the relative degree of participation each group
views the school and the university to have in: (l) defin-
ing objectives; (2) the implementation process; and (3)
the evaluation process?

4. Is there agreement among the three groups in )1
regards to the relative degree of participation each group P]
views the school and the university to have in each of the

functions: (1) defining objectives; (2) the implementation

 

process; and (4) the evaluation process in each of the five g

curricular areas?

Theory

"No one point of View regarding teacher education
has been demonstrated to be the most effective" (48; p. 89).
Bruce Joyce stated:

Further complicating the job of describing the
effective teacher is the fact that we have not
reached agreement about the kinds of education
procedures that should be employed in any given
situation. We are not in a state of total
ignorance about teacher education or about
teaching, but neither do we have final solutions.
However, there are bases on which we can begin
to build hypothetical performance models of
teachers (24; p. 113).

The Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program
(BSTEP), a teacher education model developed by Michigan
State University, and other models financed by the U. S.
Office of Education, based their programs on the assumption

that a teacher needs to be competent in disciplines of

scholarly study; the subject matter specifically taught

in the elementary school; the understanding of human growth
and development; the development of teaching strategies,
and the application of these general competencies in the
teaching process in the classroom (4; p. 27).

The Florida State University Model (4; p. 9) incor-
porates these competencies into two phases: the Preservice
and the Inservice. Preservice includes training in the
academic areas, the content areas of the elementary school,
and educational theory and strategy development. In the
Inservice phase of the model, the competencies developed
in the Preservice component are implemented and applied in
the classroom.

The Comfield Teacher Education Model (4; p. 51) is
strongly based on the assumption that the effective teacher
is proficient in the understanding of growth and behavior;
in the content areas and developing strategies for convey-
ing this content to the learner; and in the general know-
ledge of skills needed to bring about desired outcomes in
pupils.

The Syracuse Model (4; p. 91) has incorporated the
skills of these areas under the major headings: Liberal
Education, Elementary Methods and Curriculum, Child Growth
and Development, and Theory and Practice.

There appears to be a consistency in the content of
these models developed and the same common threads are
woven through them. Some of the strategies employed to

attain these competencies differ; some of the models have

added other components to the program, but there is a core
of the basic required areas in all of the models. The
curricular content common to all the models is the liberal
studies, the professional studies and the teaching practi—
cuum.

The basic curricula prOposed require the expertise , 51
of members from the academic departments, from the college §3_
of education, and from the public schools. There is an

apparent need for the total university and the public schools

 

15::

to develop the content these models have proposed if they are
to be implemented. A cooperative approach in planning and
developing the curricula would seem to be a more advantageous
route to take than for each group to plan in isolation.

For this study, the BSTEP Model of Teacher Education,
which was cooperatively planned by members of the total uni-
versity and from the public schools, will be used to obtain
the basic areas of teacher competencies. The areas of con-
cern are the following components of BSTEP: Scholarly Modes
of Knowledge, Human Learning, Professional Use of Knowledge,
and the Clinic Phase. These components reflect the compe-
tencies defined by other programs, and provide a base for
the various skills they sought for in an effective teacher
education program.

The components of BSTEP were used as a representative
base. "Scholarly Modes of Knowledge" represents the areas of
the academic disciplines. "Professional Use of Knowledge"

is the component that incorporates both the content of the

elementary school with the strategies needed to implement
the content. Since the content and the strategies are
interwoven, for the purpose of this study the component was
divided so that the content and the strategies could be
viewed as two separate areas of proficiency. "Human Learn-
ing" encompasses the areas of learning and the understand-
ing of growth and development. The phases of the "Clinic"
component used for this study is the assimilation of the
foregoing skills representative of the general areas of
competency applicable to the actual teaching process in

the classroom.

If the concept of partnership were to be employed
and if in this partnership there were basic agreement on
the components outlined by BSTEP and other models advocat-
ing these competencies, an initial step in the implementa-
tion of such a program might be to clarify the role of the

school and of the university.

Assumptions and Limitations

 

The major assumption on which this study is based
is that the partnership concept to teacher education exists
and that the total university and the public school ought
to be the groups which form this partnership. Also assumed
is that the curricular areas, academic disciplines, content
of the elementary school, human learning, strategies, and
the teaching process, are to be the basic components of a

teacher education program.

 

‘EEC

The limitation of this study is that the university
and the public schools are not totally responsible for
teacher education programs. This study does not take into
account other institutional agencies which may be part of
the partnership such as the professional organizations,
school administration, and the community. Nor does this
study take into account the legal powers vested in the

State Education Department.

Population Sample

 

The study sample consists of individual members
representing the Lansing Elementary School Faculty, the
College of Education Faculty chosen from the curricular
areas presently required in the preservice education of
teachers, and the departments of arts and sciences at
Michigan State University, from the College of Arts and
Letters, College of Communication Arts, Collect of Human
Ecology, College of Natural Science, College of Social
Science, and the University College, which teach the aca-
demic disciplines required of all elementary education
candidates. For the purpose of this study these groups are

referred to as the school, the college, and the university.

Definition of Terms Used

 

To avoid confusion or ambiguity, the following

definitions of the terms used in this study are:

10

Academic Disciplines--Refers to the areas or courses

 

from the colleges of arts and sciences that are required of
all elementary undergraduate education students.

Human Learning--Refers to knowledge and skills

 

needed to understand the learner and the learning process.

Content of the Elementary School--Refers to the

 

curricular areas taught in the elementary school (reading,
mathematics, etc.).

Strategies--Refers to the technique and skills

 

needed to teach; methods.

Teaching Process--Refers to the act of teaching,

 

where the teacher is actively involved with the learner.

Functions--Refers to these three tasks: F (l)

 

defining the objectives, F (2) implementing the objectives,
and F (3) evaluating the prospective teacher in the attain-
ment of the objectives.

School—-Refers to the members of the group represent-
ing the elementary school faculty; also refers to the insti—
tution.

College--Refers to the group composed of faculty
members responsible for the preservice education from the
College of Education.

University-—Refers to the group which is comprised

 

of faculty members who teach the academic subjects to under-
graduate elementary education candidates; also refers to

the institution as a whole.

ll

Measures--Refers to the five areas of competency
where Ml refers to Academic Disciplines, M2 refers to Human
Learning, M3 refers to Content of the Elementary School,

M4 refers to Strategies, and M5 refers to the Teaching
Process.

Areas of Competency--Refers to the curricular

 

domains--Academic Disciplines, Human Learning, Content of
Elementary School, Strategies, and Teaching Process.

Competency--Refers to a specific skill or the

 

acquisition of knowledge in a particular content area.

School...University Scale--Refers to the scale used

 

in the questionnaire used in this study.

Implications

 

Results of this study and others in this area may
have far-reaching implications for the structure and organi-
zation of both the school and the university in teacher
education programs. Since this study is exploratory in
nature, the results could serve as a guideline for planning
and developing future teacher education programs. In addi-
tion, the instrument developed for this study may be adapted,
refined or expanded and could serve as a guide for research
in the partnership concept or approach to teaching education

models or programs.

Overview of the Study

 

In Chapter II a historical perspective of the c00p-

erative notion of teacher education is presented. A review

12

of the various existing cooperative ventures in teacher

education is given in terms of membership, rationale and

purpose of involvement. The organizational trends which

seem to be develOping in partnership developments are given.

An overview of the BSTEP model is presented. This model

not

only is an example of a c00perative endeavor but pro—

vided the base from which the questionnaire was constructed.

Barriers which have deterred the partnership approach are

discussed, and steps which may instigate change toward the

direction of a c00perative approach to teacher education

are

explored.

The overall design of the study is described in

Chapter III. Other parts included are: the description of

the
the
the
the

the

and

sample selected, the selection process of the sample,
construction of the questionnaire, the manner in which
data were collected, the statement of the hypotheses,
statistical procedure employed and the preparation of
data for analysis.

In Chapter IV the data are analyzed. The summary

the conclusion of the study are presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

 

"The preparation of teachers has long been a task
involving both the theorist and the practitioner" (22;
p. 276). Until the third decade of this century, the prac-
tical aspects of educating teachers was the task reserved
for the laboratory or practice schools which were controlled
by the local normal schools or teachers' colleges. These
practice and demonstration schools were usually located on
campus or within short distances from the colleges. The
administrative and teaching staff of these schools were
usually employees of the college even though some of these
demonstration schools were part of a local school system.
In some large cities, the teachers' college was an adjunct
to the public school system and under the control of the
board of education. Schools selected for practice centers
were set aside and put under the domain of the college
administration and the teachers were members of the college
faculty (23; p. l).

The laboratory schools seem to vary in nature--
some were noted for their experimentation while others

typified the public schools of the day. These laboratory

13

14

schools were almost without exception under the control of
the college; in fact, in some cases the college was the
school.

The crisis for teacher shortages became overwhelming.
Colleges everywhere which were preparing teachers were faced
with swollen enrollments and a desperate need for increased
facilities for students to practice in the field. Most
colleges were faced with the problem of finding new avenues
and situations in which students could student-teach because
the traditional campus schools were saturated with students
of teaching. New laboratory schools were not economically
feasible nor even if they were, they could not expand rapidly
enough to meet the onslaught of new candidates (23; p. 2).

Simultaneously, but from a theoretical point of view,
teacher educators were advocating that an off-campus exper-
ience should replace the laboratory school program. The
prospective teacher would be given an Opportunity to practice
in a more realistic setting (10; p. 20).

The resulting solution to provide classroom experi-
ence for the abundance of students was to use the public
schools near the college as a practice ground for prospective
teachers. Administrators and teachers of the public schools
viewed this step positively and became aware of the respon—
sibility to induct new members into the profession under
realistic circumstances.

The tasks of teacher education began to be viewed as

more of a joint responsibility as schools showed a
willingness to be the "laboratory" in the off-campus

15

student-teaching programs. The old "laboratory school"
seemed doomed to extinction or destined for a new role
as a truly experimental laboratory (23; p. 2).

The solution to utilize off-campus facilities led to
a new array of problems with regard to role definition and
the placement of responsibilities. "A 'wedding of conven-
ience' occurred before adequate means for cooperation devel-
oped. The practice of 'farming-out' student teachers became
prevalent" (23; p. 2). How schools and colleges could
cooperate was never adequately answered. VThe only mode in
some instances or the most frequent mode of cooperation
exercised was the tie of the college supervisor and his
infrequent visits to public schools. The college dominated
the planning and the public schools became mere implementa—
tion centers.

Many teacher education institutions continue to use
both settings, the university and the public school in the
traditional sense for the preservice education; the latter
usually quite secondary as judged by training allocations.
In the university, the teacher trainee undertakes studies
in the academic specializations, in literal or general edu—
cation, the scholarly disciplines related to education such
as philos0phy and history of education, and in curriculum
and instruction or methods courses which are directly rele-
vant to classroom instruction (20; p. 18). The importance
of providing a field or laboratory experience for prospec-
tive teachers has been recognized by both the profession and

the university since colleges first began to move students

16

out of the laboratory school situation; therefore, its value
is not questioned and this task is reserved and delegated
to the public schools (16; p. 282).

The requirements, both at the university and in the
field or student-teaching experience, however, have and are
still designed by the university and little effort, if any,
has been made to involve public schools in the planning
stage. The role of the public school has remained historic—
ally stable; it has been primarily to implement the wishes
of the teachers' college. There has never seemed to be a
question or objection raised in regard to the university's
domination in the development of teacher education programs;
". . . historically the public school has not accepted as
part of its role a function and responsibility in teacher
preparation" (18; p. 4). Providing experience for students
of teaching seemed to be an unquestionalbe task to be ful-
filled and as it is today, it is mostly considered a favor
extended to the c00perating college and training program.

School-University Role in Teacher
Education Development Proposed

 

 

Efforts by the Association for Student Teaching, the
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, and
the National Education Association were attempting to encour-
age colleges and public schools to view teacher education as
being cooperative in nature. These organizations wanted

more than to have the focus of the partnership endeavors be

17

mainly the orientation of the school to the wishes and
demands of the college (23; p. 3).
Projects financed by the Ford Foundation and pro-

jects such as New Horizons: The Becoming Journey published

 

by the National Education Association Commission for Teacher
Education in 1962, focused on public school input into the
planning for the development of teacher education programs.

James B. Conant in The Education of American Teachers voiced

 

the concerns of the future of teacher education and advocated
that schools and colleges should attempt to resolve problems
by c00peratively looking at past and present practices in
lieu of preparing future guidelines for educating prospective
teachers. "However the concept of partnership had never
quite evolved to bring about the maximum potential of each"
(22; p. 275).

Recently, trends have been fostered by the profes-
sional teachers' organizations and by governmental agencies
which are advocating a cooperative approach to the develop-
ment of teacher education programs. There is a strong
urgency expressed that public school teachers should have an
input in the planning of teacher education curriculum and
that they do have an investment in furthering the direction
of their own profession. This clamor expresses the need for
assessing the future of teacher education and including the
members of the teaching profession in this assessment. The

implications expressed are for a closer relationship with

18

the university in the planning and implementation of teacher
education programs (30; p. 13).

Some of the critics of teacher education have
expressed that the integration of the preparatory work with
the classroom practicum would be the first task in address-
ing the problems presently faced in teacher education.
Synthesizing the practical with the theoretical proficiencies
presently incorporated into a teacher education program would
give the school and university the opportunity to View the
program in totality. The task, then, through c00perative
decisions, would be delegated to the appropriate institution
to implement.

Other critics view partnerships as a cooperative ven-
ture in the planning and designing of new programs and not
as salvagers of present and past programs. The responsibili—
ties and role definitions would be incorporated in the design
of the mutually planned program.

Both views, although different in approach, strongly
express the opinion that members of the teaching profession
must have a share in the development of teacher education
curricula and programs (18; p. 4). The advocates of partner-
ships have strongly voiced that the preservice education of
teachers must actually move from college domination to a
joint responsibility or partnership endeavor (11; p. 360).

Some critics have even suggested that schools should
take over the full responsibility for direct experiences in

teacher education (16; p. 282). This opinion is the voice of

 

19

r

the minority. To contend that teacher education programs be
more closely integrated with school activities is a goal
advocated by many university personnel.

Partnerships advocated by concerned individuals and
groups do not argue for greater control of education by the
profession. It must be emphasized that locus of training and
the control of training are two very different considerations;
one does not imply the other (20; p. 19). There appears
to be general agreement among educators that a prospective
teacher needs knowledge, needs theory and needs to be given
an opportunity to implement these proficiencies adequately.

A teacher education program can be more affective if a
portion of the educational sequence is devoted to the
classroom setting. Input from both viewpoints, that of

the school and the university, seems to be a most advanta-

 

geous route to take (7; p. 16).

Total University Approach

Before universities and schools can cooperatively
plan teacher education programs, it is the opinion of Bruce
Joyce that ". . . steps must be taken to reconcile the
estrangement so that frequently exists between the facul-
ties of education and the rest of the university" (25; p.
262). Historically, the college of education and the
academic colleges differed in emphasis. The college of
education's main objective was to train people how to teach
rather than what to teach, while in the academic departments

the other half of the isolation was found--learning what to

20

teach with almost a contempt for methods of teaching. "In
this division between what to teach and how to each, each
side suffers from the separation" (12; p. 78). Similar
attitudes and viewpoints are still prevalent.

There is the opinion that the failure to achieve a
full and viable interdisciplinary partnership--the all

university approach to teacher education-—has been a limit-

lm in
n 5‘]
p

ing factor because the expertise of all departments has not

been included.

 

Until all who help to prepare teachers from the w
colleges and universities are accorded responsi-
bilities and accept accountability for policies
and programs, the continuation of past unproduc-
tive conflicts (in teacher education) can be
predicted (19; p. 270).
Cooperation among academic and professional educa-
tors could produce benefits for teacher education as a
whole and for both groups, as well as their colleges and
universities. There appears to be a need to recognize
the competencies of individuals and varying groups in order
to seek the improvement of the total preparation of teachers
rather than each group merely strengthening the institu-
tional position of their own department or college. Greater
appreciation may be needed by each group for what the other
has to contribute (49; p. 188).
There are differences of strengths within the
university. These areas of expertise may well be incor-

porated into the planning and in the developing of teacher

education programs. But also the public schools may offer

21

an expertise which may be valuable and needed for the pre-
paration of teachers. Martin Habermann expresses the
point of View that

teacher education is the responsibility of the

entire university and cooperating school systems;

control of theprogram should be shared by the

School of Education, the school systems, and the
Colleges of Arts and Sciences (19; p. 272).

Margaret Lindsey not only views the university and the
schools as having control but that ". . . both the school
and the university must share responsibility in planning and
conducting programs in the professional preparation of
teachers" (37; p. 288).

The "total university" approach and the partnership
concept of the university with the public school system to
developing and implementing teacher education programs is
the view expressed by many prominent educators. Also, the
organized teachers are serving notice on the colleges and
universities that they (teachers) are planning to take a
major role in teacher training. They view that they, too,
have a responsibility in training future teachers.

The time has passed when schools and teachers serve as
passive receptacles for student teachers. Through
negotiated contracts with school boards, teachers are
saying, "We have a legitimate partnership in profes-
sional training and we insist on taking part in deci—

sions affecting new teachers, the schools and our
profession" (29; p. 116).

A view most frequently expressed seems to be that
teacher education ought to be the responsibility of the
total profession and not just the universities and colleges.

The cooperation of the schools and the universities may

 

22

produce benefits for the profession and for the planning

of future teacher education prOgrams.

Existing College-School COOperative Ventures

 

Efforts have been made by colleges and universities
to a degree to involve the schools in teacher education.

In an attempt to find out the cooperative ventures in teacher
education between schools and colleges where partnerships

in joint decision making, joint planning and joint action

are being explored, the American Association of Colleges of
Teacher Education (AACTE) Subcommittee on School-College
Relationships in Teacher Education prepared a questionnaire
with the designed purpose to search for and identify pro—
jects which had the dimensions of equal partnership and
actual cooperative school—college direction. In explaining
the purpose of this instrument to the potential respondents,
AACTE members, the authors noted that most institutions had
some standard type of arrangement with public schools but they
were not interested in these common practices.

AACTE's national office distributed 634 question-
naires; 354 were returned and 153 of the respondents indi-
cated that their institutions were involved in cooperative
school-college activities and relationships. Many of the
positive responses reported were the familiar structures of
relationships which did not demonstrate or indicate the
dimension of partnership in joint decision making which the

survey was seeking to identify.

 

23

The affirmative replies revealed that the present
relationships between the schools and the colleges are
numerous and varied, and that some of the relationships
have a direct effect on teacher education while others had
only a peripheral effect. The practices reported in the
study were those which had only a direct effect. It was _:
stated that some of the practices were not new or unique,
but they had the partnership dimension.

For the purpose of description and comparison, the

 

results of the study were reported and placed in twelve

Van? F L. Wm . _- ..
I L; h =_ I

categories. These categories were chosen because they did

meet the stipulation of the survey and they encompassed

the variations that institutions had. The general categor-
ies reported with a brief general description by the AACTE

are:

l. State-Wide COOperative Plans

 

The impetus of these designs was generated by
national groups such as the NEA, the Association for Student
Teaching, or the Ford Foundation to involve the total pro—
fession in the enterprise of teacher education. The state
cooperating group set policies,and different kinds of admin-
istrative structures for decentralizing activities were then
instigated. All of the organizational plans reported include
both college and school personnel in the administrative and
planning groups. State funds were recommended for the sup-
port of improved professional laboratory situations in the

public schools. Provisions for c00perative development of

24

the experimental programs were that colleges and schools
jointly plan these before funding would be given.

These state—wide ventures are viewed to be signi-
ficant by the AACTE because they provide experience which
may be useful as educators consider the position of the
state in teacher education programs. Moves toward involv- Ft
ing the state in student teaching have been hastened by
the Conant report, and problems of power and authority for

responsibility of roles are already being faced (31; p. 47). |

 

Vs. ..
that-

2. School-College Councils and Committees for Cooperation in
Teacher Education and/or Research and Development

 

These organizations generally include key personnel
from colleges and c00perating schools who plan, execute and
evaluate joint projects. Policies and general strategies
for teacher education and school improvement are the tasks
that these councils have outlined for themselves.

3. Regional Inter-College and School Centers

As student teaching programs have expanded in metro—
politan areas and in some regional districts where several
colleges and universities prepare teachers, the schools
asked colleges to get together on placement, student teaching
schedules, evaluation and other matters related to teacher
education.

Out of this predicament there have emerged some
interesting plans for metrOpolitan or regional student teach-
ing, research and development centers involving the partici—

pation of several colleges with one or more school systems.

25

The unique characteristic of this combination is the
inter-college dimension.

These centers are jointly financed. Centers usually
include forty student teachers from various colleges. These
students are supervised by a team of college and school per-
sonnel under the direction of a center coordinator, who is
jointly selected by member colleges and the school system. l

4. Cooperative Centers for Teacher Education I

 

These centers are truly cooperative structures for

 

planning and administering a program of instruction in pi
teacher education. Joint responsibility is taken for the

practice phase of teacher education where joint decision

making sets the policy, program and procedures of a uni-

versity teaching center.

5. Affiliated or Associated Schools

 

The institution called an affiliated of associated
school seems to be the result of a genuine attempt on the
part of a college or university to join in partnership with
a school or a group of schools in a nearby public system for
the purposes of teacher education and of research and develOp-
ment. In setting up such a school, an effort is made to
create joint appointments of faculty and administration and
to establish machinery for making c00perative agreements
about curriculum and instruction. It is envisioned as a
demonstration center, a laboratory for action research and

experimental teaching, and as a beacon of professional

26

enlightenment within the territory of a regular school
system.
6. Field Centers for Preparing Teachers to Work With Cul-

turally Deprived or With Children With Special Handicaps
or Talents

 

 

 

Because these emerging special education programs
have to be closely related to particular school settings,
some unique cooperation between schools and colleges has
been made. The college, in turn, provides special services
in relation to sociological, psychological and linguistical
studies. These programs point out ways for introducing
foundational studies into on-going teacher education pro-
grams in field centers. There is continuing education for
beginning and experienced teachers in these settings.

7. Joint Appointments and Rotation of Teachers Between the
School and College

 

 

Colleges have, from time to time, invited promising
classroom teachers from local schools to be college super-
visors and occasionally to be instructors of college methods
courses. But seldom have college teachers been exchanged
with classroom teachers to give the college teacher an
opportunity to see teaching from the classroom view again
or to involve the classroom teacher again in theoretical
speculation which is part of teaching college classes.
This exchange is a promising link for colleges and schools
to improve teacher education cooperatively.
8. Cooperative Supervision of Teaching

Educators have been exploring the possibilities of

team supervision for improving the analytical process in

 

27

evaluating teacher performance. Teams are comprised of
professionals with different kinds of expertness depending
on the needs of the situation. In general, a team would
probably include representatives from educational psychology,
the subject matter area and the school situation, and would
be chaired by a supervisor who is responsible for the stu—
dent teacher's or experienced teacher's progress toward
improved skill in the art of teaching. Various methodologies
for collecting classroom data during the teaching-learning
episode are used. This information then becomes the content
of the team’s discussions with the student teachers or
teachers.

9. Joint Selection and Preparation of Supervising Teachers

 

This is a practice which is just beginning to appear
as a truly c00perative procedure. In the past, schools have
recommended teachers for the position of supervising teacher,
and colleges have made selections from those persons recom-
mended. Sometimes schools have had to recommend unqualified
personnel because of politics or prestige factors, and fre-
quently colleges have had to select these people because of
the ruptures in relation with the school which might occur
if the recommendations were not honored. This situation may
not so likely occur where more professional appointments are
made, based on criteria jointly derived and when those
selected are trained on the job.

10. Cooperative Observation Programs

 

With the relative decline of the campus laboratory

school in teacher education programs, the need for planned

28

observations became more important. Many colleges have set
up observation schedules with the schools including closed
circuit television presentations.

ll. Jointly Developed Student Teaching Guides and Consti—
tutions

Nearly every college has some kind of handbook or
directions for student teachers and supervising teachers,
but usually these guides are developed by college personnel
or students in classes on the supervision of student teach-
ing. In some cases, however, these guides have been jointly
written and planned by a team of school and college personnel
(37; pp. 7-59).

In a follow up and summary report by the AACTE, they
noted that the evolving cooperative relationships in teacher
education suggest four basic formalized types of adminis-
trative structures:

I. Teaching Center

 

Membership: Representatives from each school which

 

cooperates with a college in teacher education and
representatives from the college.

Purpose: Develops and implements fundamental field
relationships between cooperating schools and a col-
lege engaged in teacher education. Provides mechanisms
to influence public school curricula.

II. Local Teacher Education Council

 

Membership: Representatives from all school districts

 

involved in cooperative teacher education ventures

III.

IV.

29

with a college and representatives from the col-
lege.

Purpose: Establishes general policies for field
operations; makes financial arrangements; authorizes
contracts; makes recommendations for changes in the
college's teacher education curriculum.

Regional Multi-University Teacher Education Councils

Membership: Representatives from each college engaged

 

in cooperative teacher education in a specific geo-
graphical region. Representatives from key school
districts, state department TEPS, AST, etc.

Purpose: Establishes communications and develops
working procedures between and among colleges and
school districts engaged in cooperative teacher educa-
tion in a specific geographical region. Attempts to
coordinate activities and to avoid confusion and need-
less duplications.

State Legislation for Teacher Education

 

Provides enabling legislation and funds for adminis-
tration of a required teacher education program;
establishes standards and minimum requirements.
State departments or agencies take leadership in
encouraging cooperative organization throughout the
state and in initiating state-wide conferences for

teacher education (38; p. 5).

30

Future Directions: A Change is Advocated

 

In an age when all aspects of education have come
under unrelenting critical review, a common denominator in
both polemical and scholarly writing has been the inadequacies
in teacher preparation, particularly with the approaches to
teacher training, placement and cooperative involvements at
various levels and from various agencies and groups. The
critics view that teacher training and placement can be
improved, but it will involve a joint effort on the part of
the teacher training institutions, public school systems
and other institutional agencies (25; p. 244).

If partnership arrangements among colleges and uni-
versities, state and local school systems, and the communi—
ties to be served by the personnel being trained are to be
employed, changes are evident. The result may be to move
away from the short-term, exclusively college-based projects
to an emphasis on long—term projects which will require
cooperative efforts by both the producers and the consumers
of educational personnel.

The survey conducted by AACTE noted that various
cooperative means to teacher education have been implemented
and certain trends are in the making. To improve teacher
education it is imperative that those

. . . who by profession participate in educating
children, youth and adults come closer together in
association so that mutual understanding and respect
can be fostered and commitment to common purpose can

be made an explicit guide for group and individual
action (31; p. 7).

31

For groups to unite for a common purpose does not mean a
loss of identity, nor should it be. There are those who
view that diversity among groups must be maintained and
the freedom for group and individual operation must be
continued to be of value and guarded. Cooperation does not
mean their loss. It may be viewed that in teacher educa-
tion ". . . any group working in isolation will eventually
find its arena of freedom reduced in size and its oppor-
tunities to contribute to the total task of education
diminished" (31; p. 8). College faculties concerned with
the preparation of classroom teachers might increase their
scope of freedom and their impact on education when they
work constructively with other groups in the profession.

Each group brings with it its viewpoints and dif-
ferentiation in expertise. It is this differentiation in
function and consequent variable in specialization that
might be needed in teacher education. The unity of the
groups may be needed in order to benefit fully from each
group's contributions. Commitment of the various groups
should be gotten to create change. Present relationships
may be realigned or new relationships may evolve as a
result of change. New ordering of the relationships pre-
sently existing among the professions might make the tasks
ahead easier to accomplish.

The greater the extent, for example, that a-given
task can be performed effectively when groups or individuals

cooperate closely with each other, the more it may be

32

expected that in the course of working on the task members
will
. . . (1) become cognitively aware that cooperation
is instrumental to task success, (2) behave in a
cooperative fashion, (3) develop a cathetic interest
in c00perating with each other, and (4) establish
norms defining cooperation as a legitimate form of
behavior (2; p. 13).
There are those who advocate that initial steps,
therefore, should be taken by the university to initiate
the partnership concept in teacher education. If this step
is to be taken, universities may realize that a change in
relationship with the partners might need to be developed.
The intent to change, however, may not be sufficient; it
should be translated into action. "If we cannot act then
we must stop the pretense or seek means by which reform
can occur so that professionalism can exist" (11; p. 540).
It should be realized that a profession is more than
a mass of competent individuals, for a profession as a whole
has responsibility for the quality of its unique, definite
and essential service for the development and enforcement
in the continuous performance of its members (31; p. 8).
Professionals pursue their expected roles and beliefs but
if avenues are opened, they may know the roles and beliefs
of the other professions. Present institutionalized behavior
does not usually cause change. Individually and collectively,
if members interact with one another, change may be initiated.
If change in teacher education is to take place,

however, there are certain questions which can be used to

focus on the earliest stage of change:

,r "Mu."

33

1. Who should participate in the process of develop-

ing teacher education curricula?

2. What form of change is most likely to beget

optimum results?

3. How can training needs be identified?

4. How can training needs be assigned priorities?

(9; p- 74)
Once the participants are chosen much consideration ought to
be given to the form of change that is to be employed. The
form employed will have differential effects on both the
process and outcome of the curricula effort. Questions that
must be answered that affect the outcome are: (1) Is the
change deliberate or nondeliberate? (2) Are goals set
mutually or unilaterally? and (3) How is power distributed
among the participants? (35; p. 78)

Goodwin Watson suggested that the best climate for
change is when groups or organizations themselves are ready
to participate and feel that it can be successfully estab-
lished. He gave the following guidelines that he felt are
pertinent of how change innovated by groups can best be
facilitated and have minimal resistance. He stated that
resistance to change is less if:

1. groupsor individuals feel that it is their own

project and not devised and run by others.

2. leaders of the groups wholeheartedly support

the project.

10.

34

participants see the change as reducing rather
than increasing the burdens.

the project accords with values and ideals which
long have been acknowledged by participants.

the program offers the kind of new experience
which interests participants.

participants feel that their autonomy and secur-
ity are not threatened.

participants have joined in diagnostic efforts
leading them to agree on the basic problem and
to feel its importance.

the project is adopted by consensual group deci-
sion and if prOponents are able to empathize with
Opponents, to recognize objections, and to take
steps to relieve unnecessary fears.

participants experience acceptance, support,
trust, and confidence in their relations with
one another.

project is kept Open to revision and reconsider-
ation if experience indicates that change would

be desirable (47; p. 23).

These generalizations might be applicable to

institutional change, to change teacher education programs.

 

35

Experimental Designs in Teacher Education
Instigate Change (Models Propose
School-University;Involvement),
The U. S. Office of Education, in 1967, issued a
request to higher educational institutions for proposals to
design model programs for training elementary teachers. The

request indicated that these prOposals be designed with the

close cooperation of other organizations (46; p. l).

 

By January, 1968, eighty proposals had been received
and in March, 1968, the Bureau of Research awarded nine of
them contracts to design conceptual models for programs to
train elementary school teachers. Not only were these pro-
posals develOped with the cooperation of professional agen-
cies, their implementation assumed that

. . . there will be considerable involvement of public

schools as the physical facility for a considerable

part of teacher education. Training colleges and

universities and the public schools will put forth a

cooperative and continuous effort (48; p. 20).
The Northwest Education Laboratory Model typified the trend
of these models which strongly emphasized programs for coop—
erative approaches to teacher education. In its implementa-
tion phases it stated that

. . . operationally it will require that mechanisms

will be established which permit colleges and schools

to work together as partners in program definition

and direction (24; p. 42).

The Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program
(BSTEP),developed by Michigan State University, now only
advocated academic department and public school involvement

in future implementation stages, but had at its conception

a cooperative approach to develop the model.

36

Members of the writing teams were drawn from aca-
demic departments throughout Michigan State Univer-
sity, other universities, several school districts
and a number of allied educational agencies (45;

p. 113).

More than 150 professional people contributed to the develOp-
ment of this model. Their competencies, reflecting various
fields, seemed to form a natural bridge to assure unity

in the total program develOped.

The designers of BSTEP developed the model with the
liberal arts component as a base, and then wove the profes-
sional training throughout the academic studies, culminating
and synthesizing the experiences in the clinical component.
These planners did start with some conception of the kinds
of competencies that they felt ought to be developed in
teacher candidates. These, however, they planned COOpera-
tively.

There is agreement that a teacher must be competent
as an educated person and ". . . competent in knowledge of
(1) subjects of instruction; (2) learners and learning; and
(3) instructional strategies" (43; p. 267). These competen-
cies as generalized end products cause little disagreement
with the profession nor within the university.

More research on teaching or the good teacher has
often been advocated. A rational route often pointed out
that might be taken for selecting professional teacher educa-
tion curricula is to determine what specific capabilities are

desired in teachers and then draw from the various

37

disciplines to provide experiences in what is likely to
contribute to gaining these competencies in their prepara-
tion program.

Another reason practitioners and theorizers might
want to identify the good teacher is so that they may be
able to determine which of their behaviors are attributable
to the preparatory work they had in their teacher training

program (20; p. 72). Also,

. . . part of the core of a new and more relevant teacher
preparation program might well be the analysis of the
role expectations and contributions that currently con—
front both beginning and experienced teachers in a
civilization undergoing extensive structural modifica-
tions; and second, the search for valid professional
roles based on emerging and hence justifiable educa—
tional functions (33; p. 217).

It would be unrealistic to prepare educational personnel
without integrating present-day requirements of the schools

in the teacher preparation program.

Clinical Professor

 

One avenue frequently fostered by educators, indi-
cated in the review of literature, that would meet the goals
of a partnership and provide the Opportunities of integrat-
ing the school requirements into the teacher preparation
program is the concept "Clinical Professor." Educators such
as Conant and teacher education models such as BSTEP have
advocated the role of clinical professor in teacher educa—
tion. This role, by its descriptive function alone, would
encompass and meet the needs of both the theoretical and
practical components lacking in programs to train prOSpec-

tive teachers.

38

Schools would provide their part. Personnel from the
schools could be utilized for this role because it is the
best potential source for clinical professors. John Goodlad
stated that ". . . schools of education must recruit from
the schools those persons who appear to offer promise for
becoming clinical professors of the faculty" (17; p. 349).
Goodlad went on to say that he advocates the "clinical pro-
fessor" because he perceives it to be the role, when per-
sonnel are adequately prepared, to be the one able to
transmit not only theory but the ability to transmit the

skill of teaching. Therefore, the clinical professor must

be trained in research and inquiry and possess unusual skills
in teaching. The academic faculty on campus would fulfill
its share because initially they would have the role of
training the clinical professor. The clinical professor,
with the schools and the faculties on campus, would then
jointly develOp future education programs.
To recapitulate, the clinical approach to teacher
education is a means of
. . . (a) more adequately bridging the gap between
theory and practice in teacher development; (b) respond-
ing to the present relatively low degree of profession-
alization of teaching as a practical art; and (c) estab-
lishing more satisfactory links between the school and
the university; thus facilitating the develOpment of
professional knowledge and processes of orderly change
in curriculum and instruction in our schools (30; p. 21).
The "clinical professor" is but one link. It may

resolve some criticism presently prevailing in teacher edu-

cation programs such as the dissatisfaction with the courses

39

dealing with practice of teaching and the inadequate artic-
ulation of this work with classroom practicums.

It is also suggested that integration of preparatory
work in curriculum and instruction with the classroom
practicum, in fact making the school an equal partner
in these aspects of teacher education would create con-
ditions which the shortcomings pointed out by critics
could be properly addressed (30; p. 19).

An Experiment of a Partnership in Action

 

Teacher Corps, Career Opportunities and Triple T are
evidences of programs where partnership arrangements exist.
Much of the emphasis and locale of training is placed in the
public school setting. The clinical component of these
programs has grown out of the academic disciplines studied
and the content to be taught. The college faculty contrib-
uted greatly to the total program, but they realized that
the public schools were better equipped to design, assess
and evaluate the clinical component (29; p. 127). Schools
and teachers are well qualified to take major responsibili-
ties for this component and much of the control and govern-
ance must reside there.

The genesis for many of these programs has been the
financial incentive offered by governmental agencies to
implement cooperative ventures. There are numerous examples
throughout the nation where teacher education programs have
been developed utilizing the school as partners in the

planning and implementation stages, as well as using the

"total univerSitY’approach." Their incentive was commitment

 

40

to the concept. The New School of the University of North
Dakota is an example of such an innovation.
In North Dakota, as a result of a Statewide Study of
Education, and because teacher education programs had seldom
a significant impact on public education in the regions they
serve, the New School was developed. The New School not
only bridges the isolation that traditionally exists between
the university and local communities, but also there is no
compartmentalized structure such as departments or divisions.
The New School is organized instead as a single unit in which
faculty members from a variety of fields jointly shape the
total academic and professional program. This attempt to
unite teacher education with liberal education has evoked
extraordinary response from the arts and sciences.
The curriculum reflects and conveys the concern for
seeing teacher education whole. In the conventional
teacher education program, the curriculum institution—
alizes the dichotomy between the liberal and profes—
sional education by distinguishing sharply between
subject matter, which students study in the college of
arts and sciences, and methods, which they study in the
school of education (36; p. 478).

The New School has attempted to erase this distinction by

integrating content and methodology in most of the courses

it offers.

The network of schools involved in this program has
contributed in the developmental stage to the program and as
a result of this symbiotic exchange, each institution has

benefited; one has better trained teachers and the other has

a better teacher education program. Working relations are

41

excellent. Faculties of both institutions are constantly
working together on campus and in the school setting. The
clinical professor concept has also been implemented here,
and it is but one link between the institutions. Faculty
from the academic areas also work in the school setting with
children, interns, and undergraduate student teachers (36;
p. 478).

The New School of the University of North Dakota is
but one example of how public schools and universities can
and do cooperate effectively and efficiently. Other uni—
versities and colleges have cooperative arrangements to

various degrees and more are getting involved with such

arrangements; experimental programs are at various stages

of design as well as implementation.

Summary

Schools have cooperated with universities and col-
leges in the training of teachers since campus schools were
saturated or colleges ceased to use them. The schools had
minimum or no input in planning the training program but
were asked to provide the locus for the practicum phase of
the training program.

National organizations such as the Association of
Student Teaching, the AACTE, the NBA, and local professional
teachers' organizations have advocated that the school
should be actively involved in educating prospective teachers.

Critics of present programs, representing the academic

departments, the college of education and the local schools,
have strongly voiced that teacher education should be planned
cooperatively by both the university and the public schools.

Models of teacher education, those developed by uni-
versities as well as those planned cooperatively by the
public school faculty and the university faculty, have advo-
cated that in the future the partnership concept to planning
and implementation of teacher education programs be insti-
gated and further developed. Exemplifying the concept of
cooperation are the teacher education models developed by
various institutions for the U. S. Office of Education.

One of the stipulations for the funding of these models
was that the proposals were to be designed with the close
COOperation of other educational institutions.

Some of these models not only advocated that schools
and colleges develOp future teacher education programs
jointly, but that the "total" university be involved in the
planning.

The "clinical professor" is one route frequently
perpetuated by teacher education models and by leaders in
education. This approach is viewed as a link between the
schools and the universities. It is one of the many routes
available for bridging the gap between theory and practice.

The University of North Dakota is but one example
where the "clinical professor" concept has been employed
as one of the many links it has with its participating

school systems. Other universities have implemented means

43

with schools by which facets or total teacher education
programs were dually planned.

In an effort to find out what measures schools and
universities have employed to COOperatively plan teacher
education programs, the AACTE surveyed nationally its mem-
ber institutions. The results showed that numerous coopera-
tive ventures are in existence. There were statewide plans
which involved extensive COOperative development in which
colleges and schools jointly planned and implemented pro-
grams. There were numerous types of COOperative arrange-
ments at a lesser degree of involvement. An example of
these might be the joint (school and university) selection
of supervising teachers.

The trends disclosed by this study depicted various
partnership endeavors. Multi-state cooperative plans as
well as local partnerships between schools and colleges
seem to be evolving.

There appears to be evidence that the climate for
change may be here. The schools, colleges of education and
universities could unite and work together constructively in
planning and developing future teacher education programs.
Old roles and attitudes might be discarded and new ones
defined within the framework of the partnership. There is
the opinion that the university ought to initiate the part-
nership and be the catalyst to develop partnership arrange-

ments.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Introduction

 

The primary purpose of this chapter is to describe
the overall design of the study. Other parts included
are: the description of the sample selected and the selec-
tion process, the construction of the questionnaire, the
manner in which the data were collected, the statements of
the hypotheses, the statistical procedure used and the
preparation of the data for analysis.

The purpose of this study is to determine if the
public school, college of education, and the college of
arts and science personnel agree on the relative degree of
participation with the school and the university ought to
have in the planning and in the implementation of basic
curricular components of a teacher education program.

This study was designed so that by the means of a question—
naire, opinions of individuals representing the three
groups--the school, the college, and the university--could
be elicited in terms of the degree of participation they
perceive the school and the university to have in these

functions:

44

45

l. defining objectives

2. implementing objectives

3. evaluating prospective teachers in the attainment

of these objectives.

The individuals responding to the questionnaire were
asked to determine the degree of responsibility they felt
the school and the university ought to have in the execution
of these functions in these five general areas of competency:
(1) academic disciplines, (2) human learning, (3) content
areas of the elementary school curriculum, (4) strategies,
and (5) teaching process.

Members representing the public elementary public
school faculty, the College of Education and the academic
departments were chosen as population groups. These three
groups are presently responsible for the teacher education
candidate's professional and basic university education
training. As the review of literature indicated, these are
the "core" groups that ought to be the nucleus if the

"partnership" concept to teacher education is to be imple—

mented.

Sample Description and Selection Process

 

For this study, the elementary public school, the
College of Education, and the academic departments from the
university drawn from the College of Communication Arts,
College of Human Ecology, College of Natural Science,
College of Social Science, College of Arts and Letters, and

the University College, comprised the population groups

46

from which the samples were drawn. Fifty members from each
group were randomly selected. Members from the total
Lansing Elementary School Faculty, the College of Education
and the departments of the arts and sciences of Michigan
State University were the three representative population
groups. Specific criteria were used for group membership
and the selection process for each group.

Fifty faculty members were randomly chosen from the
total elementary faculty roster of the Lansing Public School
System. Each member chosen was a fully certified full-time
teacher employed by the school system.

Fifty members from each of the other two groups, the
College of Education and the academic departments, were
chosen from Michigan State University. The criteria used
for the selection process common to both of these sample
groups were that the individual members were of the rank of
assistant professor or higher, and that the members were
presently reSponsible for undergraduate teaching of the
prospective elementary teachers.

Specifically, the sample of the groups representing
the College of Education was drawn from the members of the
faculty who included the methods instructors, the student-
teaching supervisors, the elementary intern directors, and
instructors from the School of Teacher Education.

The sample group representing the academic disci-
plines was drawn from the faculty who teach courses in the

content fields elementary education majors are required to

 

47

take at Michigan State University. The individuals repre-
senting this group were selected from instructors teaching
the following courses: American Thought and Language,
Natural Science, Social Science, Humanities, Political
Science, Geography, Mathematics, English, Biological Science,

Psychology, Family and Child Science, Music and Art.

Questionnaire Construction

 

To seek the opinions of each of the members of the
three groups, a questionnaire was specifically constructed
for the purpose of this study. The base and content of the
questionnaire were provided by the BSTEP (Behavioral Science
Teacher Education Program) model developed by Michigan State
University. The authors of BSTEP advocated that the prepara-
tory work in a teacher education program should include
studies in the academic disciplines, in the content areas of
the elementary school, in strategy development to teach
this content, in learning theory and knowledge of the learner,
and provisions for implementing practical experience where
the skills of teaching can be applied and learned.

BSTEP included five general curricular areas. The
academic disciplines were included in the “General Studies"
and in the “Scholarly Modes of Knowledge"; the curricular
content of the elementary school and the strategies were
interwoven in the "Professional Use of Knowledge"; the
knowledge about the learner and the learning process was

incorporated in "Human Learning"; and the skills needed and

48

the provisions for the actual teaching process was one

phase of the "Clinic" component.

Five basic competencies were chosen to reflect each

of these curricular areas. The competencies appeared to be

representative and seemed to communicate the intent of the

general areas from which they were selected.

The specific statements which reflect each curricular

area are:

1.

Academic Disciplines

 

To grasp relationships and to understand patterns
in mathematics.

To be able to develOp criteria for evaluating
broad types of literature.

To be able to examine science as a process, its
effects on culture, and to analyze these effects
as they influence present way of life.

To know the contributions of and the role of the
social sciences.

To know and understand the various styles and
media used in art.

Human Learning

 

a.

To know the psychological and social variables
that affect learning.

To understand physical, intellectual, emotional,
and social development of children.

To know the various theoretical approaches to
child study.

To understand the principles of motivating learn-
ing.

To know the principles of family impact on the
child and to understand the dimensions of parent-
child relationships.

49

Content Areas of the Elementary School

a.

To understand the role of the social sciences in
the development of values and attitudes of the
elementary school child.

 

b. To understand the interrelationships of the areas
in the language arts.

c. To understand the role of reading in the content
areas.

d. To be able to process the skills and knowledge
needed for the understanding of the elementary
mathematics curriculum.

e. To be able to identify relationships between
symbolic learning in language arts and in mathe-
matics.

Strategies

a. To know the various communication processes oper-
ating in a teaching situation (one to one; small
groups; large groups).

b. To be competent in the teaching of readiness
skills.

c. To be able to hypothesize alternative solutions
to problems and to be able to prescribe what needs
to be done with various variables.

d. To be able to teach the basic developmental read-
ing skills.

e. To be able to employ a variety of instructional

techniques which can be employed in the teaching
of mathematics.

Teaching Process

 

a.

To be able to formulate objectives, develop and
apply teaching strategies, and evaluate the
learning.

To create an atmosphere of physical and psycho-
logical comfort for the learner.

To be able to change and reorganize sequence in
terms of readiness levels and needs of pupils.

50

d. To be able to select and acquire feedback from
pupils for input in future planning.

e. To be able to utilize natural learning opportu-
nities as they occur spontaneously.

To recapitulate, the statements in the questionnaire
were competencies chosen to represent the general areas of
the teacher education curricula: the study of academic
disciplines, knowledge in the content areas of the elemen-
tary school, skills and strategies in implementing the con-

tent, knowledge of and about the learner and the learning

process, and skills needed in the process of teaching. These
areas were chosen because they do represent the basic com—
ponents that the authors of BSTEP and other teacher educa-
tion models felt were the ingredients of a teacher education
model. The statements in the questionnaire are specific
skills depicting these general categories.

In order that more distinct and precise opinions
could be sought in the task perceptions of the school and
university in regard to the five areas of competencies, the
questionnaire was constructed so that for each specific
competency or skill there were three distinct functions.

The respondents were asked to determine the degree they felt
the school and/or university ought to have in each of the
tasks in terms of: (l) defining objectives, (2) implementing
these objectives, and (3) evaluating the prospective teacher
in the attainment of these objectives. (See appendix--

the questionnaire.)

51

Data Collection
One hundred fifty questionnaires, fifty to each
group, were sent to individuals representing the three popu-
lation groups. A letter stating the purpose of the study

as well as a self—addressed stamped envelope were enclosed.

Analysis Model

 

The statistical model used to test the major hypoth-
eses was repeated measures of analysis of variance. The

:three-dimensional design depicts the general overview of

the model (Figure 1). This model provided the means for
each group in each function and measure, the initial cal-

culations needed for further analysis.

A requirement for using this model was that there
had to be equal numbers for each sample group used. Since
the lowest number of responses was from the sample group of
faculty members from the departments of arts and sciences,
this group set the base number. Thirty—five was the number
used for each group. Therefore, thirty—five were randomly
chosen from the respondents from each of the other two sam—
ple groups, the Lansing faculty and the College of Education
faculty.

Subhypotheses, which were formulated as a result of
the main hypotheses being rejected, were tested and analyzed

using the one—way analysis of variance and the Scheffé

procedures.

52

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6
$C®&O$€3 .
o0 (L/
MEASURES y
o3
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 /
m / .
m o //,//
04 /
D N
o /////
n a,
m V///J
r...
O 0
Legend:
Groups: Gl represents the school
G2 represents the college
G3 represents the university
Measures: Ml represents the academic disciplines
M2 represents human learning
M3 represents content of the elementary school
M4 represents strategies
M5 represents teaching process
Functions: Fl represents defining objectives
F represents implementing the objectives

"11
N

represents evaluating the prospective teacher
in the attainment of the objectives

Figure 1.--Repeated measures of analysis of variance model.

53

Hypotheses Tested

 

The hypotheses tested in this study were:

Hypothesis 1:

 

Hypothesis 2:

 

Hypothesis 3:

 

Hypothesis 4:

 

There will be no difference in the mean opin-
ions of the groups (school, college, univer-
sity) in the part they perceive the school and
the university to play when the functions
(define, implement, and evaluate) in these
areas of competency (academic, content of the
elementary school, strategies, human learning,
and teaching process) are viewed as a total
program.

There will be no difference in the mean opin—
ions of the groups (school, college, univer—
sity) in the part they perceive the school and
the university to play when each of the five
areas of competency (academic, content of the
elementary school, strategies, human learning,
and teaching process) are viewed separately.

There will be no difference in the mean opin—
ions of the groups (school, college, univer-
sity) in the part they perceive the school and
the university to play in the functions
(defining, implementing, evaluating) when
these functions are viewed separately.

There will be no difference in the mean opin—
ions of the groups (school, college, univer-
sity) in the part they perceive the school and
the university to play when each of these
functions (defining, implementing, evaluating)
is viewed individually in each of the five
areas of competency (academic, content of the
elementary school, strategies, human learning,
and teaching process).

Organization of Data

 

Results of the questionnaire were tabulated as they

were received.

The statements in the questionnaire were a

priori categorized into the five areas of competency. Each

of these areas was subdivided and categorized by the three

functions. This organizational pattern was used so that the

hypotheses could be easily tested by the statistical model

employed.

54

SummaEy

The purpose of this study was to determine if the
public school, college of education, and the college of
arts and science personnel agree on the relative degree of
participation the school and the university ought to have
in the planning and in the implementation of basic curri-
cular components of a teacher education program.

Three population groups were used. There were fifty

elementary public school teachers drawn from the Lansing

schools; fifty members of the faculty from the College of
Education of Michigan State University who are presently
involved in the preservice education of elementary teachers;
and fifty faculty members from Michigan State University who
are presently involved in the basic university courses and
the liberal studies required of all prospective elementary
teachers.

To solicit the opinions of the individuals represen-
tative of these groups, a questionnaire was constructed which
used the BSTEP model as its base. Five general areas of
competency were represented in the questionnaire: academic
disciplines, human learning, content of the elementary
school, strategies, and the teaching process.

For each of these areas, the respondents were asked
to determine the degree they felt the school and the univer—
sity could best serve in the facilitation of these functions:

1. defining objectives

2. implementing objectives

55

3. evaluating the prospective teacher in terms of

the attainment of these objectives.

The model used to analyze the results was repeated
measures of analysis of variance. As a result of the analy-
sis two of the major hypotheses were rejected. New hypothe-
ses were formulated to determine the reason for rejection.
Post hoc tests using one-way analysis of variance and the

Scheffé procedures were used to analyze the subhypotheses.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Introduction

 

The purpose of this chapter is to present the results
of the questionnaire and an analysis of the data obtained in
this study. Repeated measures of analysis of variance was
used as the statistical model. For the post hoc tests, one-
way analysis of variance and the Scheffé procedures were

used.

Results of the Questionnaire

 

Of the 150 questionnaires that were sent out, 80 per
cent of them were returned. Fifty questionnaires were sent
to each group. The number of responses from each group was:

College of Education 42

Lansing Public Schools 40

Departments of the
Arts and Sciences 38

Three of the members representing the departments of the arts
and sciences felt that they could not respond adequately to
the questionnaire as a whole because some educational "jargon"
was used which was difficult to comprehend. Therefore, the

number of completed questionnaires from these departments was

thirty—five.

56

57

A requirement for using the statistical model,
repeated measures of analysis of variance, is that equal
numbers must be used for each sample group. The groups that
had the least responses set that number. Thirty-five, which
was the number of responses from the groups representing the
academic disciplines, was therefore the base. Thirty—five
completed questionnaires were then randomly selected from

the other two groups for the data.

Analysis of the Data

 

The F—ratios were computed for the sources of varia-

tion in relation to the hypotheses tested (Table 1).

Table l.--Analysis of variance table-~sources of variation.

 

 

Sources of Degrees Means
Hypotheses Variation of Freedom Square F-ratio
Ho 1: G 2 35.129 1.775
Ho 2: GM 8 4.790 6.626
Ho 3: GF 4 18.373 3.159
Ho 4: GMF 16 .481 1.844

 

Where: G is Groups; GM is Groups*Measures; GF is Groups*
Functions; GMF is Groups*Measures*Functions.

In order to test the hypotheses, Liberal and Con-
servative F-ratios were determined at the .1 level of sig—

nificance (Table 2).

58

Table 2.--Liberal and Conservative F of Reference table.

 

 

 

Sources of Liberal Hypothesis Actual Conservative

Variation df F‘ Decision F df F'
G 2 2.35 a 1.775 2 2.35
GM 8 1.67 b 2.626 2 2.35
GF 4 1.97 b 3.159 2 2.35
GMF 16 1.48 c 1.844 2 2.35

Decision:

a if F is smaller than F' Liberal, do not reject.

p if F is bigger than F' Conservative, Ho rejected.

3 if neither, then results are indeterminant.

Interpretation of Means

 

The means in this study are determined from the

responses based on the School...University Scale used in the

questionnaire:

School University

5 4 3 2 1

Where:
5 = Sole role of the school; no university involvement.
4 = Major role of the school; minor university involvement.
3 = Equally shared role by the school and the university.
2 = Major role of the university; minor involvement of the

school.
Sole role of the university; no school involvement.

i—l
II

Restatement and Analyses of the Hypotheses

 

Hypothesis 1: There will be no difference in the mean opin-
ions of the groups (school, college, univer-
sity) in the part they perceive the school and
the university to play when the functions
(define, implement, evaluate) in these areas
of competency (academic, content of the elemen-
tary school, strategies, human learning, and
teaching process) are viewed as a total
program.

 

59

Results
The means as determined from the School...University

scale were:

 

G1 G2 G3
School College University
2.901 2.717 2.687

To find out if there was any difference among the
groups (at .1 level of significance), this portion of the

Liberal and Conservative F of Reference table was referred

to:
Sources of Liberal Actual Conservative
Variation F' F F'

 

G 2.35 1.775 2.35

 

Since F was smaller than F' Liberal, the hypothesis
was not rejected. There was no statistical difference at
the .1 level of confidence between the groups (averaging

across functions and measures).

Hypothesis 2: There will be no difference in the mean opin-
ions of the groups (school, college, univer-
sity) in the part they perceive the school and
the university to play when each of the five
areas of competency (academic, content of the
elementary school, strategies, human learning,
and teaching process) are viewed separately.

 

Results
The means as determined from the School...University

scale were:

60

 

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
G1 2.507 2.733 2.804 3.004 3.457 (School)
GZ 2.592 2.522 2.629 2.714 3.130 (College)
G3 2.522 2.571 2.556 2.611 3.175 (University)

 

where: M1 is academic discipline
M2 is human learning
M3 is content of elementary school
M4 is strategies
M5 is teaching process

To find out if there was a difference between the
groups, this portion of the Liberal and Conservative F of

Reference table was referred to:

 

Sources of Liberal Actual Conservative
Variation F' F F'
GM 1.67 2.626 2.35

 

Since F was larger than F' Conservative, the Ho 2: groups by
measures interaction was rejected at the .1 level of sig—

nificance.

Post Hoc Hypotheses for Ho 2

 

To determine where the differences between groups

lay in each of the areas of competency, these hypotheses were

formulated:

Ho 2.1: There is no difference of Opinion among the groups
in the part the school and the university ought to
play in the academic disciplines.

Ho 2.2: There is no difference of opinions among the groups

in the part the school and the university ought to
play in human learning.

61

Ho 2.3: There is no difference of opinion among the groups
in the part the school and the university ought to
play in the content of the elementary school.

Ho 2.4: There is no difference of opinion among the groups
in the part the school and the university ought to
play in the strategies.

Ho 2.5: There is no difference of Opinion among the groups
in the part the school and the university ought to
play in the teaching process.

Hypotheses 2.1 through 2.5 were analyzed using one-
way analysis of variance as the statistical model. They were
tested at the .02 level of significance. The split-alpha
level of .02 was used so that the overall level of signifi-
cance of .1 was retained for the study.

Results of Post Hoc Tests
for Ho 2.1 through Ho 2.5

 

 

Each of these hypotheses was tested at the .02 level
of significance, p equals .02. The hypothesis was rejected
when p was less than .02. If p was greater than .02, no
significant difference was found.

Legend used for post hoc tests:

G1 equals school

G2 equals college

G3 equals university

Ho 2.1: No difference between groups on M1 (academic

 

disciplines)
Means: GlMl G2Ml G3Ml
2.507 2.592 2.522

 

P was computed and found to be .8733. Since p was greater

62

than .02, there was no difference found between groups in
the competency area, academic disciplines.
Ho 2.2: No difference between groups on M2 (human learning).

Means: G1M2 GZM2 G3M2
2.733 2.522 2.571

 

 

P was computed and found to be .2427. Since p was greater
than .02, there was no difference found between groups in
the competency area, human learning.

Ho 2.3: No difference between groups on M3 (content of
elementary school).

Means: G1M3 G2M3 G3M3
2.804 2.629 2.556

 

 

P was computed and found to be .2546. Since p was greater
than .02, there was no difference found between groups in

the competency area, content of the elementary school.

Ho 2.4: A difference between groups on M4 (strategies).

Means: G1M4 G2M4 G3M4
3.004 2.714 2.611

 

 

P was computed and found to be .0151. Since p was less than

.02, Hypothesis 2.4 was rejected.

Ho 2.5: A difference between groups on M5 (teaching
process).

Means: GlM5 G2M5 G3M5
3.457 3.130 3.175

 

 

63

P was computed and found to be .0098. Since p was less than

.02, Hypothesis 2.5 was rejected.

Post Hoc Tests of
Ho 2.4 and Ho 2.5

 

 

A difference of opinion between groups was found for
strategies (M4) and for teaching process (M5). Post hoc
testing, using the Scheffé procedure, was performed to
determine where the difference between the groups was in
each of these areas of competency. New hypotheses were gen-
erated and tested at the .02 level of significance.

Hypotheses for Post Hoc
Tests for H0 2.4

 

 

Ho 2.41: There is no difference of Opinion between the
school and the college in the part the school and
the university ought to play in the strategies.

Symbolically: w = XGl - XG2 = o

 

Ho 2.42: There is no difference of opinion between the
school and the university in the part the school
and the university ought to play in the strate-
gies.

Symbolically: Y = XGl — XGB = 0

 

Ho 2.43: There is no difference of opinion between the
college and the university in the part the school
and the university ought to play in the strategies.

Symbolically: W = XG - XG = 0

64

Using the formula:

 

~6>
H-

C .2 F' a
[Mswithin] Z -1- [dfhyp.] dfhyp dferror

(conservative)

)- .4

 

 

the confidence intervals were calculated for each of the

hypotheses.

Table 3.--Confidence intervals.a

 

*6)

 

Hypotheses Confidence Intervals Decision
Ho 2.41 4.343 - .153 3 W < 8.393 NSD
Ho 2.42 5.886 1.390 g T 3 10.382 Rejected

 

aIf 0 did not fall within the range of the confi-
dence interval, the hypothesis was rejected; if it did,
then there was no significant difference (NSD).

Results of Hypotheses
2.41, 2.42, and 2.43

 

 

Ho 2.41: No difference between the school and the college.
Ho 2.42: A difference between the school and the university.

HO 2.43: No difference between the college and the univer-
sity.

There was agreement of the school and the college on strate-
gies; there was agreement of the college and university;
there was a difference of opinion between the school and the

university.

65

Hypotheses for Post Hoc
Tests for Ho 2.5

 

 

Because Ho 2.5 was rejected (no differences between

groups on M5, teaching process), new hypotheses were formed:

Ho 2.51: There is no difference of Opinion between the
school and the college in the part the school and
the university ought to play in the teaching
process.

Symbolically: W = XGl - XG2 = 0

 

Ho 2.52: There is no difference of opinion between the
school and the university in the part the school
and the university ought to play in the teaching
process.

Symbolically: W = XGl - XG3 = O

 

Ho 5.3: There is no difference of opinion between the
college and the university in the part the school
and the university ought to play in the teaching
process.

Symbolically: T = XG2 - XG3 = 0

 

Confidence intervals were calculated for each of the hypoth-

eses. These were:

 

 

Table 4.--Confidence intervals.a

Hypotheses W Confidence Intervals Decision
Ho 2.51 4.914 .042 g T g 9.786 Rejected
Ho 2.52 4.228 - .644 g W 5 9.100 NSD

Ho 2.53 —.686 —5.558 5 W 5 4.186 NSD

 

aIf zero (0) did not fall within the range of the
confidence interval, the hypothesis was rejected; if it did,
then there was no significant difference (NSD).

66

Results of Hypotheses

 

2.51, 2.52, and 2.53

 

Ho 2.51: There is a difference of opinion between the
school and the college.

Ho 2.52: There was no difference of opinion between the
school and the university.

Ho 2.53: There was no difference of opinion between the
college and the university.

There was agreement of the school and university on the

teaching process; there was also agreement between the col-

lege and the university; but there was a difference of opin-

ion between the school and the college in this area of

competency.

Hypothesis 3:

 

Results

There will be no difference in the mean opin—
ions of the groups (school, college, univer-
sity) in the part they perceive the school and
the university to play in the functions
(defining, implementing, evaluating) when
these functions are viewed separately.

The means as determined from the School...University

scale were:

 

 

F1 F2 F3
G1 2.643 3.047 3.013 (School)
G2 2.419 2.931 2.801 (College)
G3 2.197 3.136 2.729 (University)
where: Fl = defining of objectives
F2 = implementing these objectives
F3 = evaluating prOSpective teachers in the

attainment of objectives

 

groups,

67

To find out if there was a difference between the

this portion of the Liberal and Conservative F of

Reference table was referred to:

Sources of
Variation Liberal F' Actual F Conservative F'

 

GF

1.97 3.159 2.35

 

Since F was larger than F' Conservative, the Ho 3: Groups

by Functions interaction, was rejected at the .1 level of

significance.

Post Hoc Hypotheses for Ho 3

 

To determine in which function the groups were not

in agreement, these hypotheses were generated:

HO

HO

HO

There is no difference of Opinion among the groups
in the part the school and the university ought to
play in defining objectives.

There is no difference of opinion among the groups
in the part the school and the university ought to
play in implementing objectives.

There is no difference of opinion among the groups
in the part the school and the university ought to
play in evaluating the prospective teachers.

Analysis Procedure

 

These hypotheses were tested at the level of .033

significance. The split-alpha level of .033 was used to

retain the overall level of .l for the study. The Scheffé

procedure was used to analyze the hypotheses.

 

68

Results of Post Hoc Test
for Ho 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3

 

 

Each of these hypotheses was tested at the .033
level of significance, p equals .033. The hypothesis was
rejected when p was less than .033. If p was greater than

.033, the result was no significant difference.

Legend: ‘rx

.v-nn._

G1 equals school
G2 equals college

G3 equals university

 

. . 1T 43-. ‘J- '1'. q

 

1
Ho 3.1: A difference between groups on F1 (defining E
objectives).
Means: GlFl G2Fl G3F1
2.643 2.419 2.197

 

P was calculated and found to be .0093. Since p was less

than .033, Ho 3.1 was rejected.
Ho 3.2: No difference between groups on F2 (implementing).

Means: G1F2 G2F2 G3F2
3.047 2.931 3.136

 

 

P was calculated and found to be .9247. Since p was greater

than .033, the hypothesis was accepted.
Ho 3.3: No difference between groups on F3 (evaluating).

Means: G1F3 G2F3 G3F3
3.013 2.801 2.729

 

 

P was calculated and found to be .0731. Since p was greater

than .033, the hypothesis was accepted.

69

Post Hoc Tests of Ho 3.1

 

A difference of opinion between the groups was found
for F1 (defining objectives). Post hoc testing, using the
Scheffé procedure, was performed to determine where the dif—
ference of Opinion lay. New hypotheses were generated and
tested at the .033 level of significance.

Hypotheses for Post Hoc
Tests for Ho 3.1

 

 

Ho 3.11: There is no difference between the school (G1) and
the college (G2) on who should define objectives
(Fl) .

—_—_—

Symbolically: W = XGl - XG = 0

 

Ho 3.12: There is no difference between the school (G1) and
the university (G3) on who should define objectives
(Fl) .

Symbolically: W = XGl - XG3 = 0

 

Ho 3.13: There is no difference between the college (G2) and
the university (G3) on who should define objectives
(F1).

Symbolically: W = XG2 - XG3 = 0

 

Using the formula:

 

El: Fc'if df 0‘
W i [Mswithin] 2 nj [:dfhyp.] hYP- error
(conservative)

the confidence intervals were calculated for each of the

hypotheses.

 

70

Table 5.--Confidence intervals.a

 

 

Hypotheses V Confidence Intervals Decision
Ho 3.11. 5.600 -4.070 5 w 5 15.2700 NSD
Ho 3.12 11.172 1.502 g V 5 20.842 Rejected
Ho 3.13 5.572 -4.098 5 W 5 15.242 NSD

 

aIf zero (0) did not fall within the range of the
confidence interval, the hypothesis was rejected; if it did,
then there was no significant difference (NSD).

Results of Hypotheses
3.11, 3.12, and 3.13

 

 

Ho 3.11: No difference between the school (G1) and the
college (G2).

Ho 3.12: A difference between the school (G1) and the
university (G3).

Ho 3.13: No difference between the college (G2) and the
university (G3).

There was agreement between the school and the college in who
should define objectives (F1); there was also agreement
between the college and the university; the school and the

university differed in Opinion.

Hypothesis 4: There will be no difference in the mean opin-
ions of the groups (school, college, univer-
sity) in the part they perceive the school and
the university to play when each of these
functions (defining, implementing, evaluating)
is viewed individually in each of the five
areas of competency (academic, content of the
elementary school, strategies, human learning,
and teaching process).

 

 

71

Results
The means as determined from the School...University

scale were:

Fl-—defining objectives

 

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
G1 2.286 2.394 2.554 2.657 3.326 (School)
G2 2.297 2.160 2.337 2.383 2.920 (College)
G3 2.034 2.103 2.103 2.057 2.686 (University)

 

F2--implementing objectives

 

 

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
G1 2.571 2.943 2.897 3.189 3.634 (School)
G2 2.794 2.754 2.829 2.937 3.343 (College)
G3 2.977 2.949 2.954 3.074 3.726 (University)

 

F3--evaluating

 

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
G1 2.663 2.863 2.960 3.166 3.411 (School)
G2 2.686 2.651 2.720 2.823 3.126 (College)
GB 2.554 2.663 2.611 2.703 3.114 (University)

 

Legend: M1 is academic disciplines
M2 is human learning
M3 is content of elementary school
M4 is strategies
M5 is teaching process

To find out if there was a difference between the
groups, this portion of the Liberal and Conservative F of

Reference table was referred to:

72

Sources of
Variation Liberal F' Actual F Conservative F'

 

GMF 1.48 1.88 2.35

 

Since F was not smaller than F' Liberal and F was not larger
than F' Conservative, the results were indeterminant. The

hypothesis was not rejected and not clearly not rejected. rm

Summary

Four hypotheses were tested by repeated measures of

 

analysis of variance. Post hoc tests were performed by one- Lg:
way analysis of variance and the Scheffé procedures. The
results of the hypotheses were:

Ho 1: No difference was found between groups (school,
college, university) in the role they perceive the
school and the university to have in a teacher edu-
cation program viewed as a whole, comprised of
three functions (defining, implementing, and eval-
uating) in five major areas of competency (academic
disciplines, human learning, content areas of the
elementary school, strategies and the teaching
process).

 

Ho 2: A difference was found in the opinions between the
groups (school, college, university) in the role
the school and the university ought to play in the
five areas of competency.

 

In order to determine which areas of competency the
groups differed on, post hoc analysis using one-way analysis
of variance supplied these results:

Ho 2.1: No difference was found between the groups in
the role the school and the university ought
to play in the area of academic disciplines.

Ho 2.2: No difference was found between the groups in

the role the school and the university ought
to play in the area of human learning.

HO 2.3:

Ho 2.4:

Post

procedure:

73

No difference was found between the groups in
the role the school and the university ought
to play in the area of competency termed
content of the elementary school.

A difference was found in the Opinions of the
groups in the role the school and the univer-
sity ought to play in the area of competency
termed strategies.

hoc analysis of Ho 2.4 using the Scheffé

41

Ho 2. :

42:

Ho 2.

Ho 2.

HO 2.5:

Post

procedure:

43:

No difference of Opinions was found
between the school and the college.

A difference of Opinion was found to
exist between the school and the univer-
sity.

No difference of Opinion was found
between the college and the university.

A difference was found in the Opinions of the
groups in the role the school and the univer-
sity ought to play in the area of competency
termed teaching process.

hoc analysis of Ho 2.5 using the Scheffe

51:

Ho 2.

52:

Ho 2.

Ho 2.

53:

A difference of opinion was found between
the school and the college.

No difference of opinion was found between
the school and the university.

No difference of Opinion was found between
the college and the university.

Ho 3: A difference was found in the opinions of the groups
in the role they perceiVe the school and the univer-
sity to have in the functions (defining, implement—
ing, and evaluating) of a teacher education program.

 

 

74

In order to determine the function(s) the groups
differed on, post hoc analysis using one-way analysis of
variance supplied these results:

Ho 3.1: A difference of Opinion between the groups
was found in the role the school and the
university ought to play in the function
termed defining objectives.

Post hoc analysis of Ho 3.1 using the Scheffé

1 3‘
i ':
procedure: 'J

Ho 3.11: No difference of opinion was found
between the school and the college.

 

Ho 3.12: A difference of Opinion was found to I:‘
exist between the school and the uni- U
versity.

Ho 3.13: No difference of opinion was found
between the college and the university.

Ho 3.2: No difference of opinion was found between
the groups in the role the school and the
university ought to play in the function
termed implementing objectives.

Ho 3.3: No difference of opinion was found between
the groups in the role the school and the
university ought to play in the function
termed evaluating prospective teachers in the
attainment of objectives.

In order that the results can be viewed in totality,

the hypotheses tested may be summarized symbolically as:

75

REPEATED MEASURES OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

 

_ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

 

 

 

3*21:
0 O
to——H

HO

 

 

Ho 3:

HO
HO

 

 

HO 4:

SCHEFFE PROCEDURE

 

NSI + Groups (not rejected)

NSI + Groups * Measures (rejected)

2.1: ND + Groups (M1)
2.2: ND + Groups (M2)
2.3: ND + Groups (M3)
2.4: ND + Groups (M4)
HO 2.41: ND + G1 and
HO 2.42: ND + G1 and
Ho 2.43: ND + G2 and
2.5: ND + Groups (M5)
Ho 2.51: ND + G1 and
Ho 2.52: ND + G1 and
Ho 2.53: ND + G2 and

 

(not rejected)
(not rejected)
(not rejected)
(rejected)

G2 (not rejected)
G3 (rejected)

G3 (not rejected)
(rejected)

G2 (rejected)

G3 (not rejected)
G3 (not rejected)

NSI + Groups * Functions (rejected)

3.1: ND + Groups (Fl)
Ho 3.11: ND + G1 and
Ho 3.12: ND + G1 and
Ho 3.13: ND + G2 and

3.2: ND + Groups (F2)

3.3: ND + Groups (F3)

NSI + Groups, Measures
(indeterminant)

(rejected)

G2 (not rejected)
G3 (rejected)

G3 (not rejected)
(not rejected)
(not rejected)

* Functions

alpha
level

H
O

.10
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02

.10
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03
.03

.10

'U 'U'U'U'U'U'Urd "O'U'U'U'U'U'U'OWJ'U'U'U 'U

 

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary

Some critics of teacher education have strongly
voiced that teacher education ought to be a partnership
endeavor, with the schools and universities sharing the
responsibilities. National educational organizations, as
well as local professional teacher groups, have voiced
that the school should not be a passive participant but
should be actively involved in preparing future members
of their profession.

Assuming that the partnership approach, involving
the schools and the universities, is to be the route taken
in planning and developing teacher education programs, it
may be important to know where roles are perceived similarly
and differently. An agreement among the participants as to
the degree of participation the school and the university
ought to have in setting objectives, in the implementation
process and in the evaluation process should provide vital
data to teacher education planning and development teams.

If differences of perceptions exist, those differences could

be a source of problems among the participants. Knowing

76

 

Vii-

77

where these differences lie may be important because they
might be minimized or resolved if they could be identified
and dealt with before they become problems.

Therefore, it was the purpose of this study to
determine if there is relative agreement among school,
college of education and college of arts and science per-
sonnel in the degree of participation the school and the
university ought to have in the planning and execution of
basic curricular components of a teacher educationprogram.

Fifty members were chosen from the Lansing Elemen-
tary Public School Faculty. Fifty members from each group,
the College of Education and the departments of the arts
and sciences from Michigan State University who are pre-
sently involved with the undergraduate education of elemen-
tary teachers, were also chosen.

A questionnaire was specifically constructed for
this study. The base for the questionnaire was provided
by the Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program, a
cooperatively planned teacher education model. There were
five statements for each of the five areas of competency
(academic disciplines, human learning, content of the
elementary school, strategies, and teaching process) used
in constructing the questionnaire. For each statement, the
respondents were asked to determine the degree of participa-
tion they felt the school and the university ought to have

in defining objectives; in implementing the objectives; and

 

78

in evaluating the prospective teacher in the attainment of
the objectives.

The data were analyzed using the repeated measures
of analysis of variance as the statistical model. Sub-
hypotheses were analyzed by using one-way analysis of
variance and the Scheffé procedures.

A requirement of using repeated measures of analysis
of variance is that equal numbers must be used for each
sample group. The number responding from the three groups
were forty-two, forty, and thirty-five. Thirty-five was
the base number used to analyze the data.

The results of this study may be summarized as
follows:

1. There was agreement in all aspects between the
groups termed college and university. No statistical dif-
ference was found to determine that the college and the
university differed in their opinions in regard to the
degree of participation they perceived the school and the
university to have in the functions nor in the curricular
components.

2. The public school personnel and the college
personnel agreed in aspects as to the degree of participation
the school and university ought to have except in the cur-

ricular area termed teaching process.

 

3. The public school personnel and the university
personnel agreed in all aspects as to the degree of parti-

cipation the school and the university ought to have except

 

 

79

in the function termed defining objectives and in the

 

curricular area termed strategies.

 

Conclusions

 

In terms of the study's purpose and subsequent
results, the following conclusions can be made:

1. That the groups (school, college, and university)
agree on the relative degree of participation the school
and the university ought to have in the curricular compo-

nent, academic disciplines. They agreed that the univer-

 

sity ought to have a greater degree of participation in this
area than the school ought to have.

2. That the groups (school college, and university)
agree on the relative degree of participation of the school
and the university in the curricular component, Hpmgn
learning. They agreed that the university ought to have
a greater degree of participation in this area than the
school ought to have.

3. That the groups (school, college, and university)
agree on the relative degree of participation of the school

and the university in the curricular component, content of

 

the elementary school. They agreed that the university

 

ought to have a greater degree of participation in this
area than the school ought to have.

4. That the groups (school, college, and university)
differed on the relative degree of participation of the

school and the university in the curricular component,

80

strategies. The school personnel viewed the school to have

 

a greater degree of participation than the university per-
sonnel viewed the school to have. The group means clustered
about the equally shared point on the school . . . univer-
sity scale.

5. That the groups (college, school, and university)
differed on the relative degree of participation of the
school and of the university in the curricular component,

teaching_process. Although the groups viewed that the

 

school ought to have a greater degree of involvement than
the university ought to have, there was a difference
between the school and the college personnel in the rela-
tive degree of participation they perceived the school to
have.

6. That the groups (school, college, and university)
differed on the relative degree of participation of the
school and of the university in the function, defining

objectives. Although the groups viewed that the university

 

ought to have a greater degree of involvement than the
school ought to have, there was a difference between the
school and the university personnel in the relative degree
of participation they perceived the university to have.

7. That the groups (school, college, and university)
agreed on the relative degree of participation of the school

and of the university in the function, implementing of objec-

 

tives. The group means clustered about the equally shared

point on the school . . . university scale.

 

81

8. That the groups (school, college, and university)
agreed on the relative degree of participation of the school

and of the university in the function, evaluating. The

 

grOUp means clustered about the equally shared point on the

school . . . university scale.

Discussion of Results

 

With the framework of the partnership concept as
defined in this study, the groups (school, college, and
university) indicated that both the school and the univer-
sity ought to be involved. There were areas in which the
groups agreed as to the relative degree of participation of
the school and the university, and there were areas in
which difference of opinion existed. None of the groups,
however, perceived the functions (defining, implementing,
and evaluating) or the curricular components (academic
disciplines, human learning, content of the elementary
school, strategies, and teaching process) to be the task
in which only the school or only the university ought to
be involved. There were differences as to the degree of
participation the school and the university ought to have
in some areas, however.

Based on the group means for each of the curricular
components and for each of the functions and the conclu-
sions reached as a result of testing the hypotheses which
determined where groups agreed and disagreed in their per-

ceptions as to the relative degree of involvement they

 

82

viewed the school and the university to have, the results

may be summarized as follows:

TABLE 6.--Perceived degree of participation.

 

Sample Groups

 

 

School College , University
Academic Discipline U U U
Human Learning U U U
Content of El. Sch. U U U
Strategies *E E *E
Teaching Process *8 *S S
Defining Obj. *U U *U
Implementing E E E
Evaluating E E _ E

 

 

Legend:

U = University greater degree of participation
than school.

S = School greater degree of participation than
university.

E = Equally shared by school and university.

* = Difference between groups on relative
degree of participation.

The college and the university personnel agreed on
the relative degree of participation of the school and the
university in all areas, curriculum and functions. In the
areas where differences of opinion were found (strategies,

teaching process, and defining objectives), the school

83

personnel viewed the school to have a relatively greater
degreeof participation than viewed by the college or the
university.

These results indicate that within the framework of
a school-university partnership, the school, college, and
university personnel agree that the school ought to have
a substantial degree of involvement in the curricular com-
ponents and the functions outlined in this study. Not only
was it indicated that the school ought to have a degree of

involvement in all of the curricular areas and functions,

but the groups viewed the functions, implementing and

 

evaluating, as an equally shared task of the school and

 

the university. The groups also viewed the curricular

component, strategies, to be a shared task, and it viewed

 

the curricular component, teaching_process, to be a task

 

in which the school ought to have a greater degree of
involvement than they viewed the university to have.

The differences of opinion were based on the rela-
tive degree of participation each group viewed the school
and the university to have. In either situation, the
school personnel viewed the school to have even a greater
degree of involvement than the degree viewed by the college
or university personnel.

The educational establishment has frequently voiced
that the school has an expertise to share with the univer-
sity in the planning and in the developing of teacher

education programs. The results of this study do indicate

84

that if a joint venture were to be implemented, the school
personnel views that the school should have a greater share
in the planning and in the implementing of such a teacher

education program.

Future Implications

 

This study was designed to determine if there was
agreement among school, college and university personnel
in the relative degree of participation the school and the
university ought to have if a partnership approach as
defined in this study was limited to the involvement of the
"total university" and the public school, although there
are other arrangements and directions in which the planning
of teacher education programs can go.

But to remain in the context of the partnership
concept of the school and the university, there are many
questions which are not yet resolved. For example, this
study dealt with only a segment of role perception within
a given framework. Approaches which determine the curricula
schools and universities want to incorporate in a teacher
education program might be mutually develOped. Steps needed
to utilize this approach might be determined.

If a cooperative approach were to be employed and
if there was agreement on the degree and kind of partici-
pation each institution ought to have in the curricular
components, it should be decided where the final responsi-
bility lies. The question of accountability has not been

answered.

 

85

The area of accountability has not only managerial
and procedural implications but also legal ones. For
example, if the university is to have the responsibility
for the clinic phase, to what extent can the university
control the environment within the public school setting?
What is the role of the State Education Department within
this framework?

If the university is to have control of the teacher
education program, the control within the university needs
to be resolved if fragmentation of the program is to be
stopped. There is the need to determine where the
responsibility for teacher education programs ought to be
if a total university apporach is to be implemented. Stra-
tegies specifically developed to determine where the con-
trol and interrelationships of all members of the partner-
ship ought to be, need to be outlined.

The results of this study provided a base from
which cooperative arrangements involving the school and the
university might be made. Before tasks are allocated to
the school and the university, a further breakdown or
delineation of role needs to be made. The degree of parti—
cipation the school and the university ought to have in
each of the functions (defining objectives, implementing
and evaluating) for each of the curricular areas will need
to be determined. It will then be ultimately easier to

decide who is responsible for what.

 

86

The consideration of the respective roles of the
school and university in preservice teacher education pro-
grams generates the question, "What role should other
social and professional groups have in decisions of planning
and implementing such training programs?"

Before cooperative arrangements can be planned and
implemented, the role of the state education department
needs to be determined. The legal framework in which
cooperative arrangements can be employed needs to be
refined. Studies are needed to determine the limitations
that may presently exist which may inhibit a more viable
cooperative approach. There are other questions to which
answers should be found. For example, "What role does the
legislature think a State Department of Education should
have? What role do teachers think the professional organi-
zations should have? What do community persons consider
to be their purview in teacher training programs?"

Similarly, a study needs to be done to determine
role definitions of the educational institutions for inser-
vice and continuing education programs. If the partner-
ship to teacher education were to continue beyond certifi-
cation, who should be responsible for defining the objec-
tives and for the implementation of such a program? Who

should be involved in such a program?

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

87

10.

11.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrews, L. 0. "Initial Preparation of the Career
Teacher." Educational Leadership, XXVII (March,
1970), 553-556.

 

Breer, Paul E., and Locke, Edwin A. Task Experience as
a Source of Attitudes. Homewood, Illinois: The
Dorsey Press, 1965.

 

 

Brottman, Marvin. "Systematizing Studies in Teacher
Education." Journal of Teacher Education, XVII
(Summer, 1971), 141-146.

 

Burdin, Joel L. A Reader's Guide to the Comprehensive
Models for Preparing Elementary_Teachers. Washington,
D. C.: ERIC Clearinghouse and AACTE, December, 1969.

 

 

Burns, Hubert. "Teacher Education Programs: Their
Structures and Flexibility." NDEA Special Bulletin,
December, 1967.

 

Clegg, Ambrose A., and Ochoa, Anna S. "What Does Today's
Teacher Need to Know and to Do?" Educational Leader-
ship, XXVII (March, 1970), 568-572.

 

Collins, James F. "The Teacher Education Center Concept:
A Unifying Approach to Teacher Education." Educa-
tional Leadership, XX (March, 1970), 544-547.

 

Cronback, Lee J. "The Role of the University in Educa-
tional Improvement." Phi Delta Kappan, XXVII (June,
1966), 539-545.

 

Cruickshank, Donald R. "With the Researchers." Journal
of Teacher Education, XXII (Spring, 1971), 73-82.

 

DeLong, Greta. "Toward a More Meaningful Teacher Prepara—
tion." Journal of Teacher Education, XXII (Spring,
1971), 15-17.

 

Denemark, George W. "Teacher Education: Repair, Reform,
or Revolution." Educational Leadership, XXVII
(March, 1970), 539—543.

 

88

 

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

89

Dworkin, Martin. Dewey on Education-—Selections. New
York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1959.

Elam, Stanley. ImprovinggTeacher Education in the
United States. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta
Kappa, 1967.

 

Eye, Glen G., and others. Supervision of Instruction.
New York: Harper and Row, 1971.

Flowers, J. F., ed. School and Community Laboratory
Experiences in Teacher Education. Washington, D. C.: F
American Association of Teacher Education, 1948.

 

Gill, Margaret. "Individualizing the Teaching of
Teachers." Controversy in American Education-~An
Anthology of Crucial Issues. Edited by Harold Full.
New York: Macmillan Company, 1972.

 

 

- "-“'——‘
' l. '

’FD‘

Goodlad, John. "The Reconstruction of Teacher Education."
Controversy in American Education-—An Anthology of
Crucial Issues. Edited by Harold Full. New York:
Macmillan Company, 1972.

 

Haberman, Martin. "Twenty-Three Reasons Universities
Can't Educate Teachers." Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion, XXII (Summer, 1971), 133-140.

Hazard, William, and others. "The Tutorial and Clinical
Program for Teacher Education.“ Journal of Teacher
Education, XVIII (Fall, 1967), 270-273.

 

Hendrick, Irving G. "History of Education and Teacher
Preparation." Journal of Teacher Education, XVII
(Spring, 1966), 71-76.

Hess, Mary B. "The Student-Teaching Center: Filling
the New Order in Student Teaching." Journal of
Teacher Education, XXII (Fall, 1971), 299-302.

Horton, Lowell. "Teacher Education: By Design or
Crisis?" Journal of Teacher Education, XXII (Fall,
1971), 265-267.

Hunter, Elizabeth, and Amidon, Edmund. "Direct Experi-
ence in Teacher Education: Innovation and Experimen-
tation." Journal of Teacher Education, XVII (Fall,
1966), 282-289.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

90

Joyce, Bruce. "The Teacher—Innovator: A Program to
Prepare Teachers." A Reader's Guide to the Compre—
hensive Models for Preparing Elementary Teachers.
Washington, D. C.: ERIC, 1969.

 

Kalick, Perry M. "New Directions in Teacher Training
and Placement." Journal of Teacher Education, XXII

 

Kloph, Gordon J. “Conviction and Vision in Teacher
Education." Journal of Teacher Education, XVII
(Spring, 1966), 3—5.

 

Knowles, Gerlad M. "A Strategy for Teacher Education."
Educational Leadership, XXII (Spring, 1971), 18-24.

 

Lindsey, Margaret. "Speculations on the Future of
Teacher Education and COOperative Endeavors."
Partnership in Teacher Education. Edited by Brooks E.
Smith. Washington, D. C.: AACTE, 1967.

 

Lindsey, Margaret, ed. Teacher Education: Future
Directions. Washington, D. C.: The Association of
Teacher Educators, A National Affiliate of the NBA,
1970.

 

 

McIntosh, Gordon R. "The Clinical Approach to Teacher
Education." Journal of Teacher Education, XXII

 

National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional
Standards and NBA of the U.S. New Horizons for
Teacher Education. Washington, D. C.: NBA, 1961.

 

Pomeroy, Edward C. Teacher Education: Issues and Inno-
vations. Twenty-first Yearbook of the American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Washington, D. C.: The American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education, 1968.

 

Reitman, Sanford W. "Teacher Role Strain: A Neglected
Problem." Journal of Teacher Education, XXII (Fall,
1971), 261-267.

 

Rock, William C., and Virgilio, Andrew D. "Major
Breakthrough in Teacher Education Achieved." Journal
of Teacher Education, XXII (Fall, 1971), 274—276.

 

Rosenberg, Milton J., and others. Attitude, Organization
and Change. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963.

 

 

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

91

Silberman, Charles E. Crisis in the C1assroom--The
Remaking of American Education. New York: Random
House, 1970.

Smith, Brooks E. College-School Relationships in
Teacher Education: Report of a National Survey of
Cooperative Ventures. Washington, D. C.: The Amer-
ican Association of Colleges for Teacher Education,
1964.

 

Smith, Brooks E. Cooperative Structures in School-
College Relationships for Teacher Education.
Washington, D. C.: The American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education, 1965.

 

Smith, Brooks E. Partnership in Teacher Education.
Washington, D. C.: The American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education, 1967.

 

Smith, Brooks E. Teachers for the Real World. Washing—
ton, D. C.: The American Association of Colleges
for Teacher Education, 1967.

 

Stone, James C. Breakthrough in Teacher Education.
San Francisco: Jassey-Bass, Inc., 1968.

 

Talmage, Harriet, and Monroe, George E. “The Teacher
as Teacher Educator." Educational Leadership, XX
(March, 1970), 609-613.

 

Thompson, Ralph. "Where Teacher Education Programs
Fail." Journal of Teacher Education, XXI (Fall,
1970), 275-277.

 

Trippe, Matthew J. "The Triple T Project." Teacher
Education Issues and Innovations. Twenty—First
Yearbook of the American Association of Colleges for
Teacher Education. Washington, D. C.: AACTE, 1968.

 

U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Behavioral Science Elementary Teacher Education
Program. Volumes I—III. Washington, D. C.: Office
of Education, October, 1968.

U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Elementary Teacher Training Models. Washington,
D. C.: Office of Education, 1969.

Watson, Goodwin. "Resistance to Change." Concepts for
Social Change. Edited by Goodwin Watson. Washington,
D. C.: NBA, 1967.

 

 

48.

49.

50.

51.

92

Weber, Wilford. "Specifications for a Comprehensive
Undergraduate and Inservice Teacher Education Pro-
gram for Elementary Teachers." A Reader's Guide to
the Comprehensive Models for Preparing Elementary
Teachers. Washington, D. C.: ERIC, 1969.

 

Weiss, Robert M., ed. The Conant Controversy in Teacher
Education. New York: Random House, 1969.

 

 

Wynne, John P. Joint Committee of the American Asso-
ciation of Colleges for Teacher Education and the
Philosophy of Education Society. Oneota, New York:
The American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education, 1957.

 

Yee, Albert H. "A Model for the Development of Teacher
Education Relevant to the '70's." Journal of Teacher
Education, XXII (Spring, 1971), 10—14.

 

 

APPENDIX

93

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY axs-r umsmo- memo»: 40323

 

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ' DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION ' BUCKSON HALL

June 19, 1972

Dear Colleague:

I am presently an instructor in the Department of Elementary and
Special Education at Michigan State University and am in the process
of completing my dissertation for the Ph.D. degree. My major field
of interest is teacher education.

For the purpose of this study, the Lansing Elementary Public School
Teachers, the faculty of the College of Education at MBU who are
presently involved in the preservice education of elementary school
teachers, and the faculty from the University at large who teach the
academic disciplines required of the prospective elementary teacher
are the groups from which representative samples have been randomly
chosen.

The purpose of this study is to find out how members of each of the
previously mentioned groups view the role of the public school and/or
university in the develOpment and implementation of the competencies
outlined in this questionnaire.

Your response as a representative of your group is needed. Your
responses will be treated as data and as you may note, treated
anonymously.

I have enclosed a stamped envelope for you to return the answered
questionnaire. Again, I cannot stress the personal importance that
you will serve in responding as soon as possible. Please try to
complete this questionnaire within the next week; I am dependent on
your response.

Should there be any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact
me. Again, a sincere thank you.

Sincerely,

Rudi Alec

301I Erickson Hall

Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48823
(517) 355-4545 (Office)

(517) 393-7156 (Residence)

94

 

95

Please check one of the following:
Lansing Public School Faculty
College of Education Faculty

University (Academic Disciplines)

This survey consists of twenty-five competencies that a prospective
teacher ought to attain as viewed by the develOpers of the Behavioral Science
Teacher Education Program (BSTEP), a c00perative1y planned program initiated
and develOped at Michigan State University and financed by the U.S. Office of
Education.

Assuming that these competencies should be included in a teacher education
program, respond to this survey in terms of what part you perceive the public
school and/or the university to have in: defining specific objectives to attain
these competencies; in the implementation of these objectives to attain these
competencies; in the evaluation process of the proSpective teacher in the
attainment of these objectives.

Interpretation of Scale

5 - Sole role of the school; no university involvement.

4 - Major role of the school; minor university involvement.

3 - Equally shared role by the school and university.

2 - Major role of the university; minor involvement of the school.
1 - Sole role of the university; no school involvement.

Place an X through the number on the scale depicting your response.

 

96

Example:

EX. to be able to use the principles of group dynamics as one basis for the
planning of classroom activities.

(SChOOl) (University)
a) defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1
b) implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 l
c) evaluation of prospective teacher 5 4 3 2 1

If, for example the respondee answered (a) of the example by choosing number 3;
a) defining objectives 5 4 X 2 1 F
his response would indicate that he perceives the school and the university to
have an equal role in defining the specific objectives to attain the general

competency stated above.

If for (b) the respondee answered by choosing number 4;

 

i
H
b) implementing objectives 5 X 3 2 1 l

his response would indicate that he perceives the school to have the major role
for implementing the objective to attain the competency and that the university
would only be involved in a minor degree.

If for (c) the respondee chose number 1;
c) evaluation of prospective teacher 5 4 3 2 El,
his response would indicate that he perceives the university to have the sole

role in evaluating the prospective teacher in the attainment of the objective.

Read each statement carefully and mark the number on the scale that represents
the part you perceive the school and/or university to have if a partnership
concept were to be utilized in implementing these competencies in a teacher
education program.

97

Interpretation of Scale

HNwJ-‘U!
I

3.

Sole'role of the school; no university involvement.

Major role of the school; minor university involvement.
Equally shared role by the school and university.

Major role of the university; minor involvement of the school.
Sole role of the university; no school involvement.

to be able to formulate objectives, develop and apply teaching strategies,
evaluate the learning.

(School) (University)
defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1
implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1
evaluation of prospective teacher 5 4 3 2 1

to know the psychological and social variables that affect learning.

defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1
implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1
evaluation of prospective teacher 5 4 3 2 l

to know the various communication processes operating in a teaching situation

(one to one; small group; large group).

a)
b)

C)
4.

a)
b)

C)
5.

a)
b)

C)

6.
and

a)
b)

C)
7.

a)
b)

C)

defining objectives 5 4 3 2 l
implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1
evaluation of prOSpective teacher 5 4 3 2 1

to create an atmOSphere of physical and psychological comfort for the learner.

defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1
implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1
evaluation of prOSpective teacher 5 4 3 2 1

to grasp relationships and to understand patterns in mathematics.

defining objectives 5 4 3 2 l
implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1
evaluation of prospective teacher 5 4 3 2 1

to understand the role of the social sciences in the develOpment of values
attitudes of the elementary school child.

defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1
implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1
evaluation of prospective teacher 5 4 3 2 1

to be able to develOp criteria for evaluating broad types of literature.

defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1
implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1
evaluation of prospective teacher 5 4 3 2 1

-1-

98

Interpretation of Scale

 

5 - Sole role of the school; no university involvement.

4 - Major role of the school; minor university involvement.

3 - Equally shared role by the school and university.

2 - Major role of the university; minor involvement of the school.

1 - Sole role of the university; no school involvement.

8. to understand the interrelationships of the areas in the language arts.
(School) (University)

a) defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1 -

b) implementing objectives 5 ~4 3 2 1

c) evaluation of prOSpective teacher 5 4 3 2 1

9. to be able to change and reorganize sequence in terms of readiness levels

and needs of pupils.

a) defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1

b) implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1

c) evaluation of prospective teacher 5 4 3 2 1

10. to understand physical, intellectual, emotional, and social develOpment of

children.

a) defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1

b) implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1

c) evaluation of prOSpective teacher 5 4 3 2 1

11. to be competent in the teaching of readiness skills.

a) defining objectives 5 4 3 2 l

b) implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1

c) evaluation of prOSpective teacher 5 4 3 2 1

12. to be able to hypothesize alternative solutions to problems and to be able

to prescribe what needs to be done with various variables.

a) defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1

b) implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1

c) evaluation of prospective teacher 5 4 3 2 1

13. to be able to select and acquire feedback from pupils for input in future

planning.

a) defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1

b) implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1

c) evaluation of prospective teacher 5 4 3 2 1

14. to understand the role of reading in the content areas.

a) defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1

b) implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1

c) evaluation of prospective teacher 5 4 3 2 1

-2-

99

Interpretation of Scale

 

5 - Sole role of the school; no university involvement.

4 - Major role of the school; minor university involvement.

3 - Equally shared role by the school and university.

2 - Major role of the university; minor involvement of the school.
1 - Sole role of the university; no school involvement.

15. to know the various theoretical approaches to child study.

(School) (University)
a) defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1
b) implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1
c) evaluation of prOSpective teacher 5 4 3 2 1

16. to understand the principles of motivating learning.

a) defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1
b) implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1
c) evaluation of prOSpective teacher 5 4 3 2 1

17. to be able to teach the basic develOpmental reading skills.

a) defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1
b) implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1
c) evaluation of prOSpective teacher 5 4 3 2 l

18. to be able to utilize natural learning opportunities as they occur
Spontaneously.

a) defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1
b) implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 l
c) evaluation of prospective teacher 5 4 3 2 1

19. to be able to examine science as a process, its effects on culture, and to
analyze these effects as they influence present way of life.

a) defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1
b) implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1
c) evaluation of prospective teacher 5 4 3 2 1

20. to know the contributions of and the role of the social sciences.

a) defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1
b) implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1
c) evaluation of prOSpective teacher 5 4 3 2 1

21. to be able to process the skills and knowledge needed for the understanding
of the elementary mathematics curriculum.

a) defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1
b) implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1
c) evaluation of prOSpective teacher 5 4 3 2 l

“ 4.15!

 

100

Interpretation of Scale

 

5 - Sole role of the school; no university involvement.
4 - Major role of the school; minor university involvement.
3 - Equally shared role by the school and university.
2 - Major role of the university; minor involvement of the school.
1 - Sole role of the university; no school involvement.
22. to be able to employ a variety of instructional techniques which can be
employed in the teaching of mathematics.
(School) (University)
a) defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1
b) implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 l
c) evaluation of prospective teacher 5 4 3 2 1
23. to know the principles of family impact on the child and to understand the
dimensions of parent-child relationships.
a) defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1
b) implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1
c) evaluation of prospective teacher 5 4 3 2 1
24. to know and understand the various styles and media used in art.
a) defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1
b) implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 l
c) evaluation of prospective teacher 5 4 3 2 1
25. to be able to identify relationships between symbolic learning in language
arts and in mathematics.
a) defining objectives 5 4 3 2 1
b) implementing objectives 5 4 3 2 1
c) evaluation of prOSpective teacher 5 4 3 2 1

 

 

I‘ll-all." lluli ll. Ill.‘l‘l III-i... I'll ‘I I‘ll

101

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY usr LANSING- MICHIGAN 43823

 

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ' DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION ° ERICKSON HALL

June 9, 1972

Dear Colleagues:

I want to thank the many who have answered the question-

naire on role perceptions of the school and the

university in teacher education. This data is a necessary _
component of my dissertation. t

I know that this is a very busy time of the year and some
have not yet had the chance to respond. Could I ask you
to take some time to do so. Your aid is needed and will
be greatly appreciated.

Should you have misplaced your questionnaire and are in
need of another or if you have any questions related to
the questionnaire, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you again.

Sincerely,

£12m.

Rudi Alec

3011 Erickson Hall
Michigan State University
355-4545 (Office)
393-7156 (Home)

MMM