-<‘-l'. y—.

> a». .v. -,.,.v

v~-,- --

\na ’4: v

..
. .47 Nu III
. u

- I .
‘53 Liz" «fiw
wur‘w 14-3." 1 W 635’

'> -L'-"‘o 5" "'32'2‘. 3' a .1:
“(8‘4 ‘ um" ' ' Q _;‘Y‘3.-., . .
’ ~ ‘k * "hs<w::'" ‘4 t .. ~ - .
“ '“Ii‘FS'I/L-Iéu'l‘ ' ' “ ': ' m V ‘21:}: ~§fl~
“#7”; 1. K
,3 ' W
‘ 'i
0‘.

"I ,r' " "‘ ~- m . ...
" "if” x ‘ u. ‘ "' .. ‘ “3‘ ca
i . 5 ~:~..
. g.‘
- ’ '- ‘ A.
7‘L $33?” .
“WI h.

‘n
G
-.

w

 

:9
:5.
.. , «.1‘
w, WM H“
‘ l",. u x“. '. t. .
'SFEKM‘; fixhfi" 6,. r‘ 8' ‘ w, .. ' .
'~ ' "I‘I‘fi‘ ..,.}‘4:“ :u ' (1;; Ck ‘ . l 1 ‘ J.“i'u1f1.‘ . , I. t“ a, . ~ 1 . - “A ~ -
‘w‘mtya ~.x.‘-' ‘ . Are? 14a . .xsr‘ . - 3w, Wain“ .. 59w

' ‘ - ‘ hunt , rl7‘- ‘ ~ ~:. ~ xv - "ml-x“ ‘2:

‘ ‘ “15w

.
.2...“ , "
' Q-x4
t .....:' um ~
.. $mnr“
4. mum...
sun ‘.

g,
“
I

~ ‘

‘i

A. _ '42
r,4'.'_ g ‘
’0

‘51‘

'2. :r"

to“

1'6

y A ‘1'“
I..$V Q
.,'.:L'--'- ‘1..-
>0 V. ' '1'. ' .
~ '4‘ " . "l 'v--'L.‘t‘f\"c ' ‘ ._
.4

La‘é"

. ‘ ‘ .

 

‘ v-'- " ' . , \ "" ~q. \
t~ ’. ‘5‘“ '~ ‘ c .4 " J." 9 .1 ‘
"14454-1 " “ ' A. - -‘" ‘ 1::

t:~v:a~> ¢ ‘ . tzv' L '
.' '. s ’ A!“ 3“ ' . "fix“

» u-

’ ‘ ~ l .

-. ."J:‘,t;‘\-.'.,Z‘_;
NM: «47‘
nit. "3.

v- \‘£“ u m J u.‘ g \ ‘
"“1 ' L'. ~ .‘ _ \ v
- ,.:.- ‘uv w?" v -‘ . <.--'~-‘ x: . m 5 ‘ u 3" «12'-
' ' ». . v 1 ‘ea 3. a . . .-- “a , v»
‘ V ‘ '1 z: T"!V;~:~b' - ' .' ‘I o ‘ ' 5.3““
:32: a, “3:63; 4.. :2. 3.33.3:
» J. :12- s v... .33, m
. ..., '0' . '
w' ’5‘ 9",“ '2‘ ' '{u’v’}. J
r n. JVil-m
' A» V;
' w

.,
"3' "1 If" .-
'c‘z:« m .
J.» 353:»;31'3872 -
1 {vév‘qzfiscv‘ ;:. \U
v 1" 'é

..'._

I‘ ~ n
«v¢";‘v‘.‘?.;+'\<i
. ‘, 3“.

. .,

'n L; .
I'L. . 3
9'9" '5

l
' *‘ V
n’ .{I

‘
. 1"“ '5
n‘: ‘
'31 3% V)
.'

 

’1'

w

‘3 “v,
,\'V.r¢~
, 062v
.." )

.1 v' >

at"

.Ifi.

I v
a

Minx . . .- '
an "

;‘
11‘
.0

o
‘n'.’

fit:
A“ "

 

"LL;
‘ “V o

vT.."

Il-‘l‘
'I

 

d“ :
”‘5

L
f

,1

r‘ » ‘99 ' 1)‘ I‘
11"”: I“Wf_\w~y"

ll l; mu; Will l (I! Ill fill ll will [all I

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

THE RELATIONSHIP OF TEACHER ALIENATION TO SCHOOL
WORKPLACE CHARACTERISTICS AND CAREER
STAGES OF TEACHERS

presented by
Michael Joseph VaVrus

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Area of Instructional

'DEVETEEWEht and
Technology

W
. Major professor

degree in

 

 

 

OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY
PER ITEM

  
  
  

Return to Book drop to remove
this checkout from your record.

 

 

G) 1979

MICHAEL JOSEPH VAVRUS

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

THE RELATIONSHIP OF TEACHER ALIENATION TO SCHOOL
WORKPLACE CHARACTERISTICS AND CAREER
STAGES OF TEACHERS

By

Michael Joseph Vavrus

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Area of Instructional Development
and Technology

1978

I
1 0“ “ \ L_
I / r
' g I

ABSTRACT

THE RELATIONSHIP OF TEACHER ALIENATION TO SCHOOL
WORKPLACE CHARACTERISTICS AND CAREER
STAGES OF TEACHERS

By

Michael Joseph Vavrus

The purpose of this study was to examine teacher alienation
as it relates to public school workplace variables. The difference
among career stages of teachers from preservice to field in levels of

alienation was also investigated.

Problem Situation

 

Public schools as workplaces purchase the labor power of
teachers for employment. Having sold their labor power to the
schools, teachers are faced with an employer who places constraints
upon the nature of their work. Managers of schools make numerous
decisions which determine the processes and product of the labor of
teachers. With their labor serving more as a commodity than as a
personally fulfilling activity, teachers may experience alienation
from their work. The notion of alienation provides a theoretical
framework from which to examine the teacher as laborer. Research
upon job satisfaction and morale of teachers has been hindered by a

poor conceptual base and lack of consensus on terminology.

Michael Joseph Vavrus

Results
The factor analysis resulted in a three factor solution:

- self-actualization need satisfaction

° participation need satisfaction

° job involvement

For each of the three alienation factors a significant differ-
ence existed among the four groups. In no cases did the teacher
education students differ significantly between each other nor did the
teacher groups. Differences were consistently found between teacher
education students and teachers:

° teacher education students were significantly less alienated than
the teacher samples regarding the opportunity to experience self-
actualization as a teacher

- preservice teachers who had not student taught were less
alienated than teachers from the opportunity for participation
in the school decision making process

° experienced teachers were more alienated from involvement in
their jobs as teachers than teacher education students antici-
pated in a teaching career.

An F-test indicated that regression analysis by pooling rather
than individual career stage was permissible. For the pooled sample
a significant proportion of the variance for the self-actualization
need satisfaction, participation need satisfaction, and job involvement
factors was accounted for by the workplace characteristics teacher
influence and control, relevant tests of teacher abilities, and social
value of labor. Self-actualization appears to be a more universal

concept than the other two factors. Participation need satisfaction

 

Michael Joseph Vavrus

Methodology

 

Four groups of subjects (N = 275) at various stages in their

teaching career received questionnaires:
- preservice elementary education majors who have not student
taught
° preservice elementary education majors who have completed
student teaching
° first-year teachers at the elementary level
- experienced teachers at the elementary level
The questionnaire was designed to measure two distinct categories of
information, alienation of labor and workplace characteristics. Using
the total sample, a factor analysis was initially conducted on the
twenty-three individual scores comprising alienation.

An analysis of variance with pg§t_hg£_complex comparisons
(Scheffé procedure) among the teacher career stage means on the
factors and individual scores comprising alienation was conducted.
Next, for each career stage the three factors and twenty-three indi-
vidual scores for alienation were regressed on nine workplace charac-
teristic scores. Following this, the sample was pooled into one
regression equation which was compared to the individual career stage
regressions. Findings are based on the self-reported perceptions of
subjects on the present instrument and refer only to relative levels

of alienation among the four groups of subjects.

Michael Joseph Vavrus

was most associated with the influence and control items, whereas
relevant test of teacher abilities items were significant variables for

job involvement.

Implications

 

- Information on organizational milieu of schools and occupational
role of teachers needed in preservice curriculum

° Marx's theory of alienation appropriate for examining educational
work settings

- Taxonomy needed for categorizing school management systems along

democratic-despotic continuum

To my Mother and Father
who throughout their lives
have given generously of themselves

to their family, friends, and community.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Special appreciation is extended to

Dr. Kent Gustafson who as chairperson kept me on course and served
in making the dissertation a constructive learning experience;

Drs. Byron Brown, Robert Floden, and Donna Wanous who as patient
mentors assisted me through many trying moments;

Drs. William Faunce and Larry Lezotte for their encouraging support
in the embryonic stage of this research endeavor;

Bill Metheny, Teri Kuhs, Stephany Tornatzky, and Sue Wildfong
who as fellow Research Interns for the Institute for Research
on Teaching kept my morale up through "brainstorming" and
intellectual support;

Drs. Robert Wilson, Curt Smitch, and Tim Little and their staffs
for contacting teacher education students;

The Alumni Office and Placement Bureau for identifying education
graduates;

The teacher education students and teachers who participated in
this study;

Dr. Joe Byers, Dave Solomon, and Steve Gitterman of the Office of
Research Consultation for their assistance in computer

interactions;

iii

The National Institute of Education-sponsored Institute for
Research on Teaching for financial assistance;

Jessica and my friends associated with the Magic Bus for helping
me maintain a balance within my life; and

Marcia Macomber who as my best friend and companion shared both

my rough waves and calm seas.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .
Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM.

Introduction and Purpose.

The Problem Situation.

Theoretical Framework. . . .
Research Questions and General Hypotheses .
Delimitations of this Research.

11. REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH.

Introduction. .
Alienation and Work: Overview .
Teacher Alienation. .
Job Satisfaction: Overview .
Teacher Job Satisfaction.
Teacher Morale .

Summary

III. METHODOLOGY.

Sample.
Questionnaire Description

Measures of Alienation of Labor.
Measures of Workplace Characteristics.

Questionnaire Pilot
Analysis Procedures

Introduction .
Factor Analysis .

Analysis of Variance with Post Hoc Comparisons among

Career Stage Means of Alienation. .
Multiple Regression Analysis of Factors Comprising
Alienation on Workplace Characteristics .

Page

ix

Chapter

Multiple Regression Analysis of Individual Scores
Comprising Alienation on Workplace Character-
istics as Independent Variables. .

Pooled Multiple Regression Compared to Individual
Career Stage Regressions . . .

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.

Overview of Sample and Questionnaire
Factor Analysis . .

Results
Discussion

Analysis of Variance with Post Hoc Comparisons among
Career Stage Means on Alienation Factors

Results
Discussion

Analysis of Variance with Post Hoc Comparisons among
Career Stage Means on Individual Alienation
Scores. . .

 

Results
Discussion

Multiple Regression Analysis of Alienation Factors
on Workplace Characteristics .

Results

Pooled Multiple Regression Compared to Individual
Career Stage Regressions. . . .

Results
Discussion

Comparison of Four Career Stage Regressions to
Pooled Regression of Individual Alienation
Scores on Workplace Characteristics .

Results
Discussion

vi

Page

69
69
7T

7T
72

76
77
78

83
85

88
88
95
99
101

104

105
l09

l13

Il3
ll8

Chapter
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .

Introduction and Purpose .
The Problem Situation .

Theoretical Framework

Review of Related Literature.
Methodology

Sample .
Questionnaire Description .
Analysis Procedures .

Results and Discussion.

Factor Analysis: Results and Discussion

Analysis of Variance with Post Hoc Comparisons among
Career Stage Means on Alienation Factors: Results
and Discussion .

 

Analysis of Variance with Post Loc Comparisons among .
Career Stage Means on Individual Alienation Scores:

Results and Discussion .
Multiple Regression Analysis of Alienation Factors
on Workplace Characteristics: Results and
Discussion
Multiple Regression Analysis of Individual
Alienation Scores on Workplace Character-
istics: Results and Discussion.
Conclusions
Recommendations
BIBLIOGRAPHY .
APPENDICES
Appendix
A. Questionnaire for First-Year and Experienced Teachers .
B. Questionnaire for Teacher Education Students .
C. Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Alienation

Factors with Teacher Career Stages as Independent
Variables . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

Page
119

119
121

123

126
127

127
128
I31

I32
I32

133

I36

141

146
I48
152

156

163
172

181

Appendix Page
D. Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Individual
Alienation Scores with Teacher Career Stages as

Independent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

E. Multiple Regression Analysis Results. . . . . . . . 207

viii

.h

#4300000.)

LIST OF TABLES

Demographic Data on Sample .
Description of Questionnaire Items

Questionnaire Item Coding for Dependent Variables

Questionnaire Item Coding for Independent Variables.

Varimax Orthogonal Three Factor Matrix .
Questionnaire Item Coding for Dependent Variables

Factor Analysis Eigenvalues and Percent of Variance
Explained on Twenty-three Alienation Scores.

Varmiax Orthogonal Three Factor Matrix .

Subsets in Which Teacher Career Stage Means for
Alienation Factors Differ Significantly under
Scheffé Post Hg£_Procedure . . .

Subsets in Which Teacher Career Stage Means for
Individual Alienation Scores Differ Significantly
under Scheffé Post Hg§_Procedure . . .

Questionnaire Item Coding for Independent Variables.

Significant Multiple Regressions of Alienation
Factors (X33, X34, X35) on Workplace Character-
istic Scores (X24....,X32) by Teacher Career
Stages . . . . . . . . . . . .

Significant Multiple Correlations of Individual
Alienation Scores (X1,...,X 3) and Alienation
Factors (X33. X34. X35) on Eorkplace Character-
istics (X24,...,X32) for Pooled Sanple

Significant Multiple Regressions of Individual
Alienation Scores (X1....,X2 ) on Workplace
Characteristics (X24,...,X32I by Teacher
Career Stages. . . . . . . .

ix

Page

45
50
54
58
62
73

75
79

84

89
100

102

106

114

Table
C-1

C-3

D-1

D-2

D-3

D-5

D-6

0-8

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Self-
actualization Need Satisfaction Factor, X33, with
Teacher Career Stages as Independent Variables .

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participa-
tion Need Satisfaction Factor, X34, with Teacher
Career Stages as Independent Variables.

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Job
Involvement Factor, X3 , with Teacher Career
Stages as Independent ariables .

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Self-
fulfillment Score, X], with Teacher Career
Stages as Independent Variables .

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Independence
Score,X , with Teacher Career Stages as Indepen-
dent VarIables. . . . .

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Accomplish-
ment Score, X3, with Teacher Career Stages as
Independent Variables

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Growth
Score, X4, with Teacher Career Stages as Indepen-
dent Variables. .

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participa-
tion in Determining Teaching Assignment Score, X5,
with Teacher Career Stages as Independent
Variables . . . . .

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participa-
tion in Evaluating Own Work (C- A) Score, with
Teacher Career Stages as Independent Variagles

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participa-
tion in Evaluating Own Work (B-A) Score, X , with
Teacher Career Stages as Independent Varia les .

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participa-
tion in Disciplinary Policies (C- A) Score, X3,
with Teacher Career Stages as Independent
Variables . . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participa—
tion in Disciplinary Policies (B-A) Score, X9.
with Teacher Career Stages as Independent
Variables . . . . .

Page

181

182

183

I84

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

Table

D-10

D-12

D-13

D-16

D-18

D-19

D-20

D-21

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation
on Text Book Selection (C-A) Score, X10, with
Teacher Career Stages as Independent Variables .

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation
in Text Book Selection (B-A) Score, X1], with
Teacher Career Stages as Independent Variables .

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation
in Standardized Test Selection (C-A) Score, X12,
with Teacher Career Stages as Independent
Variables . . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation
in Standardized Test Selection (B-A) Score, X13,
with Teacher Career Stages as Independent
Variables . . . .

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation
in Budget Determination (C-A) Score, X14. with
Teacher Career Stages as Independent Variables .

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation
in Budget Determination (B-A) Score, X15, with
Teacher Career Stages as Independent Variables .

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation
in Hiring New Administrators (C-A) Score, X 6’ with
Teacher Career Stages as Independent Variab es .

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation
in Hiring New Administrators (B-A) Score, X17, with
Teacher Career Stages as Independent Variables .

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation
in Curriculum Development (C-A) Score, X18, with
Teacher Career Stages as Independent Variables .

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation
in Curriculum Development (B-A) Score, X 9, with
Teacher Career Stages as Independent Variables .

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Personally
Involved in Job Score, X20, with Teacher Career
Stages as Independent Variables .

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Important

Involvement in Job Score, X21, with Teacher
Career Stages as Independent Variables.

xi

Page

193

I94

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

Table
D-22

D-23

E-I

E-2

E-3

5-4

E-5

E-6

E-7

E-8

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Satisfaction
from Job Score, X22, with Teacher Career Stages as
Independent Variables .

Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Live, Eat,
and Breathe Job Score, X2 , with Teacher Career
Stages as Independent Var1ables.

Multiple Regression Analysis of Alienation Scores
on Workplace Characteristics for Teacher Education
Students Who Have Not Student Taught .

Multiple Regression Analysis of Alienation Scores
on Workplace Characteristics for Teacher Education
Students Who Have Completed Student Teaching

Multiple Regression Analysis of Alienation Scores
on Workplace Characteristics for First-Year
Teachers . . . . . . . . .

Multiple Regression Analysis of Alienation Scores
on Workplace Characteristics for Experienced
Teachers

Pooled Multiple Regression Analysis of Alienation
Scores on Workplace Characteristics and Career
Stages . . . . . .

Means and Standard Deviations of Dependent
Regression Variables . .

Means and Standard Deviations of Independent
Regression Variables

Statistical Comparison of Four Individual Regres-
sions to Pooled Regression . . .

xii

Page

205

206

210

212

214

216

218

220

221

222

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction and Purpose

 

Public schools as workplaces purchase the labor power1 of
teachers for employment. Having sold their labor power to the
schools, teachers are faced with an employer who places constraints
upon the nature of their work. Managers of schools make numerous
decisions which determine the processes and product of the labor of
teachers. Lack of participation in such administrative decisions by
teachers may have a negative effect upon their mental state. With
their labor serving more as a commodity than as a personally ful-

filling activity, teachers may experience alienation from their work.

 

1Marx conceived of "labor power" as a commodity which workers
exchange for money or a price. The selling of labor power is a pre-
cursor of alienated labor. Marx states that "the exercise of labour
power, labour, is the worker's own life-activity, the manifestation of
his own life. And this life-activity_he sells to another person in
order to secure the necessary means of subsistence. Thus his life-
activity is for him only a means to enable him to exist. He works
in order to live. He does not even reckon labour as part of his life,
it is rather a sacrifice of his life. It is a commodity which he has
made over to another. Hence, also the product of his activity is not
the object of his activity. . . . What he produces for himself is
wag s . . ." Karl Marx, "Wage Labour and Capital," in The Marx-Engels
Reader, ed. Robert C. Tucker (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1973),
pp. I69-7l.

 

 

 

Recent research on teaching has considered the way in which
teachers operate as decision makers within their own classrooms.2 The
Options of teachers as decision makers in classrooms may, however, be
severely limited by institutional constraints placed upon their work.
Furthermore, the message to teachers from teacher educators, school
administrators, and the public regarding the actual purpose and social
value of the product of the labor of teachers is often ambiguous
and/or contradictory. Under working conditions which may diminish
the social value of their labor and inhibit their control, teachers
may find their work alienating. Teachers may, therefore, experience
their labor as not belonging to them.

This study focuses upon teacher alienation of labor as it
relates to such public school workplace characteristics as: (1) work
being a relevant test of teacher abilities, (2) the social value of
teacher labor, and (3) teacher influence and control. Alienation of
labor is inversely related to high degrees of need satisfaction
attainment and job involvement by teachers. The difference among
career stages of teachers from pre-service to field in levels of

alienation is also investigated.

 

2Richard J. Shavelson, "Teachers' Decision Making," in Ihg_
Psychology of Teaching Methods: The Seventy-fifth Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, ed. N. L. Gage (Chicago:
university of Chicago Press, 1976), pp. 372-414; Lee S. Shulman,
"Teaching as Clinical Infbrmation Processing," in National Conference
on Studies in Teaching, ed. N. L. Gage (Washington, D.C.: United
States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1975).

The Problem Situation

 

John Dewey characterized a despotically governed society as
having people "engaged in activity which is socially serviceable, but
whose service they do not understand and have no personal interest
in."3 In contrast, a democratic polity emphasizes egalitarianism
manifested in participatory decision making. Dewey explained,

a society which makes provision for participation in its good
of all its members on equal terms and which secures flexible
readjustment of its institutions through interaction of the
different forms of associated life is in so far democratic.
Such a society must have a type of education which gives
individuals a personal interest in social relationship and
control . . .4
Furthermore, Morgart, Mihalik, and Martin contend that "there can be
no political democracy without genuine democratization of the work-
place as well.“5

The governing of schools as workplaces raises the issue of the
democratic involvement of teachers in the school decision making
process. During their pre-service training teachers may be antici-
pating careers as professionals with a substantial degree of control

over their labor. Hoy explains that students in teacher education

 

3John Dewey, Democracy and Education (New York: Macmillan Co.,
1920). p. 98.

4Ibid., p. 115.

5Robert A. Morgart, Gregory Mihalik, and Dan T. Martin,

”Alienation in and Educational Content: The American Teacher in the
Seventies," paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educa-
tional Research Association, Chicago, April 1974, p. 3.

programs are socialized into “ideal images and practices."6 But upon
beginning work as a teacher, the teacher new to the occupation "may
suddenly be confronted with a set of organizational norms and values

“7 Fuller and

at variance with those acquired in formal preparation.
Brown add in their essay, "Becoming a Teacher," that "society's formal
goals for teachers are high but somewhat vague. Standards are, in
fact, so variable that an important skill for the teacher new to a
community is that of sensing its values and modifying one's teaching

8

accordingly.” It may well be that for beginning teachers there

arises a dissonance between their anticipated ideal of some form of
participatory democracy and the Operating reality of schools
despotically organized.

Glattorn observes that ”most conventional public schools are

9

Operated on principles of benign despotism." To attain the ideal of

democracy, teachers who exhibit the positive abilities selected by

Cogan such as "creative, democratic, integrative, learner-centered"10

 

6Wayne K. Hoy, "The Influence of Experience on the Beginning
Teacher," The School Review 76 (September 1968):315.

71am.

8Frances F. Fuller and Oliver Brown, "Becoming a Teacher,"
in Teacher Education: The Seventy-fourth Yearbook of the National
Society fOr the Study of Education, edl Kevin Ryan (Chicago: The
National Society for the Study Of Education, 1975), p. 31.

98113” Glatthorn, "Decision Making in Alternative Schools,"
NASSP Bulletin 57 (September 1973):llO.

 

10Morris L. Cogan, "Current Issues in the Education of
Teacher," in Teacher Education: The Seventy-fourth Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, ed. Kevin Ryan (Chicago:
TheTNational‘SOciety fOr the Study of Education, 1975), p. 229.

would need to be sought out for public schools in the United States.

But, if the workplace is organized despotically, it may be unreasonable

to expect teachers to manifest democratic behavior in the classroom.
Having control over the decisions affecting one's occupation

is generally the domain of those who claim professional status. In

his analysis Of teachers Lortie Observes that teaching is not a profes-

sion in the usual sense since teachers "are officially employees

without powers of governance. Public schools . . . have no legally-

based 'senates' or similar arrangements for collective participation

by faculty members in the overall operation of the organization."11

In research on "Teacher Planning for Instruction," J. Smith supports

this notion by noting that generally "teachers do not control long-

range planning decisions."]2 As a result, "for the individual

teacher, the formal curriculum is more a constraint than an area of

decision-making."]3
The existence Of this constraint may have serious implications

for the implementation of improved instructional programs and tech-

niques in public school classrooms. Wolcott notes,

New procedures introduced in the educator subculture are
invariably imposed on teachers rather than by_teachers. . . .

In the technocrats'TView, teachers are noted for their con-
servatism and resistance to change. In the teachers' view,

 

1lDan C. Lortie, "The Balance of Control and Autonomy in
Elementary School Teaching," in The Semi-Professions and Their Organi-
zations: Teachers, Nurses, Social Workers, edl Amitai Etzioni (New
York: The Free Press, 1969), pp. 4, 19.

12Jeffrey K. Smith, "Teacher Planning for Instruction,"
Rutgers University, Studies Of Educative Processes, Report No. 12,
October 1977, p. 7.

 

131bid., p. 11.

 

the constant turmoil of innovation more often benefits the

technocrats than the teachers, although it is the teachers

who usually bear the burden of innovation.14
Furthermore, Lortie states that "the fragile nature of the teacher’s
autonomy is an autonomy which . . . possesses not legitimation in the
Official statement of authority distribution in American public

schools. Such working conditions are the same ones which Dewey

assailed for failing to account for "human factors and relationships"
by means of "a corresponding distortion of emotional life."16
Such a “distortion of emotional life" within the public school
workplace may be expected to have detrimental psychological effects
upon teachers. Morgart, Mihalik, and Martin explain that
. if teachers' needs remain essentially peripheral in the
decision-making process determining the nature of their work
roles, then it becomes easier to understand why teachers like
other workers might experience their work activities as
alienating rather than as a means of developing their mental
and emotional growth.17
The institutional arrangements of schools which may negatively affect
both the autonomy and mental state of teachers appears also to be a
major factor in teachers' concerns about their jobs. Corwin states,
“There is reason to believe that a desire for more influence over

policy and disagreement with central level decision making and

 

14Harry F. Wolcott, Teacher versus Technocrat: An Educational
Innovation in Anthropological Perspective (Eugene, Oregon: University
Of Oregon Press, 1977), pp. 195, 2121

 

 

15Lortie, "Autonomy in Elementary School Teaching," p. 41.

‘6Dewey, Democracy and Education, p. 99.

 

17Morgart et a1., "The American Teacher in the Seventies,"

district goals account for much of the teacher militancy and dissatis-
faction."18
The negative consequences of minimal participation in the

school policy determination process may have a spillover effect to not
only the mental state of teachers but to their pupils as well. Stopsky
observes.

The failure Of school administrators to engage in joint manage-

ment of schools has created an historically determined mentality

of subservience among teachers. The demand for Obedience on

high has transferred into attitudes of subservience and domina-

tion between teachers and students.19
Some teacher educators express concern over teachers who are unclear
about the social and moral role they are to fulfill as teachers.
Teachers may be technically proficient in teaching students cognitive
skills, yet use classroom management procedures which are inclined
toward despotism. Travers and Dillion state, "The kind Of training
provided by procedures in which all major decisions lie outside the
learner hardly seem appropriate for developing young people to live,

"20

work, and contribute to a democratic society. Hoy's research

indicates that beginning teachers reshape their "ideology" Of pupil

 

18Ronald G. Corwin, "The New Teaching Profession," in Teacher
Education: The Seventy-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for
the Study of Education, ed. Kevin Ryan (Chicago: The National Society
for the Study of Education, 1975), p. 238.

 

19Fred Stopsky, "The School as a Workplace: Extendin
Democracy to Schools," International Review Of Education 21 I1975):502.

 

20Robert M. W. Travers and Jacqueline Dillion, The Making of a
Teacher: A Plan for Professional Self-Development (New York: MacmilIan
Publishing Co., Inc., 1975), p. 112.

 

control from a relatively humanistic philosophy to a more custodial
21
one.
In the process Of becoming a teacher, teachers may move from
an idealized conception Of the schools as a workplace to eventually
adjusting to their situation. But, Lortie Observes, "Few beginning

teachers project long futures in the classroom . . .“22

To comprehend
more fully the effect upon the mental state of teachers as laborers

in public schools, it may be constructive, as Lortie suggests, to
pursue research "on the issue Of power and teachers" and, more
specifically, on the "recurrent patterns” of teacher job attitudes or
"psychic rewards.”23 Lortie defines psychic rewards as consisting
"entirely of subjective valuations made in the course Of work
engagement . . . and constrained by the nature of the occupation and

its tasks . . ."24

If, as Lortie contends, it is psychic rewards that
the structure Of teaching tends to emphasize, it will be constructive
to analyze the way in which the school workplace affects the distribu-
tion of these rewards and the subsequent effect this has upon the

psychological condition of teachers as laborers.

 

2lHoy, "Influence of Experience on Beginning Teacher," p. 319.

22Dan C. Lortie, Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1975), pp. 98—99.

231b1d.. pp. 101-2.

241bid.

Theoretical Framework

 

A starting point for understanding this problem is to examine
the perspective of teachers regarding their involvement and control
Of the schooling production process and the subsequent effect upon

their mental state. In Teacher as Stranger Greene states,

 

The teacher is frequently addressed as if he had no life of his
own, no body, and no inwardness. Lecturers seem to presuppose
a "man within man” when they describe a good teacher as
infinitely controlled and accommodating, technically efficient,
impervious to moods. They are likely to define him by the role
he is expected to play in a classroom, with all his loose ends
gathered up and all his doubts resolved. The numerous reali-
ties in which he exists as a living person are overlooked; so
are the many ways in which he expresses his private self in
language, the horizons he perceives, the perspectives through
which he looks on the world . . .

Moreover, the teacher's feeling Of responsibility may well be
eroded by an implicit demand that he be the agent Of an
externally defined purpose, which he can only understand as a
slogan or still another expression Of prevailing piety.25

A conceptual framework for analyzing the potentially adverse
psychological effect of a career in teaching is through an examination
of teachers as workers in the schooling production process. Popkewitz
and Wehlage explain that using the concept of work allows there to be

. . focus not only upon behavior in institutional life but
also on the meanings and interpretations actors give to their
educational activity. . . . Therefore, to examine schooling
through the concept of work is to penetrate the relationship

between school behaviors and the assumptions, values purposes,
and sense of competency teachers and students hold.26

 

25Maxine Greene, Teacher as Stranger: Educational Philosophy
for the Modern Age (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co.,
Inc., 1973). PP. 269-70.

 

26Thomas S. Popkewitz and Gary Wehlage, "Schooling as Work: An
Approach to Research and Evaluation," Teachers College Record 79
(September 1977):70-71.

10

Furthermore, according to Dreeban, conceptualizing the school as a
workplace helps ”to show that there are concepts and perspectives

derived from other areas of the world Of work that, when applied to

the SChOOIS. make them more understandable.“27

The notion Of alienation, however, is concerned with the
intrinsic nature of work and provides a theoretical framework from
which to examine the teacher as laborer. In a review Of the develop—
ment of the concept Of alienation since the mid-nineteenth century,

Pacheco Observed

. . the gradual move away from using the concept as a tool

for a critical theory Of society. . . . What began with Marx

as an explicitly normative and value-laden notion of aliena-
tion as a tool with which to critically examine objective

social conditions and social structure gradually evolves into

a concept implicitly used to defend a given social structure--
through an implicit assumption of what is normal and the
development Of the notion of alienated individuals as deviant.28

The concept Of alienation as used in this present study will need to
conform to the one intended by Marx.

Alienation represents a person's separation from oneself and
one's work. There are four aSpects which constitute the whole Of

alienating labor:

1. The relation of the worker to the product of labour as an
alien object exercising power over him . . .

v V‘. v?—

27Robert Dreeban, "The School as a Workplace,' in Second
Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. Robert M. W. Travers (Chicago:
Rand'McNally and'Co., 1973), p. 450.

28Arthur Joseph Pacheco, "The Concept of Alienation: From
Critical Theory to Social Deviance," Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford
University, 1976, Dissertation Abstracts International 36 (June
l976):7925-A.

11

2. The relation of labour to the act Of production within the
labour process. The relation is the rélations of the
worker to his own activity as an alien activity not belong-
ing to him. . . . Estranged labour turns thus:

 

3. Man's species being, both nature and his spiritual species
property, into a being alien to him, into a means to his
individual existence . . .

 

4. The estrangement of man from msp,29

 

In contemporary Observations Maslow concedes that "the relationship
between self-esteem and work is closer than I had thought. Especially
healthy and stable self-esteem (the feeling of worth, pride, influence,
importance, etc.) rests on good, worthy work to be introjected,

30

thereby becoming part of the self." Fromm reports that "experience

has shown . . . that if the workers can be truly active, responsible,
and knowledgeable in their work role, the formerly uninterested ones
change considerably and show a remarkable degree of inventiveness,
activity, and satisfaction."31
The measure of dealienation for Marx is the degree to which

individuals approach or attain "humanism."32 He defined this state as

 

29Karl Marx, "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,"
in The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Robert C. Tucker (New York: W. W.
Norton & Co., Inc., 1972), pp. 60-63.

30Abraham H. Maslow, Eupsychian Management (Homewood, Illinois;
Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1965), pp. 12-13.

 

3IErich Fromm, To Have or To Be (New York: Harper & Row, 1976),

 

p. 101.

32"Humanism" was used by Marx synonymously with "communism."
Given the misuse Of the term "communism" world-wide by various politi-
cal systems and movements, the term "humanism" is preferred in this
context.

12

the "positive transcendence of . . . human self-estrangement . . .;

the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human)

"33

being . . . There is, then, a fundamental condition of humanism

to be realized. Meadows explains that from this perspective
dealienation

. lies in the recovery of control and unity of man with the
Objectifications of his own action: Redemptive historically
consist in the recovery Of the humanity Of man-~first in his
seeing what has been done to him--and then in the dealienating
actiog4of establishing the new institutions of human restora-
tion.

In this same humanistic tradition Maslow states, "Salvation Is a
35

 

BnyrOduct of Self-Actualizing_Work and Self-Actualizing Duty."

 

Attempts to Operationalize alienation to research purposes
have raised some empirical problems. Bryce-Laporte and Thomas state,

Despite its conceptual problems, alienation persists as a
phenomenon; but looking at it from a phenomenological rather
than conceptual perspective, alienation again raises a set
Of troublesome questions. . . . Does the nature, essence or
even form of alienation differ for specific periods, soci-
eties, or persons?36

The response to the question posed by Bryce-Laporte and Thomas has

two dimensions. On the one hand, until a total condition Of "humanism"

 

33Marx, "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1884," p. 70.

34Paul Meadows, “Thematic Strategies and Alienation Theory,"
in Alienation in Contemporary Society: A Multidisciplinary Examination,
eds. Roy S. Bryce- Laporte and Claudewell Thomas (New’York: Praeger
Publishers, 1976),p p. 12

35Maslow, Egpsychian Management, p. 6.

36Roy S. Bryce-Laporte and Claudewell S. Thomas, eds.,
"Introduction," Alienation in Contemporary Society: A Multidisciplinary
Examination (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1976), pp. xix-xx.

13

is arrived at, alienation will affect an entire society. Assuming,
however, that different segments will vary in degree of alienation,

it is reasonable to examine specific institutions and groups of people
and their respective degrees of alienation. Ollman clarifies this
point by explaining that all individuals "are considered alienated in
the way and to the degree that their members fall short of the

[humanistic] ideal. . . . The fonns of alienation differ for each

class because their position and style Of life differ . . ."37

To determine the degree Of alienation of workers, job satis-
faction is generally an inappropriate measure for alienation of labor.
Researchers approaching the topic from that perspective Often

. are thus concerned less with the nature of the work per-
formed than with considerations pertaining to professional
status. "Alienation from work" here is concerned in terms Of
dissatisfaction with the limitations associated with the
occupation of one's position in the hierarchy of employment.38

Faunce, therefore, prefers to focus upon the "quality Of work experi-
ence" rather than job satisfaction:

Quality of work experience, as it is used here, means something
more than simple level of job satisfaction. It is difficult

to make sense of the extensive literature on job satisfaction
without adding information regarding variation in the perceived
importance Of work since the antecedents and consequences Of
satisfaction with an important activity are clearly different
from the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction with an
unimportant activity.39

37Bertell Ollman, Alienation: Marx's Conception Of Man in
Capitalist Society, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1976), p. 132.

38Richard Schacht, Alienation (Garden City, New York: Double-
day & Co., Inc., 1970), p. 169.

39William A. Faunce, "Self Investment in the Occupational
llole," paper presented at meetings of the Southern Sociological
Society, New Orleans, April 6, 1972, p. 2.

l4

Along these lines Maslow adds,

The only happy people I know are the ones who are working well
at something they consider important. . . . This was the
universal truth for all my self-actualizing subjects. They
were metamotivated by metaneeds expressed in their devotion
to, dedication to, and identification with some great and
important job.40

More specifically. for Faunce alienation of labor can be seen
through "a withdrawal of self investment" from an occupational role.41
He states,

"Quality of work" is clearly a normative concept and is

usually defined in terms of extent of autonomy, opportunity

for creativity, and recognition for achievement on the job.

There is at least inferential evidence, however, that people

do not place high value upon these attributes of a job in

the absence of self investment in it.42
Lawler and Hall found a positive relationship existed between the need
satisfaction and job involvement levels of workers and the job design
characteristics Of worker influence and control, a relevant test Of
worker abilities, and feedback to workers upon the social value of

43 If teachers are alienated and have divested themselves

their work.
from their work, the explanation may be that from the perspective of
teachers there may be an inadequate Opportunity within their workplace

to experience such need satisfaction elements as autonomy, creativity,

 

 

40Maslow,§ppsychian Management, p. 6.

4lFaunce, "Self Investment in the Occupational Role," p. 18.
421bid.. pp. 18-19.

43

Edward E. Lawler III and Douglas T. Hall, "Relationship of
Job Characteristics to Job Involvement, Satisfaction, and Intrinsic
Motivation," Jgurnal of Applied Psychology 54:305-12.

 

15

and recognition for achievement. Maslow in this regard sees ”real”
achievement as a basis for self-esteem. He explains, "Real achievement
means inevitably a worthy and virtuous task. TO do some idiotic job

44 A sense of withdrawal

very well is certainly pp: real achievement."
of self investment from an occupation relates directly back to the
Marxian notion of being estranged from both the product and act of the
labor process. Both Marxian humanism and a high self investment in
one's work imply a positive, self actualizing unity between the mental
state and the labor of an individual.

Research leading to a comprehensive understanding of teachers
in the work world is limited. As of 1973 Dreeban reports that ”for
the most part, the work of teachers has remained unconceptualized as
have those aspects of the environment that may in fact be related to

45 On this point Morgart, Mihalik, and

the character of the work."
Martin add, "It is clear that work alienation, especially as it may be
a growing phenomenon for the modern public school teacher, is a complex
and as yet relatively unanalyzed motif in social/administrative

science of education."46

Research Questions and General Hypotheses
The problem situation of potentially alienated teachers and a
theory of alienation Of labor suggests the following research ques-

tions and general hypotheses:

‘—

44Maslow, Eupsychian Management, p. 13.

45Dreeban, “School as a Workplace,“ p. 454.

46Morgart et al., "The American Teacher in the Seventies."

p. 41.

16

Is there a significant difference in levels of alienation
(need satisfaction and job involvement) for (1) students in
teacher education who have not student taught, (2) students
in teacher education who have completed student teaching,

(3) first-year teachers, and (4) experienced teachers?

The rank order of the group means for the alienation of labor
variables (as measured by need satisfaction and job involve-
ment) from least to greatest amount Of alienation will be as
follows: (1) students in teacher education who have not student
taught, (2) students in teacher education who have completed
student teaching, (3) first-year teachers, and (4) experienced

teachers.

The following research question and additional hypothesis are also

generated:

2.

What is the relationship between teacher alienation (need
satisfaction and job involvement) and workplace characteris-
tics (influence and control, relevant test Of abilities,

and social value of labor) of public schools as perceived by

teachers?

For each of four career stages of a teacher (students in
teacher education who have not student taught, students in
teacher education who have completed student teaching, first-
year teachers, and experienced teachers), a significant
proportion Of the variance of alienation of labor (as measured

by need satisfaction and job involvement) will be explained

17

by workplace characteristics (as measured by teacher
influence and control, a relevant test of teacher abilities,

and the social value of teacher labor).

Oslimitations of this Research

 

The focus of this study is upon the perspective of peOple
planning or actively engaged in teaching careers. This study does not
attempt to be a comprehensive statement upon all variables which could
be included in research upon teacher alienation of labor. For example,
the management systems of schools as an independent variable affecting
teacher alienation will not be examined. This research effort hopes
to shed some light upon the dynamic of teacher alienation and to serve
as a foundation for future research in this field. Alienation Of labor
in education is a complex subject which involves all affected publics,
i.e., students, parents, administrators, board members, state and
federal agencies, and teachers. This study, however, does not attempt
to examine thoroughly the interactions Of those groups and their

subsequent relationship to teacher alienation Of labor.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH

Introduction

 

The review of related research to alienation Of labor in
general and teacher alienation specifically uses as its criterion
alienation theory. Alienation represents a person's separation from
oneself and one's work. There are four aspects which for Marx con-
stituted the whole of alienating labor:

1. The relation of the worker to the ppoduct of labour as an
alien object exercising power over him . . .

 

2. The relation Of labour to the act Ofsproduction within the
labour process. The relation is the relations Of the
worker to his own activity as an alien activity not
belonging to him. . . . Estranged labour turns thus:

 

3. Man's species being, both nature and his spiritual species
property, into a being alien to him, into a means to his
individual existence . . .

4. The estrangement Of man from‘msn.1
Research potentially relevant to understanding the relationship

between teacher alienation and workplace characteristics of the public
schools is investigated. Besides studies attempting explicitly to

analyze alienation, research upon job satisfaction and teacher morale

are also included. The purpose for examining the job satisfaction and

 

1Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts Of 1844,"
pp. 60-63.

18

19

teacher morale literature is to determine the degree of appropriateness

of such research for grasping the nature of teacher alienation.

Alienation and Work: Overview

 

Empirical research on the topic of alienation and work has
generally acknowledged Marx's theory. Studies Of alienation in the
sociological literature have not, however, applied the concept of
alienation in a uniform manner.2 As is discussed in the following
section, research specifically upon the alienation Of teachers from
their work has been sparse.

Closely aligned with Marx's theory of alienation is the con-
ceptualization of work as being the degree to which it is intrinsically
satisfying or rewarding. Miller differentiates between job satisfac-
tion and involvement with the work actually done. He defines
alienation through statements about "the intrinsic pride or meaning
of work."3 This Operationalism is congruent with the "self-estrange-
ment" notion of Seeman's conceptualization of alienation.4

Seeman's 1959 essay, "On the Meaning of Alienation," has
served as a theoretical framework for many researchers examining
alienation Of labor. Powerlessness (an individual's "behavior cannot

determine the occurrence of the outcomes, or reinforcements, he

 

2Schact, Alienation, pp. 168-73.

3George A. Miller, "Professionals in Bureaucracy: Alienation
Among Industrial Scientists and Engineers," American Sociological
Review 32 (October l967):759.

4Melvin Seeman, "On the Meaning of Alienation," American
Sociolggical Review 24 (December l959):790.

 

20

seeks"), meaningless ("individual is unclear as to what he ought to
believe”), normlessness ("high expectancy that socially unapproved
behavior are required to achieve given goals"), and isolation (indi-
vidual assigns "low reward value to goals or beliefs that are typically
highly valued in the given society") in addition to self-estrangement
("the inability of the individual to find 'self—rewarding' or
'intrinsically meaningful activity' . . . that engage him“)5 are the
components of Seeman's definition of alienation. With the exception
of self-estrangement, these factors part from the Marxian notion of
alienation. The focus is not upon the social nature of the production
process. This departure is acknowledged by Seeman in his discussion
of powerlessness.6 TO clarify this point, Schacht explains, "It is
true that Marx terms the economic forces which dominate the individual
'alien' to him; but he has in mind less the powerlessness of the
individual in relation to him than the fact that they are completely
indifferent to his interests and detrimental to his well-being."7
Lawler and Hall Offer a broad conceptual framework which is
an appropriate means for investigating the relationship between job
attitudes and job design/workplace characteristics factors. The

following is a definition of their terms:

 

51bid.. pp. 784. 786. 788-90.

61bid., p. 784.

7Schacht, Alienation, p. 180.

21

1. "Job Attitudes" include

a. "need satisfaction": the degree to which the higher order
needs of self-actualization, autonomy, and responsibility
are fulfilled.

b. “job involvement": ”The degree to which a person is iden-
tified psychologically with his work, or the importance of
work, or the importance of working in his self-image."

c. "intrinsic motivation": "the degree to which a job holder
is motivated to perform well because of some subjective
rewards or feelings that he expects to receive or experi-
ence as a result of performing well . . .; statements
about the consequences of performance for feelings Of

esteem, growth, and competence . . ."

2. “Job Design"/Workplace characteristics include
a. the degree Of influence and control felt by the job holder

over his/her work.
b. the degree to which the job is perceived as a relevant
test Of the job holder's abilities.
c. the probability that the job holder would receive socially
meaningful feedback about his/her work.8
Through factor analysis Lawler and Hall's research indicates
that need satisfaction, job involvement, and intrinsic motivation are

distinct job attitude categories. All three are positively correlated

 

8Edward E. Lawler III and Douglas T. Hall, "Relationship of Job
Characteristics to Job Involvement, Satisfaction, and Intrinsic Motiva-
tion," Journal Of Applied Psychology_54 (l970):306, 308; T. M. Lodhahl
and M. Kejner, “The Definition and Measurement of Job Involvement,"
Joupnal Of Applied Psychology 46 (1963):26, as cited in Lawler and
Ha , p. 306.

22

with job design when a high degree Of the job attitude factors is
exhibited. Need satisfaction shows the strongest relationship,
followed by job involvement, and with intrinsic motivation demon-
strating the weakest association.9 As defined, need satisfaction and
job involvement can be used as indices of alienation of labor. The
nature of intrinsic motivation is such that it is more a comment about
the value of performing well on some task rather than a statement about
the nature of the labor itself.

Lawler and Hall use a discrepancy index to determine their
measure of need satisfaction. That is, both a preferred and actual
state of affairs is reported by subjects. As March and Simon explain,
“Dissatisfaction arises from a disparity between reality and the ego-
ideal held by the individual."10 In addition to Lawler and Hall's job
involvement factor, their discrepancy or dissatisfaction index for need
satisfaction can serve as an appropriate measure of alienation. In
researching teacher alienation and job satisfaction there are prece-
dents for using a discrepancy measure approach. In 1955 Bidwell used

the ideal-actual dichotomy for testing the concept Of satisfaction

in teaching.H Barakat states, "The greater the discrepancy between

 

9Lawler and Hall, "Relationship of Job Characteristics to Job
Involvement," pp. 310-12.

10James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organizations (New York:
John Wiley and Sons. Inc., 1958), p. 94.

1]Charles E. Bidwell, "The Administrative Role and Satisfaction
in Teaching," The Journal of Educational Sociology 29 (September 1955):
42.

 

23

what is actual and what is ideal, the greater the alienation."]2

Belasco and Alutto define "decisional participation" of teachers as

"the discrepancy between current and preferred levels of participa-

"13

tion. Most recently. MOhr in a research design prepared for the

National Institute of Education advocates a similar approach.14

Teacher Alienation

 

In reviewing the literature related to teacher alienation,
attention is given to those studies that have attempted to capture the
concept of alienation of labor. Specifically sought is research which
contributes to an understanding of the role Of teacher labor within
the schooling production process. Furthermore, it is necessary to
have data on the relationship between the schooling mode Of production
and the level of need satisfaction and job involvement Of teachers.

As Bidwell stated twenty-three years ago in his discussion Of teacher
satisfaction, "One of the chief motivations of individuals in an

organization is the satisfaction Of individual needs."15

 

12Halim Isber Barakat, "Alienation from the School System: Its
Dynamics and Structure" (Bethesda, Maryland: ERIC Document Reproduction
Service, ED 014 815, 1966), p. 16.

13James A. Belasco and Joseph A. Alutto, "Decisional Participa-
tion and Teacher Satisfaction," Educational Administrative Quarterly_8
(Winter l972):44.

14Laurence B. Mohr, "Administrative Structure, Effectiveness,
and Efficiency: A Prospectus for Research in Organizational Aspects of
Education," paper prepared for the National Institute of Education,
n.d., p. 18.

15

 

Bidwell, "Administrative Role and Satisfaction in Teaching."
p. 41.

24

In analyzing the variable Of control over one's work, it is
helpful to conceptualize it in terms of participatory decision as
defined by Dewey. For Dewey,

. a society which makes provision for participation in its
good of all its members on equal terms and which secures flexible
readjustment Of its institutions through interaction of the
different forms of associated life is in so far democratic.

Such a society must have a type of education which gives indi-
viduals a personal interest in social relationship and
control . . .

Corwin suggests that it may be "useful to distinguish between a degree

of power which pennits complete control and relatively minor

"17

jnflpgnpg. Participation in decision making, then, would indicate

some degree Of control. Aiken and Hage suggest as a definition of

participation, "the degree to which staff members participate in

"1 8 Combined

19

setting the goals and policies of the entire organization.

with his meaning of participation is the interpretation by Chung and

20

Ambrosie and Heller that the definition should also reflect the

 

16Dewey, Democragy and Education, p. 115.

 

17Ronald G. Corwin, "The School as an Organization," in IDE.
School in Society: Studies in the Sociology of Education, eds. Sam D.
Sieber and David“EZ Wilder (New YOrk: The Free Press,“1973), p. 185.

 

18Michael Aiken and Jerald Hage, "Organizational Alienation:
A Comparative Analysis," American Sociological Review 31 (August
1966 :498.

ngi-Suck Chung, "Teacher-Centered Management Style of Public
School Principals and Job Satisfaction Of Teachers," paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Minneapolis, March 6, 1970, p. 6.

20Frank Ambrosie and Robert W. Heller, "The Secondary School
Administrator and Perceived Teacher Participation in the Decision—
Making," The Journal of Experimental Education 40 (Summer l972):8.

 

25

extent to which individuals subjectively feel that they are involved
in the decision making process Of their workplace, the school.

In a recent study of education and alienation Blumenkratz and
Tapp state, "The model used to Operationalize alienation is at the

"21 Blumenkratz

crux of the difficulties in research on the concept.
and Tapp's solution, however, is to acknowledge Marx and then depart
from him by adopting Seeman's framework. Research on teacher aliena-
tion has consistently used the Seeman model, both explicitly and
implicitly. For the most part, the measures of alienation used in
these studies fail to tie the subjective feelings of teachers to con-
crete events pertaining to their labor within the school system. This
is the shortcoming of the research by Bush, Hearn, Parker, and, to a
lesser extent, Moeller and Charters.22 Bush used an instrument which

Seeman helped develop, Rotter's Internal versus External Control of

Reinforcement (I-E) Scale.23 Seeman considers Rotter's I-E model to

 

2IDavid Blumenkratz and Jack T. Tapp, "Alienation and Educa-
tion: A Model for Education," The Journal of Educational Research 71
(November/December l977):lO4.

 

22Endilee P. Bush, "Alienation and Self Ideal Discrepancy:
Desegregation Effects in High School Teachers on High School Teacher,"
paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, April 1974; James J. Hearn, "Teachers' Sense of
Alienation with Respect to School System Structure,” Phi Delta Kappan
52 (January l97l):312; James Hill Parker, "The Alienation of Public
School Teachers: A Reference Group Theory Approach." Contemporary
Education 41 (May l970):276-79; Gerald H. Moeller and W. W. Charters,
ilRelation of Bureaucratization to Sense of Power Among Teachers,"
Administrative Science Quarterly 10 (March 1966):444-65.

 

23Julian B. Rotter, "Generalized Expectancies for Internal
versus External Control of Reinforcement," Psychological Monographs
80 (l966):9-10.

26

be closely aligned to his idea of powerlessness and sees this as an
important link between learning theory and sociology.24 In testing
this aspect Of Seeman's model, Bush was unable to comment in any
definitive manner about the relationship between teacher sense of
powerlessness and the organizational structure of the school.25 The
diffuse nature of Seeman's model for analyzing the school as a work-
place as it relates to teacher alienation poses similar problems for

Hearn, Parker, and Moeller and Charters.26

Besides implicitly using
Seeman's factors, Parker also tries to define and explain alienation
along the social status lines Of the Aiken and Hage (see following
section).27
In his doctoral dissertation Barakat used Seeman's model while
adding the caveat that alienation must relate "to the social and

normative structure Of the social system."28

Through his questionnaire
to 234 teachers he took into account both the desired level of

participation by teachers in determining overall educational policy

 

24Seeman, "0n the Meaning of Alienation," p. 785.

25Bush, "Alienation and Self Ideal Discrepancy," p. 3.

26Hearn, "Teachers' Sense of Alienation," p. 312; Parker,
"Alienation of Public School Teachers," pp. 26-27; Moeller and
Charters, "Relation of Bureaucratization to Sense of Power Among
Teachers,“ pp. 456-65.

27Parker, "Alienation of Public School Teachers,” pp. 27-29;
Aiken and Hage, "Organizational Alienation," p. 497.

28Barakat, "Alienation from the School System," p. 14.

27

and their reported actual participation. His research found an inverse
relationship between (a) a high degree of ideal and current participa-
tion in decision making and (b) teacher alienation from the school
system. Barakat also reports that non-adopters 0f curricular innova—

29 On a

tions are the most highly alienated group Of teachers.
theoretical level, however, Barakat's study was centered upon teacher
alienation from the social system as opposed to the Marxian notion of
alienation from one's labor. The Marxian theory Of alienation of labor
is primarily concerned with the social nature of the workplace produc-

tion process as it relates to the personal development Of the

individual.

Job Satisfaction: Overview

 

The phrase "job satisfaction" has been used to describe
alienation of labor. Aiken and Hage describe alienation from work as
"a feeling of disappointment with career and professional develop-

"30 They measure alienation by directly asking subjects the

ment . . .
degree to which they feel "satisfied" with their work within the
organizational hierarchy.3] McCrae and Carss' research on teacher
satisfaction used the instrument developed by Aiken and Hage--with the

outcome resulting in a study of teacher status rather than

 

291bid.. pp. 16, 51. 105.

30Aiken and Hage, "Organizational Alienation," p. 497.

3'Ibid., p. 501.

28

alienation.32 Although Aiken and Hage compare their definition Of
alienation positively to Marx, they are making an incorrect assumption
in doing so. As Schacht explains.

The crucial consideration for Marx is that Of whether or not

one's productive activity is spontaneous and self-directed,

and has no end other than the expression and development of

one's personality. But it is quite possible for this not to

be the case, and yet for one to be quite content with one's

job.
Therefore, it is concethally inappropriate to conceive of alienation
Of labor as necessarily synonymous with job dissatisfaction. Never-
theless, certain aspects of definitions and measurement items of job
satisfaction partially fulfill Marx's criteria for alienation of labor
and will be reviewed.

What is called for, then, is data which are informative about
satisfaction in relationship to power over one's work. There are
extensive reviews of the literature on job satisfaction which find a
positive correlation between worker satisfaction and control (or the
desire for control) over his/her labor. In 1958 March and Simon cite
research studies which give as the most frequent reason for job
dissatisfaction "an adverse conception of the independence and control

34

provided by the work situation." Vroom Observed in his 1964

literature review that people reporting job satisfaction tend to "have

 

32McCrae C. Grassie and Brian W. Carss, "School Structure,
Leadership Quality and Teacher Satisfaction," Educational Administra-
tion Quarterly 9 (Winter 1973):18.

33Schacht, Alienation, p. 169.

34March and Simon, Organizations, p. 95.

29

greater opportunity to influence decisions which have effects on
them.“35 Both in a review of previous research and in their own work,
Bachman and Tannenbaum note in 1968 a positive relationship between
worker control and job satisfaction. On their research of clerical
workers they conclude, “Individuals tend to be more satisfied with
those aspects of life or of their jobs over which they have some con-

trol than with those over which they have none."36

Teacher Job Satisfaction

 

As with alienation, job satisfaction is construed in many
ways. In a cross-cultural study of teachers Fraser found defining
job satisfaction a frustrating task since it is used as a "global

and multifaceted concept."37

This is similar to the overly broad
interpretations given to alienation. In the literature on the work
attitudes Of teachers, satisfaction and morale have been operationally
defined in so many diverse ways to render the terms nearly meaningless
for research purposes. In his discussion Of the attempts to portray
alienation as a multidimensional concept, Schacht makes some Observa-

tions which also apply to the way in which job satisfaction and morale

are used all-inclusively:

 

35Victor H. Vroom, Work and Motivation (New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 1964). p. 118.

 

36Jerald G. Bachman and Arnold S. Tannebaum, “The Control-
Satisfaction Relationship Across Varied Areas of Experience;' in
Control in Organizations, ed. Arnold S. Tannebaum (New York: McGraw-
HTll, Inc., 1968), p. 247.

 

37Graeme S. Fraser, "Organizational Properties and Teacher
Reactions," Comparative Education Review 14 (February l970):22.

30

. . the term [alienation] would subsume phenomena which differ
too considerably to be considered members Of a single syndrome.

. Used in this way, it would function neither as a theo-
retical term, but rather as a general, nontheoretical classifi-
catory term .

In examining research on job satisfaction and morale (see following
section) of teachers, the various meanings and operational applications
of the terms will be discussed.

The independent categorization of job satisfiers and dissatis-
fiers by Herzberg, Mausner, and Synderman is often referred to in the
job satisfaction literature. Herzberg and his colleagues conducted
interviews in which they asked subjects to tell about work related
incidents which were satisfying and events which were dissatisfying.
Following this, a content analysis on both categories determined that
the factors in each grouping were independent of one another.39 In
interviews with first year teachers on their "satisfaction from their
teaching and/or school life," Applegate received data which
were not congruent with the factors Herzberg achieved. Most of the
responses were in terms of positive feelings towards their students

rather than comments upon the nature of their jobs.40 Vroom4] and

 

38Schacht, Alienation, p. 183.

39Frederick Herzberg, Bernard Mausner, and Barbara Bloch
Snyderman, The Motivation to Work (New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.).

4OJane H. Applegate et al., "The First Year Teacher Study,”
paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, April 1977, p. 13.

4‘woom, Work and Motivation, pp. 128-29.

 

31

Morrow and Thayer42 cite research which does not support Herzberg's
findings. Using salary increase as an example, Morrow and Thayer note
that workers "cannot know whether they work to minimize dissatisfac-
tions . . . or to maximize satisfactions. . . . Faced with question-
naires exploring their motivation they cannot produce coherent
responses."43

Sergiovanni conducted research on teachers and concluded that
he had replicated Herzberg's findings. In coding the responses,
Sergiovanni used s_p:ip£i as parameters Herzberg's factors for
satisfying and dissatisfying events of teachers. Thus, the elements
abstracted by Herzberg through content analysis had taken on for
Sergiovanni the character of being the essence of satisfaction/dissat-
isfaction for teachers. Only eight of the sixteen factors within the
satisfier and dissatisfier categories provided statistically signifi-
cant differences at the .05 level between experiences eliciting high
and low job feelings. Herzberg's satisfier factor "work itself"
appeared frequently for teachers as a source of both satisfaction and
dissatisfaction.44

Miskel, Glasnapp, and Hatley Observed that as of 1975 studies

upon work attitudes of public school educators were lacking in a

 

42Allyn A. Morrow and Frederick C. Thayer, "Collaborative
Work Settings: New Titles, Old Contradictions," The Journal of Applied

 

Behavioral Science 13 (November 3, l977):522-23.
43

 

Ibid.. p. 523.

44Thomas Sergiovanni, "Factors Which Affect Satisfaction and
Dissatisfaction Of Teachers," The Journal of Educational Administra-
tion 5 (May l967):7l, 74, 77-78.

 

32

theoretical base. In an attempt to overcome this deficiency, they
developed a model which incorporated Herzberg's categorization. Their
decision to do so was based on their interpretation that Sergiovanni
had replicated with teachers Herzberg's study. The evidence from
reviews of research which do not support Herzberg's approach45 make
Miskel, Glasnapp, and Hartley's inclusion of Herzberg's methodology
questionable. Miskel, Glasnapp, and Hartley judged the findings of
their extensive studies as unclear. Of their fifty—six measurement
items, factors inherent to alienation of labor were not included.
Based on this experience, they called for "more sophisticated studies
which would Offer additional development of descriptive, explanative,
and predictive theory."46
In a 1977 report supported by the Finance and Productivity
Group of the National Institute of Education, Murnane and Phillips
conclude that characteristics of the workplace they measured were "not
very important in explaining intrinsic satisfaction with teaching."47
Such results are somewhat predictable since Murnane and Phillips'

research focuses primarily on the physical dimensions of the workplace

rather than those which may be indicators of the impact of the social

 

45Vroom, Work and Motivation. PP. 128-29; Morrow and Thayer,
"Collaborative Work Settings," pp. 522-23.

46Cecil Miskel, Douglas Glasnappa and Richard Hatley, "A Test
of the Inequity Theory for Job Satisfaction Using Educators' Attitudes
Toward Work Motivation and Work Incentives," Educational Administra-
tion Quarterly 11 (Winter 1975):38-54.

47Richard J. Murnane and Barbara R. Phillips, "The School as a
Workplace: What Matters to Teachers?" Mathematical Policy Research and
the University of Pennsylvania, March 1977, p. 20.

 

33

organization of the schooling production process upon teacher need
satisfaction and job involvement levels. For example, omitted from
the instrument were variables pertaining to participation in decisions
affecting the labor of teachers.

Lortie reports in his recent book, Schoolteacher: A Sociologi-

 

cal Study, the results of his 1963 study of a group of Boston area
teachers. One of his findings is that "effort-involvement" of teachers
is not related to a high degree of "satisfaction." That conclusion,
however, contributes little to an understanding of teachers in their
workplace given the manner in which involvement and satisfaction were
defined. Satisfaction is determined by a question about level of total
satisfaction with teaching, one about willingness to teach again, and
an open-ended inquiry on the costs of being in the teaching occupation.
Effort-involvement was based on a combination of the number of hours
given to teaching and time spent in professional organizations.
Involvement in this sense is nearly unrelated to the personal invest-
ment of teachers in their labor at their workplace. For Lortie, then,
involvement is not associated conceptually with the intrinsic nature of
the labor of teachers. Of the structured questions asked teachers,
none provide adequate choices for teachers to state their preferences
regarding participation in administrative decisions affecting the
processes and outcomes of their work.48
Some research upon job satisfaction of teachers, however, is

of assistance in contributing to an understanding of teacher aliena-

tion. In his 1955 doctoral dissertation Sharma asked teachers a

 

48Lortie, Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study, pp. 89-95,
245-46. 248-56.

34

variety of questions pertaining to their involvement in determining
school policy. His results indicated that the satisfaction of teachers
was directly associated "to the extent that they participated in
decision making as individuals or in groups."49 thh a sample of 257
secondary school teachers Ambrosie and Heller found a positive correla-
tion between schools managed by democratic principals and a high level
of involvement perceived by teachers in decision making and goal

50

setting for the school. In a paper based upon his doctoral disser-

tation McClure reports that he sampled teachers working in groups
developing curricular programs. Those teachers developing a "superior"
product felt that they had the "power to influence the shape of the

“51

institution. There appeared to be a "high relationship between

 

institutional_planning and [quality of] instructional activi-
"52

 

 

tips . . .
Belasco and Alutto have conducted what appears to be one of
the most thorough research programs to date on teacher participation
in the school decision making process. Their method was as follows:
Decisional participation was computed from teacher responses
to a series of questions which posed 12 decisional situations

which occur in school systems. Teachers indicated whether they
currently participated and whether they desire to participate

 

49"Who Should Make What Decisions?" Administrators Notebook 3
(April 1955).

50
pp. 9-11.

5Robert M. McClure, “Decision Making at the Institutional
Level," paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educa-
tional Research Association, New Orleans, March 1973, pp. 6-7, 9.

52

 

Ambrosie and Heller, "The Secondary School Administrator,"

Ibid., p. 9.

35

in each decision. An index was derived by summing over the
number of decisions in which each teacher currently participated
and those in which he wished to participate, and the computing
the absolute difference between these two figures. These
absolute differences became the index of decisional discrepancy.
Teachers were then placed in groups characterized by: 1) deci-
sional deprivation (current participation less than preferred);
2) decisional equilibrium (current participation equal to
desired participation); 3) decisional saturation (current
participation greater than desired).53
For purposes of analysis one shortcoming of the presentation of their
data is that it has not been broken down by the twelve decisional
categories. Nevertheless, with aggregated data along the dimension of
decision making, they conclude that "decisional saturation may be the

most satisfying decisional state."54

Using as the unit of analysis
nine different types of British schools. Conway used an adaptation of
Belasco and Alutto's questionnaire. Contrary to most studies of
teachers, Conway found that the teaching staffs within these schools
were generally involved in school decision making at levels they pre-
ferred. Given differentiated teaching staffs, however, those higher
in the school hierarchy perceived themselves as participating more in

decision making than those at lower levels.55 Knoop and O'Rielly

report in their 1975 study of 192 Ontario secondary teachers that

 

53Belasco and Alutto, “Decisional Participation and Teacher
Satisfaction," p. 48.

54Ibid.. p. 52.

55James A. Conway, "Power and Participation Decision Making
in Selected English Schools," paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, New York, April
1977.

36

teachers prefer participatory decision making in the areas of planning

and evaluating the curriculum and selecting textbooks.56

The data on the degree of job satisfaction, allowing a broad
interpretation of the concept, as correlated with age and/or amount of
teaching experience is sparce. Overall, though, it appears that there
is a tendency for dissatisfaction to increase the longer one remains a
teacher. Lortie notes, "Few beginning teachers project long futures

"57

in the classroom . . . In a sample of teachers in New Zealand,

Australia, and the United States, there was found to be an inverse
relationship between age and job satisfaction. Commenting upon this
phenomena, Fraser speculates that "the 'commitment' of older teachers

to teaching was a function of resignation rather than the intrinsic

58

worth of the task." Barakat found that teachers between the ages

of thirty and fifty were the most alienated age group in his sample.59

In another study which in part dealt with the "potential for personal

challenge and development" within a career in education, younger

60

teachers scored the highest in that category. Belasco and Alutto

 

56Robert Knoop and Robert O'Reilly, "Participative Decision
Making in Curriculum"(Bethesda, Maryland: ERIC Document Reproduction
Service, ED 102 684, 1975), pp. 3-6.

57Lortie, Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study, p. 99.

58Fraser, "Organizational Properties and Teacher Reactions,"
pp. 26'279 340

59Barakat, "Alienation from the School System," p. 109.

60Ceci1 Miskel, "The Motivation of Educators to Work."
Educational Administration Quarterly 9 (Winter l973):44, 48.

 

37

report that the least satisfied group in teaching are younger males in
secondary schools while older females at the elementary level were the

most content with their jobs.61

Teacher Morale

 

Besides definitional problems with some job satisfaction
studies of teachers, the use of the term morale adds to the complexity
of attempting to describe the dynamic of alienation of labor of
teachers. In his research on teacher morale Coverdale presents a
circular definitional problem in his hypothesis. He anticipates that
by improving working conditions, job satisfaction will increase which
in turn will improve morale.62 The way in which the term morale is
used by Coverdale seems to be the same as stating that job satisfaction
is equal to morale. His definition is unclear as to whether or not he
intended morale to be a term which encompasses satisfaction. Coughlan
uses a similar definition of teacher morale but which, as advocated
by Guion, also focuses upon individual need satisfaction from the

63 Coughlan contends that the definition of morale "assumes

workplace.
that individuals have inherent and acquired needs and that some of

these needs can be satisfied, within the perception Of the individual,

 

6lBelasco and Alutto, "Decisional Participation and Teacher
Satisfaction," p. 52.

626. M. Coverdale, "Some Determinants of Teacher Morale in
Australia," Educational Research 16 (November l973):35.

 

63Robert J. Coughlan, "Dimensions of Teacher Morale," American
Educational Research Journal 7 (March l970):221-22; Robert M. Guion,
"Industrial Morale (A'Symposium): l. The Problem of Terminology,"
Personnel Psychology 11 (Spring l958):62.

38

by specific dimensions in his work environment."64 This conceptualiza—

tion of morale does attend to the possible adverse psychological
effects of alienating labor upon an individual. Yet, it is difficult
to discern in Coughlan's extensive questionnaire as to where need
satisfaction is addressed. Only one item slightly alludes to partici-
pation by teachers in school policy making.65

Educational studies, however, which in part operationally
define job satisfaction (see previous section) or morale through
measurement items in tenns of degree of control over or participation
in workplace decision making report generally consistent results. That
is to say, a high level of actual and/or desired level of involvement
by teachers in decisions affecting the nature of their labor is posi-
tively related to a high degree of job satisfaction or morale among
teachers.

Defining group satisfaction or morale as "a members' general
positive evaluation of a group situation," Ingle and Munsterman in a
recent paper found that "teachers in high group satisfaction schools

."66 In a review of

perceived their principal as more democratic . .
research upon teacher morale which included fifteen unpublished
doctoral dissertations, Ellenburg concludes, "When teachers feel they

have had some say in the making of policies by which they work, they

 

64Coughlan, " Dimensions of Teacher Morale," p. 222.

651bid.. pp. 224-30.

66Earl B. Ingle, Jr. and Richard E. Munsterman, "Relationship
of Values to Group Satisfaction," paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York,
April 7, 1977. pp. 2, 8.

39

will feel more commonality with the goals of the staff as a whole."67

Chung reports that the fulfillment of the social psychological needs of
360 Michigan teachers was positively related to schools which demon-
strated a "high teacher-centered management style.“68
Using a five-item instrument which concentrates in part upon
the psychological needs of teachers, Koplyay and Mathis found with a
sample of 299 elementary school teachers that morale was more a func—
tion of the organizational climate of the school than their salary

69

level. Australian teachers who Coverdale interviewed stated that

work conditions were their main concern whereas salary ranked twentieth
on their list. Coverdale observed, "Teachers are relegated to a

utilitarian role with little or no say in policy making and expected

"70

to concern themselves with classroom matters only. Teachers in that

same study also showed concern over what they saw as a lack of parent

71

and public participation in education. A plausible interpretation

of this concern is that teachers in that sample feel a lack of feedback

 

67F. C. Ellenburg, "Factors Affecting Teacher Morale,“ NASSP
Bulletin 56 (November l972):43-44.

68Chung, "Teacher-Centered Management Style of Public School
Principals," pp. l, 10, 16.

69c1aude Mathis, "The Relationship Between Salary Policies and
Teacher Morale," Journal of Educational Psychology 50 (December 1959):
275-79; Janos Koplyay and Claude B. Mathis, "The Relationship Between
Teacher Morale and Organizational Climate," paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of New York, February 16, 1967, pp. 2-6.

70Coverdale, ”Teacher Morale in Australia," pp. 36—37.

7'Ibid., p. 38.

40

upon their labor and social contact from the consumers of their pro-
duct. In other words, teachers may be alienated from the social
product of their labor. With similar reasoning Lortie adds that “the
modesty of the occasions which produce prideful feelings underscores

the difficulty teachers see in attaining worthwhile results."72

Summary

Most research upon teacher alienation has to date derived its
theoretical base from Seeman. However, only one aSpect of Seeman's
five factor model, self-estrangement, coincides with Marx's theory of
alienation of labor. Research upon job satisfaction and morale of
teachers is hindered by a poor conceptual base and from a lack of
consensus on terminology. Studies which attend to participation of
teachers in decisions which affect the processes and product of their
labor begin to lend insight into teacher alienation. Most studies in
this realm consistently report that high job satisfaction and morale
of teachers is positively related to their involvement in school
policy determination. None of these studies, however, comment in a
precise and thorough manner upon the crucial elements of alienation
theory, i.e., the relationship of teachers to the mode and outcome of
their labor and the corresponding association of this relationship
upon their mental state.

Regarding the process of alienation, little empirical research
is available on the effect of the labor of teaching upon teachers from

pre-service training, to the first year of work, and eventally into

 

72Lortie, Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study, p. 133.

 

41

being an ”experienced” teacher. Schacht states that for the term
alienation to be appropriately applied, it needs to suggest an evolving
state of affairs. He explains that

. . the ending "-ation" suggests not merely that some sort of
"alienness" exists, but also that a process of "becoming alien"
has occurred. . . . Those who refer to feelings of “powerless-
ness“ or "meaninglessness" or to "apathy" as types of alienation
do so regardless of whether these findings or states were pre-
ceeded by feelings of 3nf1uence or understanding or by a
tendency to activism.7

Therefore, a contribution to empirical research upon teacher alienation
would be look at the various stages of career development through which
teachers proceed.

Lawler and Hall offer a methodology appropriate for analyzing
alienation of labor and workplace characteristics of public schools.74
As is discussed in Chapter III, expanding Lawler and Hall's instrument

75 makes the

to include a variety of school decision making varibles
instrument more applicable to a study of teacher alienation. Also,
an adaptation of the feedback variables from Brookover's "School Social

Climate Study"76

would provide an indication of the degree of social
contact teachers have with a consumer, regarding the product of their

(teacher's) labor.

 

73Schacht, Alienation, pp. 179-80.

74Lawler and Hall, "Relationship of Job Characteristics to
Job Involvement," pp. 307-8.

75Belasco and Alutto, "Decisional Participation and Teacher
Satisfaction," p. 49.

76Wilbur B. Brookover, "Teacher Questionnaire, School Social
Climate Study," East Lansing, Michigan State University, October 1974.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter is divided into four sections which provide
information on the sample, the questionnaire, the questionnaire pilot,

and the analysis procedure.

Sample

Four groups of subjects received the questionnaire. The
common characteristic among all subjects was that (1) they received
or are receiving their preservice training through the teacher educa-
tion curriculum at Michigan State University and (2) they were
teaching at or being certified at the elementary school level in
Michigan. Teachers in the field were limited to those currently
teaching in Michigan public schools, excluding Lansing and East
Lansing due to the frequent use of those schools for research purposes.
The four groups are:

- preservice elementary education majors who have not student
taught.

. preservice elementary education majors who have completed
student teaching.

- first-year teachers at the elementary level.

- experienced teachers (four years or more) at the elementary

level.

42

43

The preservice subjects were identified with the cooperation
of the College of Education at Michigan State University. The instruc-
tional staffs from E0 200, "The Individual and the School," ED 321A,
"Curriculum Methods in Elementary Education," and ED 450, "School and

Society, assisted in the study during April and May, 1978. The staff
from those three teacher education courses helped in the distribution
and collection of the questionnaire to students who had previously
been identified as elementary education majors. The questibnnaire

was distributed to 176 students. If an address was available, a
follow-up mailing of the instrument was sent to students who had not
returned it to their instructor. One hundred thirty-eight question-
naires were returned for a return rate of 78 percent. There were 74
instruments returned from subjects who had not student taught and 64
from students who had completed student teaching.

From the records of the Placement Services at Michigan State
University a total of 89 first-year elementary level teachers were
identified.1 The questionnaire was mailed during April 1978, either
to the school the alumnus had reported to the Placement Services or to
a home address if available from the Michigan State University Alumni
Records Office. The initial mailing revealed that 18 subjects were
not first-year elementary level teachers, leaving a total pool of 71

to sample. Out of the 71, 54 subjects returned the questionnaire for

a return rate of 76 percent.

 

1No other record of first-year teachers from Michigan State
University was available to the knowledge of the author.

44

Subjects for the experienced teacher group were drawn from
lists provided by the Alumni Records Office. Subjects were chosen
from the lists of elementary graduates who reported their employment
as a teacher at sometime since their graduation. Fifty subjects each
were randomly selected from the classes of 1967, 1970, and 1973 for a
total of 150 subjects. After the first mailing during April 1978,

34 subjects were found not to fall into the category of experienced
elementary level teacher who were employed in Michigan. From the
remaining pool of 116, 83 questionnaires were returned. The return
rate from the 116 was 72 percent.

Follow-up mailings for all teacher subjects plus telephone
calls in the case of first-year teachers were used to increase the
return rate. The return for the four groups in the study was 275
questionnaires with a 76 percent return rate. Table 3.1 displays the

demographic data on the sample.

Qgestionnaire Description

 

The questionnaire was designed to measure two distinct
attributes--alienation of labor and workplace characteristics.
Alienation of labor was measured by the indicants of need satisfaction
and job involvement. Workplace characteristics include items on
teacher influence and control, relevant test of teacher abilities,
and the social value of teacher labor. There were two parallel forms
of the questionnaires, one for students in teacher education and
another for teachers in the field. The questionnaire for students
reflected the fact that they were not presently employed as teachers

and asked them to project upon their prospective experiences as

45

 

moon owgqmcmosmn m>onm on“ com
muomnnzm cocowmp use

“case“ “seesaw go: m>mc o5: mucouspm cowumozum cmsomwp

mcwgoemu “conspm umpmpaeoo m>ec oz: mwcmuzgm cowumosum genome»

.zommu o»
memca u—zoz >85“ xpPC:EEoo we max“ cows; cw mpmuwvcw ow vmxmm mom: mpcmuaum cowumozum cmgommhm

mcwcommu umocmwcmaxm

mcmzommp cmmxiamcme

II II
N I") <-
CD a: U)

P

w

ea_ »a_aaee

.xuwmem>w:: mumum cemwsuwz pm meonme cowumuaum xgmacmempm mew: muoonnam F~<k

.cmmw58wz cw —m>m_ Foonom u?_n=n xgmgcmEmpm men we mewsummu PPM mew:

 

 

 

 

mew _._ _.P m.e_ N.ma cm.am oe.m m.em o.a~ m.mp an. o.ep o.em Paoae
mm o a.N m.e~ N.Ne m.e~ om.m o o o o o.N_ 0.8m ea
am e o N.e_ m.em e.mm am._ 0 o o o N.e. m.mm me
88 F.m 8.. 8.0— _.ae am.o~ o 8.88 _.m o o o.m~ o.m~ Ne
8N F.a o m.m_ _.mm ao.mm o e._N e.Fm A.m~ 8., ~.~F m.~m Fe

mmcoammm cmaczazm cone: concsnam Fecam Acmwzv .Lm .Lq .zaom .Lu mpmz mpmewu
mNWm oz \chzm mcpcomwh
mpqum .

A&V umu8804 Poonom xuwcaeeou to qup

mcmm> A&V Foogom cw cmm> ARV xmm

 

 

«.mpanm no open owcamcmoEwoii.F.m mpnmh

46

.mcwxcoz mm mpqemm cmgommu mcp gown: :_ mma»p Auwczseoo
szuum mew m:_a comma op cmmmca upzoz anEmm mucmczmm cowpmozum cmcummp mgu sows: cw zumcaseoo

mo max» mew mo cowpmcwaeoo mcp :o ummmn mw xnw::EEou to max» mg» cow czonxmmcn pmuou meet

.>~:o mFQEmm cmzommm msp mmnaFocw page“ mcwsommu mcmm>m

.APco mpcmczum cowumozum cmgommp mmczpocw Pmuop poonom cw me>u

.Amm.mpv m new .Aem.e_v a .Aek.m_v _F
.Axm.va m mcmz mcmmx ucmzcmcm “woe mew .mcmmx mp cu 8 mm: mcwgommp mcmmx mo mace; mzhu

.mucmwgmaxm mcwzommu
to momma cemem to mean we mcwgummp “cmuzmm ummw>cma=m umua_ucw m>mc xme mpcmucoammc meow peep mw mco
coco memmcm some m we cowpmcmpaxm mpnwmmoa < .mex mco coca mcos usmsmu mcw>mg soc; Ems» mmvzpumca
mpmsmm ememgummu meximmcwee meg mo Emcmocq cowumoacm emeummu mg» seem mmmmu compmzcmcm mews

.vmzcmucouui.p.m mpnmh

47

teachers. The other questionnaire is based on the actual experiences

of teachers (See Appendices A and B).

Measures of Alienation of Labor

 

Lawler and Hall offer a conceptual and methodological framework
for examining the topic of teacher alienation. Their factors of need
satisfaction and job involvement offer a means for capturing the con-
cept of alienation of labor. Those factors are defined by Lawler and
Hall in the following manner:

° need satisfaction: the degree to which the higher order needs
of self-actualization, autonomy, and responsibility are ful-
filled.

- job involvement: "the degree to which a person is identified
with his work, or the importance of work, or the importance of
working in his self-image."2

Lawler and Hall conducted a factor analysis on need satisfaction and
job involvement and concluded that for their sample of 291 scientists
working in research and development laboratories that the factors of
need satisfaction and job involvement were distinct and separate.3

When using a single "is now" measure of need satisfaction rather than

Lawler and Hall's discrepancy measure (i.e., "is now" compared to

“should be"--see below), Cummings and Bigelow were able to replicate

 

2Lawler and Hall, “Relationship of Job Characteristics to Job
Involvement,“ p. 306; Lodhahl and Kejner, “Definition and Measurement
of Job Involvement," p. 26, as cited in Lawler and Hall, p. 306.

31bid., p. 309.

48

Lawler and Hall's factor analysis with a sample of 96 male, blue-
collar workers.4

Lawler and Hall's need satisfaction factor included two
general items on workplace participation. Belasco and Alutto in their
study of teacher participation in the school decision making process
posed twelve decision situations.5 Influenced by the Belasco and
Alutto approach, need satisfaction items developed by Lawler and Hall
regarding opportunity for participation in decision making were
altered in this study for the following reasons: (a) to reflect
decisions relevant to public school teachers and (b) to expand the
number of items (from two items to eight) to include a variety of
school decisions.

For each need satisfaction item (1-5, 8-14) on the present
instrument, subjects were asked to rate on a 1 (minimum) to 7 (maxi-
mum) scale how much of the factor mentioned in the item is associated
with their present or prospective teaching job. This was part A of
the question. Next, subjects were asked to rate on a similar scale,
B, for items 1-5 how much of the factor they feel should be associated
with their job. Need satisfaction was measured by comparing the

subject's answer to the first part, A, with his or her response to the

 

4Thomas G. Cummings and John Bigelow, "Satisfaction, Job
Involvement, and Intrinsic Motivation: An Extension of Lawler and
gall's Factor Analysis," Journal of_Applied Psychology_6l (1976):
23-25.

 

5Belasco and Alutto, "Decisional Participation and Teacher
Satisfaction," p. 49.

49

second part, B. Dissatisfaction is considered to exist when B exceeds

A.6

Table 3.2 provides an example of this procedure for items 1-5.

Seven of the need satisfaction participation items (8-14) were
altered to reflect a time trade-off an individual must make to parti-
cipate in the school decision making process. Part A remained a scale
of the subject's perception of current conditions. Part B was the
amount of the factor that would be associated with the subject's job
if he or she had to commit one hour once a week after school. A third
similar dimension, C, is included for those seven items to reflect the
amount of the factor that would be associated with the subject's job
_if he or she were given "release time" during the school day once a
week. Table 3.2 presents an example of the three dimensions, A, B,
and C, used for items 8-14.

Subjects provided twenty-nine responses to need satisfaction
items. From the comparisons among dimensions A, B, and C, nineteen
discrepancy scores were computed. Table 3.3 displays the coding scheme
for each of the need satisfaction items.

The job involvement aspect of alienation included four items
used by Lawler and Hall (see items 6-7 and 15-16). Subjects were
asked to respond on a 7-point scale, from 1 (strongly agree) to 7
(strongly disagree).7 A job involvement example is provided in
Table 3.2. The total number of responses to the alienation component

of the questionnaire including all possible responses to the need

 

6Lawler and Hall, "Relationship of Job Characteristics to Job
Involvement," p. 308.

71bid.

50

 

xpmcocum a_~oewcwe
acm> apmumcmooe Acm>

_ _ a _ _ L _
A o m e m w _

 

.oow mcwzommu
m>wuomomoco coo» zoo; omumwoommm
mo opooem Emu? mg“ sows; om mmcmmo

.cmgommo o mm ooh coo» saw: ompmwoommm
mo opoosm emu? mco some; om mmcmma

Apmcocum xp—me_:_s
xgm> apmumcmooe xgm>

_ _ _ _ _ _ a
A o m a m N _

 

.oon mcwzommu m>wuomo
-moco Loo» gum: omumwuommm mo ou Emuw
mzu muomwo_uco no» sows: op mmcmmo

.meommu m we now cooz now: omumwoommm
Npucmmmcm ow Emu? mgu gown: op mmcmma

Homeppmmpom
-mpmm mo mmcmpmmm .F

"mcmcoomu
mow>cmmmcn.gom

 

 

umesuwmu Lo..—

 

 

m

 

<

 

memmH

 

 

' I I‘I‘t

 

mi, mEmuH mo mposmxm

.Aop-m_ .~-o asoo_v oemEo>Pa>ea new 8:8 Aep-m .m-. meooev
cowooommwumm omm: an ommcmwmcomc my Ao_-F msmuwv scoop mo cowumcmw—m mFQmwcm> acmocmomo och .H

.memuH mcwmccowummoo mo cowuowcummaii.m.m m—omh

51

 

 

xpmcocum zgm> .1 N
i o

fl m

x_mpocmooe .1 o

I m

i N

>__oewcws >cm> .1 F

.zoo _oo;om mg» mcwcoo
soocmmm_o Loo» some emewm
mmmmche owmo cm>wm mcmz
=o».MH non mcwsommo m>_u
-omomoco coo» ;o_3 ompowo
-ommo mo o» Emu? mom ace;
o_:o3 so» cows; om mmcmmm

 

.xmmz m moco Non poogom
ms“ mcwcoo ems?» mmompmce
cm>wm mcmz 3oz.wfl.cmcommu
m we now coo» sow; ompmwo
-ommm mo om Emu? mgu poo;
opooz so» goes: om mmcmmo

 

 

xpmcocpm zcm> .1 N

1 o

I m

xpmumcmooe L: o

1 m

m N

appmswcwe >gm> .1 _
.Foo;Om

cmumm xmmz m moco Loo;
moo oo o: pmesoo on on:
:ox.HH non newcommm m>wo
-omomoco coo» now: omomwo
-ommm mo op amp? men use:
opooz so» gown; op mmcmmo

 

.Poocom cmuem xmmz m moco
coo; moo on o: oweeoo
om om; ooz.HH cmcoomu

m mo non coo» new: omum_o

-ommm mo ou emuw mew pom:

opzoz so» gown: op mmcmmo

 

 

>chocum >gm> .1 N
1 m

j m

xpmumcmoos +1 o

n m

I N

xppmemcwe >cm> =1 _

.aon

mcvgoomu m>wuomomoco
coca cow: ompowoommm on
op amp? mg» mommmowpcm
so» cows: om mmcmmo

.cmsoomu
m mm non Loo» gum:
omumwoommm Nchmmmcm.mw
Emu? meg sows: op mmcmma

powcumwo Foozom
ze cow moo»
-ocumwcmsom 3m:
to oeoewe oeo

cw mcwumomomucmo
coo Newcoucoooo

”mcmzommo

.m_

 

mow>cmmmcm.com

 

"mgmsommp com

 

 

u

 

m

 

<

 

zoom

 

opim memuH mo mmFosmxm

.emeepoeeo--.m.m o_aae

 

52

HmNiNN memqu coomH Ho mon> HmHoom.
HONumH msmqu mmHuHHHom cmzommu Ho ummu ucm>mHmL.
HHN ocm NH mEmqu Hocucoo ocm mocmsHocH cmgommo.

”mooHocw HmNiuH mEmHHV mmHochm> oHpchmpomngo momHoxLoz HomocmomocH och .HH

 

 

mmcmm mmcmm mmcmmmwo
meoocum memmcmooE aHmcocpm
_ _ A H o J _
H o m o m N H

hmcmgoomw

 

 

moH>cmmmLm coma .ngommu m we xcoz HE cw HHHmcomcmo om>Ho>cH nose Hgm> mo HHHz H pogo mumoHoHpcm H

 

mmcmcoomm Lomg .meommu m mm xcoz ms :H HHHmcomgmo om>Ho>cH none Hgm> Em H .m

 

 

Augmem>Ho>cH ooov mHimH .Hio mamuH Ho mHomem
.omooHuoouii.N.m mHomh

53

 

 

 

mmcmm mmcmm mmcmmmwo
HHmcocpm AHmumcmooe szcocpm
_ H To _ _ _ _
H o m o m N H

 

mmcmsoomu moH>memco
m>HmomL :mLoHH;o Lngo pogo omccmocoo HHommo mo HHHz mocmooum HE Ho

-oooom quHozo oou o m>HmomL :mcoHHgo chsp pogo omccmocoo xHommo mom mucmooum He Ho macmcmo mob .mN

coma .ooHumooom HuHHmoo go» o
mpcmcmo one page mmooHoHpom H

 

mmcmcommp coma .coHu

 

 

mEmHH moHuchmuoocmcu momHoxLoz Ho mHomem

.eoeeeoeoo--.m.m oHaaH

54

Table 3.3.--Questionnaire Item Coding for Dependent Variables.

 

 

 

Items Notation Labels

Need Satisfaction (Items 1-5, 8-14)

18 - 1A = x1 = Self-fulfillment (B-A)

28 - 2A = X2 = Independence (B-A)

3B - 3A = X3 = Accomplishment (B-A)

4B - 4A = X4 = Growth (B-A)

58 - 5A = X5 = Participation in Determining
Teaching Assignment (B-A)

8C - 8A = X6 = Participation in Evaluating
Own Work (C-A)

88 - 8A = X7 = Participation in Evaluating
Own Work (B-A)

9C - 9A = X8 = Participation in Disciplinary
Policies (C-A)

9B - 9A = X9 = Participation in Disciplinary
Policies (B-A)

10C 10A = X10 = Participation in Text Book
Selection (C-A)

lOB 10A = X11 = Participation in Text Book
Selection (B-A)

11C 11A = X12 = Participation in Standardized
Test Selection (C-A)

118 llA = X13 = Participation in Standardized
Test Selection (B-A)

12C 12A = X14 = Participation in Budget Deter-
mination (C-A)

128 12A = X15 = Participation in Budget Deter-
mination (B-A)

13C 13A = X16 = Participation in Hiring of New

Administrators (C-A)

55

Table 3.3.--Continued.

 

 

Items Notation Labels
138 - 13A = X17 = Participation in Hiring of New
Administrators (B-A)
14C - 14A = X18 = Participation in Curriculum
Determination (C-A)
148 - 14A = X19 = Participation in Curriculum

Determination (B-A)

Job Involvement (Items 6-7, 15—16)

 

6 = X20 = Personality Involved in Job
7 = X2] = Important Involvement in Job
15 = X22 = Satisfaction from Job

16 = X23 = Live, Eat, and Breathe Job

 

For items 1-5:

A = resentl associated (teachers) or anticipate association
Istudents) with teaching job
8 = should be associated with teaching job

For items 8-14. a time trade—off is added with:

 

 

A = resentl associated (teacher) or anticipate association
Istudents) with teaching job

8 = would want to be associated with teaching job if had to
commit up to one hour once a week after school

C = would want to be associated with teaching job if paid

 

“release time" during school day

56

satisfaction and job involvement items is thirty-three. The nineteen
need satisfaction difference scores plus the four job involvement
observations serve as the basis for the data analysis on alienation.
An entire list of the twenty-three alienation variables is in

Table 3.3.

Measures of Workplace Characteristics

 

The workplace characteristics which Lawler and Hall included
as appropriate in analyzing the relationship between job design
variables and alienation (need satisfaction and job involvement) were:

- the degree of influence and control felt by the job holder over
his/her work.
- the degree to which the job is perceived as a relevant test of
the job holder's abilities.
- the probability that the job holder would receive socially
meaningful feedback about his/her work.
Five items from Lawler and Hall's questionnaire were used in this
present study to measure (1) teacher influence and control in the
workplace (see items 17 and 21) and (2) if the job of teaching is a
relevant test of teacher abilities (see items 1820).8 To reflect
Lawler and Hall's third job design component of feedback, four ques-
tions used by Brookover (see items 22-25)9 were included to assess the

social value of the labor of teachers. That is to say, those four

 

815m, p. 310.

9Brookover, "Teacher Questionnaire."

57

items are situations which measure the degree to which teachers
receive socially meaningful feedback upon their work.

All workplace characteristics items are on a 7—point scale,
from 1 strongly agree to 7 strongly disagree. An example of a work-
place characteristic item is provided in Table 3.2. Item 24 is also
on a 7-point scale, but asks for slightly different information. This
item asks subjects to make a response along a continuum, from 1 (all
of the parents) to 7 (none of the parents). Thus, there are nine
items on workplace characteristics that reflect the perceptions of
teachers or prospective teachers (see Table 3.4). The total question-
naire required forty-two responses in addition to demographic

information.

Questionnaire Pilot

The questionnaire was initially critiqued by a teacher with
twelve years of experience in the public schools. Based on her
comments, the "opportunity for participation" questions (see items
5, 8-14) and time trade-offs options for items 8-14 were altered.
Following this, four public school teachers and four students in the
teacher education program at Michigan State University completed the
questionnaire and provided comments regarding the questionnaire
completion time, instructions, and cover letter. The amount of time
that these subjects took to finish the questionnaire (approximately

15 minutes) was the basis of the time estimate included in the cover

letter.

58

Table 3.4.--Questionnaire Item Coding for Independent Variables.

 

Items Notation Labels

 

Teacher Influence and Control (Items 17 and 21)

17 = X24 = Control and Final Say Over Job

21

X25 - Influence Within School Building

Relevant Test of Teacher Abilities (Items 18-20)

 

18 = X26 = Job Appropriate for Abilities

19 = X27 = Creativity in Job

20 = X28 = Job Gives Chance to Do Things Teacher
Does Best

Social Value of Labor (Items 22-25)

 

22 = X29 = Parents Regard School as "Babysitting"
Agency

23 = X3O = Parents Deeply Concerned about a Top
Quality Education

24 = X3] = Parents Who Want Feedback on Their
Children

25 = X32 = Principal Provides Adequate Informa-

tion on Teacher's Performance

 

59

Analysis Procedures

 

Introduction

 

Using the total sample, a factor analysis was initially
conducted on the twenty-three individual scores comprising alienation
(see Table 3.3 for a list of variables). The factor analysis resulted
in a three factor solution. For subsequent analyses both the twenty-
three individual scores and the three factors were used as dependent
variables. The factors provide a broad conceptualization of the
phenomenon of alienation. Analysis with the individual scores allows
observations on the relative strength of the components comprising the
three factors. For ease of interpretation the hypotheses being tested
are stated in terms of the factors.

An analysis of variance with pps; nos comparisons among the
teacher career stage means on the factors and individual scores
comprising alienation was conducted. This required the initial
computation of twenty-six equations (three factors and twenty-three
individual scores).

Next, for each career stage the three factors and twenty-three
individual scores of alienation were regressed on the nine workplace
characteristic scores. Following this, the sample was pooled into one
regression equation. This pooled multiple regression was then com-
pared to the individual career stage regressions. An F-test was
performed to determine if the four sets of regressions for the career
stages came from the same pOpulation. For both the analysis of
variance and multiple regressions a significance level of .95 was

set.

6O

Factor Analysis

 

A factor analysis of the individual scores comprising the
alienation section of the questionnaire was carried out to: (a) deter-
mine if the factors of need satisfaction and job involvement are main-
tained in the same manner for people preparing for or involved in a

teaching career as they were for the samples used by Lawler and Hall10

1] and (b) assess the effects, if any, of the

and Cummings and Bigelow
alterations made in this study in the items comprising the need
satisfaction component of alienation (see Questionnaire Description

and Table 3.3).

Factor analysis is designed to maximally reproduce the correla-
tions among variables. Harmon explains, "The common factors account
for the correlation among the variables, while each unique factor
accounts for the remaining variance (including error) Of that vari-

able."]2

Factor analysis attempts "to reduce the complexity of the
variables" by arriving at a simple structure.13 According to Harmon,
the varimax method is preferred over other orthogonal procedures
since it "not only does a better job of approximating the classical

simple-structure principles, but it also tends to lead to factorially

 

10Lawler and Hall, "Relationship of Job Characteristics to Job
Involvement," p. 309.

11Cummings and Bigelow, "Satisfaction, Job Involvement, and
Intrinsic Motivation," pp. 523-25.

12Harry H. Harman, Modern Factor Analysis, 2nd ed. (Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1967), p. 15.

13Ibid. . p. 99.

61

14 15

invariant solutions." After principal factoring with iteration,
the varimax orthogonal rotation was applied to the twenty-three scores
designed to measure need satisfaction and job involvement (see

Table 3.3 for a list of variables).

Only factors with eigenvalue16 greater than or equal to one
were considered.17 Six potential factors were identified. Two, three,
four, five, and six factor solutions were subsequently computed. In
this study unique factors with variable "loadings" or coefficients at
the criteria .30 or greater18 were sought. If a variable loaded on
more than one factor, it was not included in any factor.

The three factor solution accounted for 53.6 percent of the
variance and most closely approximated simple structure. Variable X5.
participation in detennining teaching assignment, displayed a com-
plexity of two and was not included in the final factor solution.

Table 3.5 lists the variables and their loadings for inclusion in the

three factors. The three factors are

 

14Ibid., p. 294.

15Jae-On Kim, "Factor Analysis," in Statistical Package for the

 

Social Sciences. 2nd ed., eds. Norman H. Nie, C. Hadlar Hull, Jean G.
Jenkins, Karin Steinbrenner, and Dale H. Bent (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1975), p. 480.

16The squared correlations aggregated for each variable on the

factor.

17Kim, "Factor Analysis," p. 485.

18Although .30 is a common criterion, there exists no uniform
standard for loading; see Fred N. Kerliner, Foundations of Behavioral
Research, 2nd ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973),
p. 662.

 

62

H<-ov eeHSomHmm

 

 

om_.- omH. coo. NH m_ o
Same eoNHeeaeeaom e. eaHBaaHoHotaa . x H x ao xv
eOHSoacaHoem 8882 am
HHH. HmH. mme. H<-mv eOHSooHom xaem oxme eH eeHoaaHoHoeaa .HHx eOHSeaHoHoeea . x
m_o.- moH. Hoe. H<-ov eaooomHam Seam oon eH eoHoaaHoHoeaa .on
NoH. HoH. eoe. H<-mv moHoHHaa HeaeHHaHoaHQ eH eaooaaHoHoeaa .ox
mHo. ANN. Hem. H<-ov aoHoHHOa NeaeHHaHomHQ e. eoHoaaHoHoeaa .mx
mOH. OHH. mam. oH<-mv 3.83 ego oeHSasHa>m e_ eoHSaQHoHoeaa .Hx
Nmo.- HwH. omo. oH<1uv xcoz czo mcHumon>u :H coHumoHoHacmo .mx
em_.- Nma. Ham. H<-mv oemgemHma< m
mcHgoomH mchwscmHmo cH mcmpmoHoHugmo . x
aHN.- coo. HaH. H<-mv eozoeo .ex
e__.- HHH. mmH. H<-mv Seme;aHHaeaoo< .mx Hex om on
N cowaumuvmwuwm 6002 mm
Hao. omm. Hem. H<-mv ooemeeoaoeeH . x eaHoanHHaeooa-chm . x
Nm_.- NNH. Hoe. aH<-mv oeoeH__c_3c-cHom .Hx
m N H

 

mmHochm> :oHumcmHH<

| | .1 1-. ‘1-
1| .1 .I U 11. -III’|.|

.xHLHoz Looomm

'l

I

mcouomm

more» Hmcomosuco xmeHLm>ii.m.m mHomh

63

 

.MN

moo. mHo. aoo.- aoo oeoamem nee .oam .m>HS x
Ham. mm_.- Hoe. new seat eOHSUammHoam .me
Hmmx eo omxv mm
mom. meH.- HHo.- goo em oemgo>Ho>eH oeaoeoaeH .HNx oeoEm>Ho>eH eon . x
omm. moN.- 080. new e. ea>He>eH HHHeeaaeoa .oNx
NHH. mOH. mam. H<-mo 8H
coHumCHELmomo EzHooHccou :H :oHumoHoHucoo . x
880.- Nm_. HmH. H<-ov mH
:oHumcHELmomo EoHooHccou cH :oHumoHuHucoo . x
ooH.- oNo.- Hmo. H<imv mcouocu NH
-WHeHEe< 38: co oeHLH: eH eeHoeaHoHoeaa . x
NON.- oNo. oNN. H<iuv mcouocu oH
-mHeHeo< 382 He oeHeHz eH eeHoaaHoHeeaa . x
emo. emo. owe. H<-mv eoHoaeHsemooo Smoosm eH eeHoaQHoHSLea .me
oeo.- eNH. mom. H<-ov eeHoeeHEeoomo omoeem eH eoHoaQHoHoeaa .eHx

aoo.- mmH. mmm. H<-mv eaHoomHom mH
Same omNHeLaoeaom eH eoHoaQHoHBLaa . x

 

 

m N H

 

11 .1 mmHooHcm> :oHaocmHH< mcoaomm
mmcHooom Looom

.I.I II I. I I l I! I I I.I I . I I I I.1I I. I I III I v . II III IIIIIIIIIII.II II.II III, III.
:.I II.I|.I.I.IIIIII IIIII I I.|I1Ii. IIIIIII T I I I I.I III III 1 I III III I I

IIII. IIIII

.ooeeHBeeo--.m.m oHaaH

64

.Hooeom emuwo emmz
o moeo eooe meo “Heeoo op ome mew Lo me_ww eon m.oomwezm m o eon ompmHoommm me oHooz Heep eoaoow mew
Ho HeooEo me» m eon eoHHoonHoommHo Ho meomome o mH me oem . Hx .me .me .HHx .mx .Hx Lo» <1mo

.emmz o moeo Hoe Hooeom me» meHeoo
emEHo mmomHmee em>Hm memz mem co me MM eon m.uomne:m me» equ omooHoommo me oHooz peep eopomw mew Ho
oesoEm meo u equ eoHuomHmHHommHo Ho meommms m mH wa oem .on .on .NHx .on .wx .ox com <iue

.eoH LHoeo eoez emoaHooaae on 8.38:8 Home Hmeo
eoooom me» Ho eooe Zoe m oeo ooh meHeoomo m>Hmomomoeo eo ocmmmeo m.pomweom mm» equ omuoHuommo mH empm
meo eH omeoHoeme eooooe mew Ho eooe Zoe < eHHz coHooonHummmHo Ho meomome m mm x..... x Low <imm

m.m mHemh L0H mmuoz

65

X33, self-actualization need satisfaction,

X34, participation need satisfaction, and

X35, job involvement.

A more detailed account of the factor analysis results is presented
in Chapter IV.
Analysis of Variance with Post Hoc
Comparisons among_Career Stage
Means of Alienation

Through analysis of variance the following hypothesis was
tested:

H]: The rank order of the group means for the alienation of labor
variables (as measured by need satisfaction and job involve-
ment) from least to greatest amount of alienation will be
significantly different as follows: (1) students in teacher
education who have not student taught, (2) students in
teacher education who have completed student teaching,

(3) first-year teachers, and (4) experienced teachers.

Using the notation based on the factor analysis (see
Table 3.5), let X33 = self-actualization need satisfaction, X34 =
participation need satisfaction, and X35 = job involvement. The four
groups are denoted by the subscripts 61 = preservice and no student
teaching, 62 = preservice and completed student teaching, GB = first-
year teachers, and G4 = experienced teachers. The statistical

representations of the hypothesis are:

66

H : Xi = X = X ='X
02 3303 3304

7 X r 7
33 33 33G4

H : 7' = X' ='X ='X
34G4

1‘ X34 I X34 I X34 I X34G4

H : x = x = x ='7
3504

: f X f X f X
l 3561 35G2 35G3 35

><|

G4

An overall F-test was conducted to determine if any signifi-
cant difference among the means existed. When a significant difference
was found, a series of complex comparisons among the means was carried
out using the Scheffé method. Being the most conservative of the
multiple comparison tests, "it is less likely than other tests to
show differences as significant."19 The complex comparisons allowed
the generation of alternative hypotheses to the "not equal" hypotheses

above. The new alternative hypotheses are:

 

”1‘ X336] < x33GZ < X33GB < x33G4

”1‘ 7346] < 73462 < E403 < 734(34

”1‘ 73501 > 73502 > Y35G3 ’ 73504
19

F. Kerlinger and E. Pedhazur, Multiple Regression in
Behavioral Sciences (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,
1973), p. 129.

67

Note that when the variable measures for need satisfaction, X33 and
X34,are lowest, need satisfaction is at its highest and alienation is
minimal.

Analysis of variance with pps£_ppg comparisons were also con-
ducted on the twenty-three individual scores comprising alienation
(see Table 3.3). This series of pps£_nps_comparisons allows observa-
tion on the behavior of the career stage means towards each individual

score.

Multiple Regression Analysis of

Factors Comprising Alienation

on Workplace Characteristics
Multiple regression was used to test the following hypothesis:

H2: For each of four career stages of a teacher (students in

teacher education who have not student taught, students in
teacher education who have completed student teaching, first-
year teachers, and experienced teachers), a significant
proportion of the variance of alienation of labor (as
measured by need satisfaction and job involvement) will be
explained by workplace characteristics (as measured by teacher

influence and control, a relevant test of teacher abilities,

and the social value of teacher labor).

Using the same notation as in the analysis of variance for
the al1enat1on factor, X33, X34, X35; let the n1ne individual 1tems
which comprise the workplace characteristics be represented by
X24.....,X32 (see Table 3.4). The statistical representations of the

hypothesis for each career stage are:

68

HO: Ri33. X24,...,X32 = 0

H]: Ri . x24,...,x32 > 0
33

H : R2 . x ... x = 0

0 x34 24’ ’ 32

H]: Ri . x24....,x32 > 0
34

H : R2 . x ... x = 0

o X35 24’ ’ 32

H]: Ri . x24....,x32 > 0
35

The general multiple regression equation for the three

alienation factors, Y1, regressed on the nine workplace items is

Y = a + b24X24 + b25x b X b X b X

25 1 b26X26 I 27 27 I 28 28 I 29 29 I

b30x30 + b31x31 1 b32x32 1 e

where e represents error, a is a constant where the regression line
crosses the Y-axis, and the bi are the regression coefficients. The
regression coefficients equal the slope of the regression surface
(the change in the dependent variable compared to the change in the
independent variable, minimizing the sum of the squared errors of

prediction).

69

Multiple Regression Analysis of
Individual Scores Comppising
Alienation on WOrkETace
Characteristics as Inde-
pendent Variables

 

 

 

 

Multiple regression analysis of the individual scores com-
prising alienation was conducted in addition to using the three
alienation factors. This series of multiple regressions allows an
assessment of the effect of the workplace characteristics on the
individual scores for each career stage. The equation was the same
as the multiple regressions of three factors except that the dependent
variable consisted of X],...,X23 (see Table 3.3).

Pooled Multiple Regression Compared

to Individual Career Stage
RegressTOns

 

 

Dummy variables20 for the teacher career stages were included
in the multiple regression along with the workplace characteristic
scores. The number of dummy variables is (K groups - 1) = 3. Each
dummy variable is assigned a value of 0 or 1. The regression equation
for each of the three factors and twenty-three individual scores on

alienation as dependent variables, Yi’ is

 

Y = a 1 b24X24 1 bzsxzs 1 bzaxze 1 b27X27 1 b28x28 + b29X29 ‘
530x30 I b31x31 I b32x32 1 C101 1 C202 I 0303 1 e
20

J.. Johnston. Econometric Methods, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw
Hill, 1972), pp. 176-86; Jae-On Kim and Frank J. Kohout, "Special
Topics in General Linear Models," in Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences, 2nd ed., eds. Norman H. Nie, C. Hadlar Hull, Jean G.
Jenkins, Karin Steinbrenner, and Dale H. Bent (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1975), pp. 373-77.

70

where: 01 = l for students who have completed student teaching, 0
otherwise: 02 = l for first-year teachers, 0 otherwise; and D3 = l for
experienced teachers, 0 otherwise. In the instance of dummy variables
the regression coefficients C1 are the changes in the conditional mean
of the dependent variable taking into account the independent vari-
ables. This is so because dummy variables represent categories for
the different groups into which the sample is subdivided. For cases
belonging to the excluded category, students who have not student
taught, Y = a +:£:b1.X1..

The pooled multiple regression was then compared to the
individual career stage regressions. An F-test was performed to
determine if the four sets of regressions for the career stages came

from the same population.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter is divided into four sections which provide:
(l) a brief overview of the sample and questionnaire, (2) the factor
analysis results, (3) the findings of the analysis of variance with
post hog comparisons among the teacher career stage means on aliena-
tion, and (4) the results of the multiple regression analysis of
alienation on workplace characteristics. In conjunction with each
set of results a discussion section evaluates the findings as they

relate to existing theory and knowledge of alienation.

Overview of Sample and Questionnaire
In this study of teacher alienation four groups of subjects
received questionnaires. The four groups are:
- preservice elementary education majors who have not student
taught
- preservice elementary education majors who have completed
student teaching
- first-year teachers at the elementary level
- experienced teachers (four years or more) at the elementary

level

71

72

The questionnaire was designed to measure two distinct cate-
gories of information, alienation of labor and workplace characteris-
tics. Alienation of labor was measured by the factors of need
satisfaction and job involvement. Workplace characteristics include
items on teacher influence and control, relevant test of teacher
abilities, and the social value of teacher labor. There are two
parallel forms of the questionnaires, one for students in teacher
education and another for teachers in the field. The questionnaire
for students reflects the fact that they are not presently employed
as teachers and asks them to project upon their prospective experiences
as teachers. The other questionnaire is based on the actual experi-

ences of teachers (see Appendices A and 8).

Factor Analysis

 

Using the total sample, a factor analysis was conducted on the
twenty-three individual scores comprising alienation (see Table 4.1
for a list of variables). Principal factoring with iteration1 iden-
tified six potential factors (see Table 4.2). Only factors with an
eigenvalue2 greater than or equal to one were considered.3 Using the
varimax orthogonal rotation,4 two, three, four, five, and six factor
solutions were subsequently computed. In this study unique factors

with variable "loadings" of coefficients at the criterion of .30 or

 

1Kim, "Factor Analysis," p. 480.

2The squared correlation for each variable on the factor.

3Kim, "Factor Analysis," p. 485.

4Harmon, Modern Factor Analysis, p. 294.

73

Table 4.l.--Questionnaire Item Coding for Dependent Variables.

 

Items Notation Labels

 

Need Satisfaction (Items l-5, 8-l4)

 

l8 - lA = x1 = Self-fulfillment (B-A)

28 - 2A = X2 = Independence (B-A)

38 - 3A = X3 = Accomplishment (B-A)

48 - 4A = X4 = Growth (B-A)

58 - 5A = X5 = Participation in Determining
Teaching Assignment (8—A)

8C - 8A = X6 = Participation in Evaluating
Own Work (C-A)

88 - 8A = X7 = Participation in Evaluating
Own Work (B-A)

9C - 9A = X8 = Participation in Disciplinary
Policies (C-A)

98 - 9A = X9 = Participation in Disciplinary
Policies (B-A)

lOC - lOA = X10 = Participation in Text Book
Selection (C-A)

lOB - lOA = Xll = Participation in Text Book
Selection (B-A)

llC - llA = X12 = Participation in Standardized
Test Selection (C-A)

llB - llA = X13 = Participation in Standardized
Test Selection (B-A)

12C - 12A = X14 = Participation in Budget Deter-
mination (C-A)

128 - l2A = X15 = Participation in Budget Deter-
mination (B-A)

13C - l3A = X16 = Participation in Hiring of New

Administrators (C-A)

74

Table 4.l.--Continued.

 

 

Items Notation Labels
l38 - l3A = X17 = Participation in Hiring of New
Administrators (B-A)
l4C - l4A = Xl8 = Participation in Curriculum
Determination (C-A)
l48 - l4A = X19 = Participation in Curriculum

Determination (8-A)

Job Involvement (Items 6-7, l5-l6)

 

6 = X20 = Personality Involved in Job
7 = X2] = Important Involvement in Job
15 = X22 = Satisfaction from Job
16 = X23 = Live, Eat, and Breathe Job

 

For items l-5:

A = resentl associated (teachers) or anticipate association
students) with teaching job
8 = should be associated with teaching job

For items 8-l4, a time trade-off is added with:

 

 

A = resentl associated (teacher) or anticipate association
stu ents) with teaching job
8 = would want to be associated with teaching job if had to
commit up to one hour once a week after school
C = would want to be associated with teaching job if paid

 

"release time" during school day

75

Table 4.2.--Factor Analysis Eigenvalues and Percent of Variance
Explained on Twenty-three Alienation Scores.

 

 

FaCtor Eigenvalue varigfiggegipgzined VagggncgeEESIEigzd
I 7.432 32.3 32.3
2 3.061 13.3 45.6
3 1.850 8.0 53.7
4 1.313 5.7 59.4
5 1.275 5.5 64.9
6 1.195 5.2 70.1
7 -959 4.2 74.3
8 .931 4.1 78.3
9 '760 3-3 81.6

10 .721 3.1 84.8
ll .604 2.6 87.4
12 .528 2.3 89.7
13 .476 2.1 91.8
14 .442 1,9 93.7
15 .380 1.7 95.4
16 .346 1.5 95.9
17 .254 _ 1.1 98.0
18 .138 .6 98.6
19 .100 .4 99.0
20 .074 .3 99.3
2] .058 .3 99.6
22 .052 .2 99.8
23 .041 .2 100.0

 

76

greater5 were sought. If a variable loaded on more than one factor,

it was not included in any factor.

Results

The three factor solution accounted for 52.6 percent of the
variance and most closely approximated simple structure. Variable
X5, participation in determining teaching assignment, displayed a com-
plexity of two and was not included in the final factor solution.
Table 4.3 lists the variables and their loadings for inclusion in the
three factors.

The findings of Lawler and Hall with scientists6 and Cummings
and Bigelow with blue-collar workers7 was replicated for the job
involvement factor. With the addition in this present study of a time

trade-off8 regarding opportunity for participation on the need

 

5Although .30 is a common criteria, there exists no uniform
standard for loading: see Kerliner, Foundations of Behavioral Research,
p. 662.

 

6Lawler and Hall, "Relationship of Job Characteristics to Job
Involvement," pp. 305-12.

7Cummings and Bigelow, "Satisfaction, Job Involvement, and
Intrinsic Motivation," pp. 523-25.

8For each need satisfaction variable (X to X.l ) subjects were
asked to rate how much of the factor mentioned 1n the i§_associated
with their present or prospective job. This was part A of the ques-
tion. Next, subjects were asked to rate for X] to X5 how much of the
factor they feel should be associated with their job, part 8. X5 to
X19 were altered to refiect a time allocation an individual must make
to participate in the school decision making process. Part B became
the amount of the factor that would be associated with the subject's
job if he or she had to commit one hour once a week after school,
and part C, jj_he or she were given "release time" during the school
day once a week.

77

satisfaction items (for comparision see X1 to X5 vs. X6 to X19 in
Table 4.l), the factor analysis produced two factors for need satisfac-
tion. Previous research9 had not included personal time allocation
possibilities, resulting in one separate need satisfaction factor.

The factor labels are based on the work of Lawler and Hall.

Their definition of need satisfaction focused on self-actualizing
lO

 

opportunities in a job. This present study expanded Lawler and
Hall's need satisfaction items to include opportunities for participa-
tion in school decision making. Given the manner in which the items
loaded into two independent need satisfaction factors, the name (need
satisfaction) was altered to specify the type of need satisfaction:
self-actualization or participation. The three factors are:

X33, self-actuaiization need satisfaction;

X34, participation need satisfaction; and

X35, job involvement.

Discussion

 

The results of the factor analysis indicate that when the need

satisfaction variables regarding opportunity for participation were

altered to include a personal time allocation, the pre- and inservice
teachers sampled interpret their need for participation in the school
decision making process as different from their self-actualization

need for self-fulfillment, growth, accomplishment, and independence.

 

9Cummings and Bigelow, "Satisfaction, Job Involvement, and
Intrinsic Motivation," pp. $23-25; Lawler and Hall, "Relationship
of Job Characteristics to Job Involvement," pp. 305-l2.

10Law1er and Hall, "Relationship of Job Characteristics to
Job Involvement," p. 306.

78

When item X5, participation in determining own teaching assignment,
was presented without a personal time allocation consideration, the
item did not load on just one unique factor (see Table 4.3). In line
with previous researchH job involvement was maintained as a factor
unique from need satisfaction.
Analysis of Variance with Post Hoc Comparisons among
Career Stage Means on Alienation Factors
Through analysis of variance the following hypothesis was
tested:

H]: The rank order of the group means for the alienation of labor
variables (as measured by need satisfaction and job involve-
ment) from least to greatest amount of alienation will be
significantly different as follows: (l) students in teacher
education who have not student taught, (2) students in teacher
education who have completed student teaching, (3) first-year

teachers, and (4) experienced teachers.

Using the notation based on the factor analysis (see
Table 4.3), let X33 = self-actualization need satisfaction, X34 =
participation need satisfaction, X35 = job involvement. The four
groups are denoted by the subscripts Gl = preservice and no student
teaching, 62 = preservice and completed student teaching, GB =
first-year teachers, and G4 = experienced teachers. The statistical

representations of the hypothesis are:

 

11Cummings and Bigelow, "Satisfaction, Job Involvement, and
Intrinsic Motivation," pp. $23-25; Lawler and Hall, "Relationship of
Job Characteristics to Job Involvement," pp. 305-12.

79

 

 

omp.- oa_. 8mm. A<-uv cowpua_am N, a, e
“map wanwecnucaum cw coppmamuwpcaa . x A x 6» xv
cowuumcnwoam 6662 m
n__. _mp. mma. A<-mv eowpum_am xoom uxmh cw cowuaawuwucma .P_x cowoaapuwugaa .8 x
a_o.- ma_. New. A<-uv cowpua_am goon pxmn em cowumawuwpcaa .o_x
No_. _@_. ace. A<-mv mawucpoa sgacwpawumwo cm cowueaWUCHLaa .ox
m_o. NNN. new. A<-uv mamuw_oa scacwpawumwo cm cowaaaP6wuLaa .mx
mo_. oN_. 88m. 6A<-mv 3263 ego mewua=_a>m cw =o_uaawuwucaa .Nx
Nmo.- ~m_. mam. 8A<-uv sec: ago mcwuaapasm cw conunawuwpcaa .mx
¢m_.- Nme. Pom. A<-mv “casemwmm< m
mewsommp mcmcmsgmpmo cm ocvumanwugma . x
e_N.- cam. amp. A<-mv £82628 .ex
e__.- _PN. mm_. A<-mv peasgmw_asouu< .mx Rex 6» va
N :o muuwwmwpmm vmmz mm
58o. cum. _em. A<-mv aucmuemaacch . x comon~mpaapum.cpmm . x
Nm_.- NNN. Loo. 6A<-mv “casppwc_=c-cpmm ._x
m N _
mm_amwcm> cowumcmwF< mgouumu

mmc_umo4 Louumu

.chumz Levon; mugs» chomocugo xmewgm>ii.m.e mpamh

80

 

.mm

 

Nam. mac. eoo.- new anamatm use .uam .msws x
Fem. mm_.- Poo. new seat :owuuaLMVBnm .me
Amux op omxv m
Nwa. me..- N_o.- new cm peasa>Po>=H Beaucoaefi ..Nx neasasposcu new .m x

omm. oom.- oeo. new em 66>Po>cH »_Pa=6mcaa .omx

~__. mo_. wee. A<-mv m_
cowpmcwEmewo Eapauwccso cw cowgmnmowugma . x

eeo.- mmF. Pma. A<-uv mp
cowumcwscmpmo Ezpsuwcczu cw cowumamumugma . x

we..- emo.- _N©. A<-mv acoumcp a,
-mwewae< 362 co meaty: cw comaaawowueaa . x

wom.- omo. own. A<-uv maopaco op
-mwewsu< 36: co macaw: cw cowuaaWUCBLna . x
emo. coo. om“. A<-mv compaCPELmaao pwmusm =_ accumapuwgcaa .m_x
meo.- eN_. mom. A<-uv cowpaewatapao pamoam cw catamawumucaa .¢_x

eoo.- mm_. mmo. A<-mv cowuum_mm my
“map canwucaccmum =_ =6386826wpcaa . x

m N _

 

mmcwumOA Louomd

mmpnmwgm> cowamcmwp<

mgouumu

 

 

 

I‘lltl7‘l I

lit!

.....1 I. . cs . .. Dare»... in.\...4..&.!fii. ., 1.

.uasepueou--.m.e 6_aa»

 

8l

.Foocum Lmuwm xmw:
umnnzm m a sum: umumwoommm ma upsoz was“ Lopumm as»
—

m moco Lao; mco uwssoo op um; mnm co m; mw.non m
w x can . Fx .mpx .mFx .ppx .mx .mx Low <imu

.y
we “cacao ecu m saw: :owuumwmwammmwu mo mgammms m m m

.xmmz a maze xmu Foocum mzu mcwcac
ewe?» mmmmpmc= cm>wm mew: mcm co m; Hfl.aow m.uomnn:m as» gum: umumwoommm ma vpaoz pug» Lopumm mg“ mo
gczosm m2“ u Luv; cowuumwmwummmwc mo mesmmms m mw mpx ucm .mpx .vpx .mpx .opx .wx .mx Low <iun

.non wagp cum: umumwuommm ma upzosm Pom» amsu
Loyomt mgp $0 50:5 30; m cam new mcwcoomu w>mpuwamocq Lo pcmmmcn m.uomwa:m mmp sum: umummuommm mfl.smpw
mzu cw nmcowucme Loyomw mg“ mo Sosa 3o; < saw: cowuuwwmwummmwc 4o mczmmws m mw x..... x Low <imm

m.a m_amh LOL 8886:

”1‘ X35 1 X35 1 X35

GI 62 G3

An overall F-test was

if any significant difference existed among means.

35

‘4!»
X

G4

conducted at the .95 level to determine

When a significant

difference was found, a series of complex comparisons among the means

was carried out using the Scheffé method.

Being the most conservative

of the multiple comparisons tests, "it is less likely than other tests

to show differences as significant."

12 The complex comparisons

allowed the generation of alternative hypotheses to the "not equal"

hypotheses above.

H : 7' < X1 < IX
I 3361 3362 3363

: X < X < X
3481 3462 34G3

: x > x >
1 356] 3562‘

X

 

12

Sciences, p. l29.

< X

< X

> X

The new alternative hypotheses were:

3364

3464

3564

Kerlinger and Pedhazur, Multiple Regression in Behavioral

 

83

Note that when the variable measures for need satisfaction (X33 and
X34) are lowest, need satisfaction is at its highest and alienation is

minimal.

Results

A detailed account of the results are displayed in Appendix C
in Tables C-l to C-3. Table 4.4 is a summary of the results of the
pg§t_hgg_comparisons among teacher career stage means on the aliena-
tion factors. For each of the three alienation factors a significant
difference existed among the four groups. In no cases, however, did
the teacher education students (G1 and 62) differ significantly as
hypothesized between each other nor did the teacher group (G3 and G4).
Differences in the direction alternatively hypothesized were consis-
tently found between teacher education students and teachers. Although
possessing mean scores in the direction hypothesized, students who had
completed student teaching (82) were not significantly different than
first-year teachers (G3) in their levels of alienation.

Both groups of teacher education students were less alienated
than the teacher samples regarding the opportunity to experience
self-actualization as a teacher (X33, Table 4.4). Preservice teachers
who had not student taught were also less alienated than both teacher
groups from the opportunity for participation in the school decision
making process (X34, Table 4.4). Experienced teachers were more
alienated from involvement in their jobs as teachers than either of

the teacher education samples (X35, Table 4.4).

84

Table 4.4 --Subsets in Which Teacher Career Stage Means for Alienation
Factors Differ Significantly under Scheffé post ppp_
Procedure.

 

X33, Self-Actualization Need Satisfactiona:

subset l: G} (l.lS) < E3 (3.33)b

subset 2: G} (l.l5) < GA (4.28)

subset 3:'G

2 (2.42) < 84 (4.28)

X34, Participation Need Satisfactionc:
subset 1: E} (12.65) < 83 (26.81)b

subset 2: G} (l2.65) < E4 (28.35)
X35, Job Involvement:

subset 1: a} (19.97) > GA (16.82)d

subset 2: E? (18.98) > 8) (16.82)

 

Note:
G1 = teacher education students who have not student taught;
. G2 = teacher education students who have completed student
teaching
G3 = first-year teachers

G4 experienced teachers

aBased on B-A: A = presently associated (teachers) or antici-
pate association (students with teaching job and 8 = should be
associated with teaching job.

bDissatisfaction increases with rise in mean score.

cDetermined by time trade-off discrepancy scores between actual
(teachers) or anticipated (students) participation state and projected
participation state given time commitment after school and/or
"release time" during day.

d . . . .
Job involvement decreases w1th a decline in the mean score.

85

Discussion

 

Contrary to the hypothesis, students who had not student
taught and those who had completed student teaching did not differ
significantly among themselves nor did first-year teachers and experi-
enced teachers. This finding suggests that despite the student
teaching experience, the teacher education student groups sampled do
not significantly differ in their perception of what employment as a
teacher holds for them. Apparently becoming a first-year teacher has
the general effect of bringing that group's perception of the work of
teaching closer to those held by experienced teachers. The majority
of significant contrasts were between teacher education students who
had not student taught and both teacher samples. It may be that
people enter a teaching career with an idealized image of teaching,
but only upon actual full-time involvement in their work become
significantly more alienated with teaching than when they initially
began their career as teacher education students.

On the three factors comprising alienation teacher education
students anticipated a lower degree of alienation from their prospec-
tive teaching jobs than teachers, especially experienced ones, were
presently perceiving. This may be explained by the fact that unlike

teacher education students, teachers have sold their labor power13

 

13Marx conceived of "labor power" as a commodity which workers
exchange for money or a price. The selling of labor power is a pre-
cursor of alienated labor. Marx states that "the exercise of labour
power, labour, is the worker's own life-activity, the manifestation
of his own life. And this life-activity he sells to another person
in order to secure the necessary means of subsistence. Thus his life-
activity is for him only a means to enaETe him to exist. He works in
order to live. He does not even reckon labour as part of his life, it
is rather a sacrifice of his life. It is a commodity which he has

86

to the public schools for employment. Marx's theory of alienation
states that a worker experiences alienation when the product and pro-
cesses of his or her labor is determined and reified by external

forces.14

With their labor serving more as a commodity than as a

personally fulfilling activity, teachers may experience alienation

from their work. Fuller and Brown have noted in their essay, "Becoming

a Teacher," that "society's formal goals for teachers are high but

somewhat vague. Standards are, in fact, so variable that an important

skill for the teacher new to a community is that of sensing its values

and modifying one's teaching accordingly."15
For teachers the significantly higher levels of alienation from

the opportunity to be self-actualized may be because they encounter

their labor as not belonging to them. In contemporary observations

Maslow concedes that "the relationship between self-esteem and work

is closer than I had thought. Especially healthy and stable self-

esteen (the feeling of worth, pride, influence, importance, etc.)

rests on good, worthy work to be introjected, thereby becoming part

of the self."16

Using Aiken and Hage's guidelines for participation, "the

degree to which staff members participate in setting the goals and

 

made over to another. Hence, also the product of his activity is not
the object of his activity. . . . What he produces for himself is
wages . . .” Marx, "Wage Labour and Capital," pp. 169-7l.

l4
pp. 60-63.

15

Marx, "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of l844,"

Fuller and Brown, "Becoming a Teacher," p. 31.

16Maslow, Eupsychian Management. PP. lZ-l3.

87

policies of the entire organization,“17 teachers sampled in this study

felt a relatively high degree of alienation from the school decision

18 and out19 reports a

making process. Research on work in schools
positive relationship between worker satisfaction and control (or
desire for control) over his or her labor. Corwin observes, "There
is reason to believe that a desire for more influence over policy and
disagreement with central level decision making and district goals
account for much of the teacher militancy and dissatisfaction."20
Furthermore, as Morgart, Mihalik, and Martin explain,

. if teachers' needs remain essentially peripheral in the
decision making progress determining the nature of their work
roles, then it becomes easier to understand why teachers like
other workers might experience their work activities as
alienating rather than as a means of developing their mental
and emotional growth.2]

Teachers were significantly less involved in their jobs than

teacher education students anticipate they will be. Possibly due to

the vagueness of the product of schooling and the external control over

 

17Aiken and Hage, "Organizational Alienation," p. 498.

18See Barakat, "Alienation from School System;" "Who Should
Make What Decisions?": Ambrosie and Heller, "Secondary School Adminis-
trator:" McClure, "Decision Making at Institutional Level:" Belasco
and Alutto, "Decisional Participation and Teacher Satisfaction;" Ingle
and Munsterman, "Relationship of Value to Group Satisfaction;" Ellen-
berg, "Factors Affecting Teacher Morale:" and Chung, "Teacher-Centered
Management Style of Public School Principals."

19See Fromm, To Have or To Be: Lawler and Hall, "Relationship
of Job Characteristics to 36b InvOlvement;" March and Simon, Organiza-
tions; Vroom, Work and Motivation: and Bachman and Tannebaum, "Control-
Satisfaction Relationship.“

20Corwin, "The New Teaching Profession," p. 238.

21Morgart, Mihalik, and Martin, "Alienation in an Educational
Context," p. 2.

88

the process of teacher labor, teachers may come to question the value
and importance of the work they are performing. For Faunce alienation
of labor can be seen through "a withdrawal of self investment” or

personal involvement from an occupational role.22

Along these lines
Maslow adds,
The only happy people I know are the ones who are working well
at something they consider important. . . . This was the
universal truth for all my self-actualizing subjects. They
were metamotivated by metaneeds expressed in their devotion

to, dedication to, and identification with some great and
important job.23

Analysis of Variance with Post Hoc Cgmparisons among
Career Stage Means on Individual Alienation Scores

Results

Analysis of variance with pp;tflhpp_comparisons were also con-
ducted on the twenty-three individual scores comprising alienation
(see Table 4.l). This series of pp§t_ppp_comparisons assessed the
differences among the teacher career stage means towards each indi—
vidual alienation score. Seventeen of the twenty-three individual
score analyses of variance exhibited a significant difference among
the group means. Table 4.5 is a summary of the results of the pp§t_
_ppp comparisons among teacher career stage means on the seventeen
significant individual alienation scores. A total display of the
analysis of variance and ppppdppp comparison results is in Appendix D

in Tables D-l to D-23.

 

22Faunce, "Self Investment in the Occupational Role," p. 18.

23Maslow, Eupsychian Management, p. 6.

89

Table 4.5.--Subsets in Which Teacher Career Stage Means for Individual

Alienation Scores Differ Significantly under Scheffé post
ppp_Procedure.

 

‘l,

3,

49

6’

8,

10’

Opportunity for Self-fulfillmenta:
subset l: G, (.22) < E3 (.94)b

subset 2: Gé (.22) < E4 (l.O9)

Opportunity for Accomplishmenta:

subset l: G} (.28) < G3 (.941b

subset 2: G

1 (.28) < Ch (1.07)

Opportunity for Growtha:
subset 1: E, (.14) < ‘03 (.90)b
subset 2:51 (.14) < 04 (1.35)

subset 3: Eé (.46)‘< E4 (1.35)

Participation in Evaluating Own Work (C-A)C:
subset 1: G] (.57) < 83 (2.35)b
subset 2: G] (.57) < 84 (2.10)

subset 3:'G

2 (1.23) <83 (2.35)

Participation in Disciplinary Policies (C-A)c:
subset 1: E] (.26)< E3 (.92)b

subset 2: G] (.26)< G4 (1.30)
subset 3: E2 (.34)< G4 (1.30)

Participation in Text Book Selection (C-A)C:

subset 1: E] (.74)< c3 (1.70)b
subset 2: 13'] (.74)< G4 (l.92)

90

Table 4.5.--Continued.

 

X1], Participation in Text Book Selection (8-A)d:

subset: G} (.54) <1 63 (1.46)b

X12, Participation in Standardized Test Selection (C-A)c:
)b

subset 1: 1 (1.04) < GS (2.68
subset 2: ‘01 (1.05) < 04 (3.07)
subset 3: 62 (1.50) < 03 (2.68)

subset 4: 0'2 (1.50) < G (3.07)

4

X13, Participation in Standardized Test Selection (B-A)d:
subset 1: E] (1.00) < 63 (2.05)b
subset 2: 0'] (1.00) < "0'4 (1.95)

14, Participation in Budget Determination (C-A)C:

subset 1: is" (1.27) < '64 (3.34)b

subset 2: Gé (1.76) < 64 (3.34)

X15, Participation in Budget Determination (B-A)d:

subset: Eh (1.15)‘< E4 (2.13)b

X16’ Participation in Hiring New Administrators (C-A)c:

subset 1: E] (1.36) < 53 (3.41)b

subset 2: E] (1.36) < 4 (3.82)

subset 3: 02 (2.14) < G3 (3.41)
subset 4: '62 (2.14) < 0'4 (3.82)

91

Table 4.5.--Continued.

 

X17’

18’

20’

21’

22’

Participation in Hiring New Administrators (B-A)d:

subset 1: '0'1 (1.44) < 6 (2.83)b

3
subset 2: G5 (1.44) < G; (3.10)

subset 3:18

2 (1.98) < E

4 (3.10)

Participation in Curriculum Determination (C-A)C:

subset: E] (.77) < 84 (2.45)b

Personally Involved in Job:
subset 1: El (6.42)< GA (5.87)e
subset 2: 62 (6.37) < '04 (5.87)

Important Involvement in Job:

subset l: G} (5.09) < 83 (4.33)e

subset 2: G1 (5.09) < GA (3.96)

subset 3z'G

2 (4.64) < 64 (3.96)

Satisfaction from Job:

subset l: G}

subset 2: G1

subset 3: 02

(4.99) < G
(4.99) < G
(4.67) < 8' (3.94)

 

Note:

teaching

1
2

teacher education students who have not student taught

teacher education students who have completed student

first-year teachers

experienced teachers

92

Notes for Table 4.5.--Continued.

aBased on B-A: A = presently associated (teachers) or antici-
pate association (students) with teaching job and 8 = should be
associated with teaching job.

b . . . . . . .
Dissatisfaction increases with rise in mean score.

CThe discrepancy score between actual (teachers) or anticipated
(students) participation states and projected time trade-off of using
school day ”release time" once a week for participation (C-A).

dThe discrepancy score between actual (teachers) or anticipated
(students) participation states and projected time trade-off of
allocating an hour after school once a week for participation (B-A).

I

eJob involvement decreases with a decline in the mean score.

93

As in the case of the three alienation factors, teacher educa-
tion students (G1 and 62) did not differ significantly between each
other. This was also true for the teacher groups (G3 and G4) except
in one case, variable X1]. In the instance of X1] experienced
teachers (G4) were less alienated than first-year teachers (G3) from
the opportunity for participation in text book selection when alloca-
ting an hour of their time once a week after school. With this one
exception, differences in the direction alternatively hypothesized
for the three factors were consistently found between teacher educa-
tion students and teachers on the seventeen significant analyses of
variance.

From a total of forty-one significant subset comparisons,
only three were between teacher education students who had completed
student teaching (62) and first-year teachers (G3). The three
differences were on opportunity for participation items. First-year
teachers were more alienated than preservice teachers who had student
taught regarding participation in

X6, evaluating one's own work;
X12, standardized test selection; and
X16, hiring new administrators.

Three of the four items which comprise the self-actualization
need satisfaction factor, X33, displayed significant differences among
the groups. Preservice teachers who had not student taught were less
alienated than both groups of teachers from the opportunity in the
teaching job for self-fulfillment (X1), accomplishment (X3), and

growth (X4). Teacher education students who had completed student

94

teaching were also less alienated than experienced teachers regarding
the opportunity for growth.

Seven different school decision making possibilities with two
different personal time allocation considerations were presented to the
sample (see X6 to X19 in Table 4.1). All seven participation cate-
gories produced significant differences among the means when the
potential for ”release time" during the school day once a week was
available. Allocating an hour once a week after school for participa-
tion in school decision making resulted for four (X11, X13, X15, X17)
of the seven opportunity for participation variables in significant
group mean differences.

Opportunity for participation after school produced alienation
scores generally lower than the "release time" option. As was the
general trend, teacher education students were less alienated from
the possibility of eventually participating in policy formation than
were full-time teachers. The highest mean levels of alienation from
participation in decision making opportunities for all groups sampled
in descending order were in:

l. the hiring of new administrators for the school district

(X and X

16 l7)’
2. budget detennination for their own school (X14 and X15), and
3. standardized test selection (X12 and X13).
Three additional participation options, also in descending rank,
producing relatively moderate alienation scores were in:
4. evaluating one's own work (X6),

5. curriculum determination (X18), and

6. text book selection (X10 and X11).

95

The opportunity for participation variable

7. disciplinary policies for students (X8)
provided the least amount of alienation among the four groups of
subjects.

Three items representing job involvement resulted in signifi-
cant mean differences between teacher education students and teachers.
Both groups of preservice teachers anticipate being more personally
involved in their work (X20), having more important involvement in
their job (X21), and receiving more satisfaction from a teaching
career (X22) than experienced teachers. Students who had not student
taught projected more important involvement in and satisfaction from
the work of teaching than first-year teachers perceived they presently

had in their jobs.

Discussion

 

Teachers sampled displayed a higher level of alienation from
the opportunity in the teaching job for self-fulfillment, accomplish-
ment, and growth than teacher education students anticipated in their
prospective careers. Given the external control exercised over
teachers in the production process of teaching, teachers may not be
presently experiencing these self-actualizing needs and are with-
drawing their intrinsic involvement from their labor. Faunce states,

Quality of work is clearly a normative concept and is usually
defined in terms of extent of autonomy, opportunity for

creativity, and recognition for achievement on the job. There
is at least inferential evidence, however, that people do not

place high value upon these attributes of a job in the absence
of self investment in it.24

 

24Faunce, "Self-Investment in the Occupational Role," pp. 18-19.

96

Teacher education students, however, in contrast to teachers antici-
pate that they will be able to attain self—fulfillment, accomplishment,
and growth through the work of teaching.

First-year teachers were more alienated than preservice
teachers who had completed student teaching only with respect to
participation in evaluating one's own work, standardized test selec-
tion, and hiring new administrators. A possible explanation for this
difference is that these particular participation opportunities may be
examples of ones which become most irrmediately meaningful to novice
teachers in contrast to what they may have anticipated when they were
teacher education students who had completed student teaching. As
Hoy explains, the beginning teacher "may suddenly be confronted with a
set of organization norms and values at variance with those acquired
in formal preparation."25

Opportunity for participation after school produced alienation
scores lower than the "release time" option on the same item. This
difference may reflect that the sample is more willing to allocate
their time during the school day than after regular work hours in
order to participate in decision making. Despite this perceived
willingness, the higher scores on the "release time" option also
suggest, especially for the teacher samples, the possibility that
dissatisfaction prevails in part since teachers are denied participa-

tion in a large number of school decisions which affect their work.26

 

25Hoy, "Influence of Experience on Beginning Teacher," p. 315.

26Smith, "Teacher Planning for Instruction," pp. 7, ll;
Lortie, "Balance of Control and Autonomy in Elementary School
Teaching," pp. 4, l9.

97

The highest levels of alienation from participation in
decision making opportunities were in the hiring of new administrators
for the school district, budget determination for the teachers' own
school, and standardized test selection. Alienation from the hiring
process of administrators may be because administrators control
numerous decisions which affect the labor of teachers.27 Furthermore,
teachers generally have little voice in employment decisions regarding
administrators. The concern over school budget may be a function of
teachers desiring increased decisional input or instructional materials
which they feel are needed for them to perform their work as

28 Alienation from participation in standardized test selec-

teachers.
tion may be explained by the existence of a large number of teachers
who consider standardized tests an unnecessary intrusion into their
workplaces.29
A comparatively moderate degree of alienation from participa-
tion Options was produced for evaluating one's own work, curriculum
determination, and text book selection. Alienation from the oppor-
tunity to participate in evaluating one's own work may stem from
schooling production goals which are never explicitly stated for the
teacher. Greene in Teacher as Stranger suggests that "the teacher's

feeling of responsibility may well be eroded by an implicit demand

 

27Ibid.

28This interpretation is based in part on discussions with
teachers who participated in the questionnaire pilot.

29Francis Quinto and Berhard McKenna, Alternatives to
Standardized Testing (Washington, D.C.: National Education’Association,
977 .

98

that he be the agent of an externally defined purpose, which he can
only understand as a slogan or still another expression of prevailing
peity."30
The relatively moderate lack of participation in curriculum
and text determination may be a function of teachers generally not

31 In the case of text

controlling "long-range planning decision."
book selection experienced teachers were less alienated than first-
year teachers when allocating an hour of their time once a week after
school. As new full-time members to the employment of teaching,
first-year teachers may be concerned over the lack of input they have
in determining the text books for use in their own classrooms.

The least amount of alienation among the four groups of
subjects for an opportunity for participation variable was in disci-
plinary policies for students. Disciplinary policies for this sample
may be a realm in which a large degree of participation by teachers
presently exists. Bowles and Gintis contend that a central role of
schooling is to reproduce the unequal hierarchical relationships found
in work settings by creating students submissive to authority.32

Teacher involvement in creating and carrying out disciplinary policies

may be a way in which the function of submission is attained.

 

30Greene, Teacher as Stranger, pp. 269-70.

31Smith, "Teacher Planning for Instruction," p. 7.

32Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, Schooling in Capitalist
America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life
(New York: Basic Books, Inc., l976). PP. l25-4B.

 

99

Three job involvement items resulted in significant mean
differences between teacher education students and teachers. Subjects
who had been in a teaching career longest were the least involved
group in their labor. As noted previously for the job involvement
factor, alienation may increase as teachers experience "a withdrawal

of self investment” from their occupational role.33

Multiple Regression Analysis of Alienation Factors
on Workplace Characteristics

 

 

Multiple regression was used to test the following hypothesis:
H2: For each of four career stages of a teacher (students in

teacher education who have not student taught, students in

teacher education who have completed student teaching, first-

year teachers, and experienced teachers), a significant

proportion of the variance of alienation of labor (as measured

by need satisfaction and job involvement) will be explained

by workplace characteristics (as measured by teacher

influence and control, a relevant test of teacher abilities,

and the social value of teacher labor).

Using the same notation as in the analysis of variance for the
alienation factor, X33, X34, X35; let the nine individual items which
24’°"’X32
(see Table 4.6). The statistical representations of the hypothesis

comprise the workplace characteristics be represented by X

for each career stage are:

 

33Faunce, "Self Investment in the Occupational Role," p. 18.

100

Table 4.6.—-Questionnaire Item Coding for Independent Variables.

 

Items Notation Labels

 

Teacher Influence and Control (Items 17 and 21)

 

17

X24 = Control and Final Say Over Job
21

X

25 Influence Within School Building

Relevant Test of Teacher Abilities (Items 18-20)

 

18 = X26 = Job ApprOpriate for Abilities
19 = X27 = Creativity in Job
20 = X = Job Gives Chance to Do Things Teacher
28
Does Best

Social Value of Labor (Items 22-25)

 

22 = X29 = Parents Regard School as "Babysitting”
Agency

23 = X3O = Parents Deeply Concerned about a Top
Quality Education

24 = X3] = Parents Who Want Feedback on Their
Children

25 = X32 = Principal Provides Adequate Informa-

tion on Teacher's Performance

 

101

HO: R333. x24....,x32 = 0

H]: RE . X24,...,X32 > O
33

H0: Ri . x24....,x32 = 0
34

H]: Ri . X24,...,X32 > 0
34

H0: Ri . x24....,x32 = 0
35

H]: Ri . x24,...,x32 > 0
35

The general multiple regression equation for the three

alienation factors, Yi’ regressed on the nine workplace items is

Y = a + b X + b

24 24 25X

b X

b 27 27 1

b b

25 1 26x26 1 28x28 1 29X29 1

b X + b X + b

30 30 31 31 X

32 32 1 e

where e represents error, a is a constant where the regression line
crosses the Y-axis, and the bi are the regression coefficients. The
regression coefficients equal the slopes of the regression surface
(the change in the dependent variable per unit change in the indepen-
dent variable, minimizing the sum of the squared errors of predic-

tion).

Results

For the four teacher career stages Table 4.7 is a summary of
the alienation factors having a significant proportion of the variance

accounted for by the workplace variables. Tables E-l to E-4 and E-6

102

Ammo.v mm. .Azucmm<
emewbbemseeme we Fooebm eeembm meeeeeav Nx ”Ammo.v
om.: .Aummm mmoo Locumm» mmcwgh on op mucosa mm>wu nonv wmx Acowpumwmwumm ummz

mA_oo.v eo.P- .Ammebep_e< tee spewsaoeaa< beev eNx mooo.v Ne. eoeee~e_e=eue-e_umv mmx

 

”mgmsummb umuzmmgmmxm .e

Ao_o.v oo.- .Acopmmosuu zuPFezo no» a “zone umctmucou
xpawmo mucwgwmv o x mampo.v ow.i .AQOG Cw hpw>mummgu me Acowuumwmwumm ummz mm
“Ammo.v Nm. .Anow gw>o %wm PMCPm Ucm Posucou vwx mooo.v Pm. comumepmzuumiwpmmv x

 

ummeuwwh me>1Hmeu .m

$89: m
om.m .Aammm moon cucummh mmcwzh on on mucmgu mm>pw now Nx mm
”Aeoo.v mo.P .Aboe ease sew Feeeu nee .eegeou emx mooo.v we. AueeeusFoseH eoav x

 

"mcwcuemp newczam nopmnmeou o>e: oz: mucmozpm cowpmoaum succumb .N

Aepo.v ee.P .Abeq e? seeseeeeeuv NNx mm
”Amoo.v m_._ .Ame_e_esm Foeeem ewebwz beeespee_v mmx moo. Pm. AeeeEesposeH 868V x

Aeeepueenweem eebz
eAaoo.v use. .Aboe ease sew _eeeu eee Foeueeuv emx nape. eem. eoPee~e_e=eee-epemv mmx

uucmsmp ucmvzum uoz m>m= oz: mucmnzum cowumuacm Locumm» .p

 

 

Ac guwzv ea mm_nmwtm> mumpaxcoz ucmuwewcmwm “we: a ma sopumm
.mmmmum mesmu gmsummh ma Ammx.....¢mxv mmgoum uwpmwtmuumgmnu
mumpqxtoz co Ammx .vmx . xv mcouuwu compmcmw_< we mcowmmmtmmm mpawupaz acmowmvcmwmii.~.¢ mpnmh

103

.Pw>mp acmotmg mm mcp op osmN onm ucmtmwmwv apuchwmwcmwm we; wpammcm> ucmucwqmucw ozu

.ucmPUVwemou cowmmmcmmmu

._w>mp «unmovwwcmwmip

 

 

 

a
.me.....¢~x
an emcee—axe touuee cm mucmwce> to cowpcoaota “cowgmcwscmumu mpamupzs mo ucmwuwmemoom
ufimoo.v mm mm
Kw. .Apmmm mmoo ngomm» mmcwch on o» mocmgo mm>ww nonv x nmo. _N. Aucmsm>Po>cH noav x
Amoo.v om.m- .Ameee_w=m _ooeum eeeewz beeu=_eeHv mmx “coweueemeeem eeuz em
mAmmo; mm.~ .Anoq tm>o xem Paced use Fotucouv emx mooo.v Fe. cowuaqwumuteav x
”Numzcwpcouqmtmsummh umucmwcmqmm .8
A8 cuwsv en mmpnewtm> mompaxtoz pcerwwcmwm umoz a Na Louoem

 

.euseeeeou--.~.e u_eee

104

to E-7 in Appendix E provide a detailed display of the multiple
regreSSion results (see dependent variables X33. X34, X35).

A significant proportion of the variance was explained for the
self-actualization need satisfaction factor, X33, by the nine work—
place variables for teacher education students who had not student

taught (R2 = .26), first-year teachers (R2

teachers (R2 = .47). The workplace items significantly predicted the

= .51), and experienced

variance for the participation need satisfaction factor, X34, for
experienced teachers (R2 = .41). The job involvement factor, X35.
had a significant proportion of its variance accounted for by the
workplace characteristics for perservice teachers who have not student
taught (R2 = .3l), preservice teachers who have completed student
teaching (R2 = .48), and experienced teachers (R2 = .21). A discus-
sion of the interpretation of these results is conducted in the
section below in conjunction with the findings of the regressions for
the pooled sample.
Pooled Multiple Regression Compared to Individual
Career Stage Regressions

Dummy variables34 for the teacher career stages were included
in the multiple regression along with the workplace characteristic
scores. The number of dummy variables is (K groups - l) = 3. Each
dummy variable is assigned a value of O or 1. The regression equation
for each of the three alienation factors as dependent variables, Y1,

is

34Johnston, Econometric Methods, PP. 176-86.

 

105

Y = a + b X + b X

24 24 25 25 1 b

b b b X

26x26 1 27X27 1 28x28 1 29 29 1

b30x30 1 b31x31 1 b32x32 1 C101 1 C202 1 0303 1 e

where: 01 = l for students who have completed student teaching, 0
otherwise; 02 = l for first-year teachers, 0 otherwise; and D3 = l for
experienced teachers, 0 otherwise. In the instance of dummy variables
the regression coefficients Ci are the changes in the conditional

mean of the dependent variable taking into account the independent
variables. This is so because dummy variables represent categories
for the different groups into which the sample is subdivided. For
cases belonging to the excluded category, students who have not
student taught, Y = a +:Z:b1.X1..

The pooled multiple regression was then compared to the
individual career stage regressions. An F-test was performed to
determine if the four sets of regressions for the career stages came
from the same population. If the computed F was greater than the

critical F, then pooling the sample for analysis is not legitimate.

Results

A significant proportion of the variance in the three
alienation factors was explained by the workplace variables: self-
actualization need satisfaction, X33 (R2 = .34); participation need
satisfaction, X34 (R2 = .23); and job involvement, X35 (R2 = .28).
The summary of the findings for the pooled sample is in Table 4.8.
Tables E-S to E-7 in Appendix E present the entire results of the

multiple regression analysis for the pooled sample.

Table 4. 8. o-Significant Multiple Correlations of Individual Alienation Scores (X,
(X 33. X34. X35) on Workplace Characteristics (X24. ,X32) for Pooled Sampl

106

X33) and Alienation Factors

 

 

Determination)

Dependent Variable 22 a Most Significant Workplace Variables b (with o)
X 3 (Self-actualization .34a <.0005b a (constant),c 6. 34d (<. 0005)b; X24 (Control and Final Say Over
Need Satisfaction) Job),. 9L 001); X2 (Job Appropriate for Abilities). - .63
(<. 0005): X22 (Parengs Regard School as “Baby-sitting" Agency).
.051) (Parents Deeply Concerned about a Top Quality
Education), -336 (.056)
x34 (Participation .23 <.0005 a (constant), 29.40 (. 003); X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job).
Need Satisfaction) l. 97 (. 020): X25 (Influence Within School Building). -2. 30
(.019); 02 (First- Year Teachers). 9.89 (. 005); 03 (Experienced
Teachers). 9.10 (. 007)
X35 (Job Involvement) .28 <.0005 a (constant). 6. 46 (. 003); X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job),
.50 .007); X25 (Job Appropriate for Abilities). .53 L 007);
X28 Job Gives6 Chance to 00 Thin 5 Teacher Does Best),.
(. 002); 03 (Experienced Teachers?, -1. 69 (.022)
x1 (Self-fulfillment [e-AJ)e .30 <.0005 a (constant), 1.77 (.007)
X2 (Independence) .19 <.0005 X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job). .25 (<.0005)
X3 (Accomplishment [B-A]) .24 <.0005 X2 (Control and Final Say Over Job), .12 (.008): (Job Gives
ghance to Do Things Teacher Does Best). - .13( .0451W 9(Parents
Regard School as "Baby-sitting" Agency). .09 (. 056): 029 (First-
Year Teachers). .44 (.020); 03 (Experienced Teachers), .42 (.022)
X4 (Growth [B-AJ) .35 <.0005 a (constant), 3. 22 (<. 0005): (Job ApprOpriate for Abilities).
- .18 (. 003): (ngm (Job Gives xEgance to Do Things Teacher Does
Best). - .15
(Participation in Determining .16 <.0005 a (constant). 2.87( “001) X4 (Control and Final Say Over Job),
Teaching Assignment [B-AJ) .29 (.009 ; X?g Parents Seeply Concerned about a Top Quality
Education . - .007): D (Experienced Teachers), .58 L 007)
3
X6 (Participation in Evaluating .17 <.0005 X2? (Control and Final Sa Over Job). . L 003): 02 (First- Year
Own Work [C- A] eachers), 1.54 (<. 0005: 03 (Experienced Teachers), 1.16 L 003)
X7 (Participation in Evaluating .11 .003 a (constant. 2.85 L 006): X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job),
Own Work [B-A])9 .20 (.024; X32 (Parents Deeply Concerned about a Top Quality
Education). 2( .036)
X8 (Participation in Discipli— .18 <.0005 X2 (Control and Final Say Over Job), .31 (. 001); X25 (Influence
nary Policies [C-A]) aithin School Building). - .26 (. Ol6); (First- Year Teachers),
.83 (. OZBL 03 (Experienced Teachers), .06 (.004)
X9 (Participation in Discipli- .10 .006 X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job). .21 (.011)
nary Policies [B-A])
X10 (Participation in Text Book .11 .003 X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job), .23 (.020): 02 (First-Year
Selection [C-A]) Teachers). 1.06 (.008)
Xn (Participation in Text Book .07 .058 03 (Experienced Teachers), -.90 (.011)
Selection [B-AJ)
X12 (Participation in Standard- .19 <.0005 . a (constant). 2. 64( L035); X25 (Influence Within School Building).
ized Test Selection [C-AJ) - .25 (.045) (First-Year Teachers), 1.40 (. 001); D3 (Experi-
enced Teachers1, l. 74( MOS)
X13 (Participation in Standard- .11 .004 a (constant), 3.31 (.004): 02 (First-Year Teachers), .74 (.061)
ized Test Selection [8- A])
XN (Participation in Budget .19 <.0005 X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job). .19 (. 066): 02 (First-Year

Teachers). .79 (. 065): 03 (Experienced TeachersL 1.44 (.001)

107

Table 4.8.--Continued.

 

 

Dependent Variable R2 a Most Significant Workplace Variablesb1 (with o)
X15 (Participation in Budget .15 <.0005 a (constant). 3.00 (.008); X (Job Gives Change to Do Things
Detenmination [B-A]) Teacher Does Best). .30 (. 92)

X16 (Participation in Hiring of .20 <.0005 a (constant). 2.73 (.033); 02 (First-Year Teachers). 1.68 (<.0005);
New Administrators [C'A]) 03 (Experienced Teachers). 1.95 (<.0005) '

X17 (Participation in Hiring of .14 <.0005 X32 (Principal Provides Adequate Information on Teacher's Perfor-
New Administrators [B-A]) mance). -.35 (.009); 02 (First-Year Teachers). 1.10 (.008);
03 (Experienced Teachers). 1.21 (.003)

X18 (parth1Pation in Curriculum .10 <.0005 X2 (Control and Final Say Over Job). .30 (.001); X2 (Influence
Determination [C-AJ) Within School Building). -.22 (.033); 0 (Teacher ducation
Students Who Have Completed Student Tealhing). .74 (.030);
03 (Experienced Teachers). 1.16 (.001)

X19 (Participation in Curriculum .15 <.0005 a (constant). 2.54 (.008); X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job).
Detennination [B-A]) .24 (.003) '

X20 (Personally Involved in Job) .28 <.0005 a (constant). 3.69 (<.0005); X26 (Job Appropriate for Abilities).
.12 (.009); X27 (Creativity in Job). .17 (.007)

X2] Limportant Involvement in .25 <.0005 a (constant). 2.38 (.001); X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job).
Job) 16 (.009); X 5 (Job Appropriate for Abilities). .12 (.060);
X Parents eply Concerned about a Top Quality Education).
.39 (<.0005); 02 (First-Year Teachers). -.50 (.045); D3 (Experi-
enced Teachers). -.94 (<.0005)

X22 (Satisfaction from Job) .25 <.0005 X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job). .18 (.005); X 6 (Job
Appropriate for Abilities). .24 (.001); X (Job ives Chance
to Do Things Teacher Does Best). .17 (.056?; 03 (Experienced
Teachers). .68 (.007)

X23 (Live. Eat. and Breathe Job) .15 <.0005 X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job). .25 (.001)

 

8Coefficient of multiple determination; proportion of variance in individual score or factor explained by

X24.....X32.

bl-significance level.

cFor cases belonging to the excluded category of dunny variables (X groups - l) - 3 dunny variables. Students
Who Have Not Student Taught: ,,
y . a +1519”1

dRegression coefficient.

eB-A for X1.....X5 is a measure of dissatisfaction with A how much of the factor mentioned in the item is
associated with the subject's present or prospective teaching job and 8 how much of the factor they feel should be
associated with their job.

fC-A for X5. X8. X10. X12, X14. X15. and X13 is a measure of dissatisfaction with C the amount of the factor
that would be associated with the subject's Job 1! he or she were given “release time" during the school day once a
week. ‘

gB-A for X7, X9, X 1. X13. X1 . X17. and X19 is a measure of dissatisfaction with B the amount of the factor
that would be associated w th the sub ect s Job 1: he or she had to ounnit one hour once a week after school.

108

The statistical comparison of the four career stage regres-
sions with the pooled sample indicated that pooling was permissible.
Therefore, regardless of the statistical significance of the explained
variance for the individual regressions, the difference among the
separate career stage regressions were not significant when compared
to the pooled sample (see Table E-8 in Appendix E).

The most significant workplace characteristics in predicting
changes in the self-actualization need satisfaction were

X24, little control and final say over job,

X26, job appropriate for abilities,

X29, parents regard school as ”baby-sitting" agency, and

X30, parents deeply concerned about a top quality education.
When the members of the sample perceived that they had minimal
control over their labor and that their school was regarded as a
"baby-sitting" agency, their alienation from the opportunity to
experience self-actualization through the teaching job increased.
However, if the sample felt that their job was suitable for their
abilities and that parents are concerned about the quality of
education their children are receiving, the alienation index on self-
actualization decreased.

Two independent variables,

X24, having little control and final say over the teaching job, and
X25, influence within the school building,
were the most significant independent variables predicting participa-
tion need satisfaction, X34. The behavior of the dummy variables
indicates that teaching career stage is significantly correlated to

participation need satisfaction when taking into consideration items

109

on school workplace characteristics. Little control in the job
predicted an increase in alienation from participation need satisfac-
tion while having influence within the school building decreased
alienation.
X24, little control and final say over the job,
X26, job appropriate for abilities, and

X28’ job gives chance to do things teacher does best.
were the most significant variables in explaining the variance in the
job involvement factor, X35. Increases in the three above variables

caused an increase in the job involvement index. Career stage was

also significant in predicting job involvement.

Discussion

 

When the sample was pooled, the alternative hypothesis
regarding a significant relationship between the three alienation
factors and workplace characteristics was supported. That is. a
significant proportion of the variance for self-actualization need
satisfaction, participation need satisfaction, and job involvement
was accounted for by the workplace characteristics teacher influence
and control, relevant test of teacher abilities, and social value of
labor. When analyzing the data along individual career stages, only
for experienced teachers were all three equations able to eXplain a
significant proportion of the variance. This may be due to experi-
enced teachers attaching more meaning to the workplace variables than
beginning and preservice teachers.

Within the category of teacher influence and control, item

X24. little control and final say over the job, was a significant

llO

predictor for all three factors. The behavior of X24 was theoretically
consistent with the need satisfaction factors, X33 and X34. The more
the pre- and inservice teachers agreed that they anticipated having or
had little control over their work, the higher the discrepancy or
alienation index.

The response on X24 was similar for job involvement, X35,
except that little control predicted higher job involvement. Lawler
and Hall had found minimal (r = .05) correlation between job involve-

ment and control.35

Added to their finding is the possible interpre-
tation that little control increases job involvement. These two
findings raise the question of the multiple meanings this item may

have had for subjects in both studies. Perhaps phrasing the item

. no control . . . rather than ". . . little control . . ."
would reduce any potential ambiguity. Another possible explanation
is that despite the degree of external control exercised over
teachers, there exists aspects of the job which allow for one's
involvement in their teaching work. Possibly, despite the lack of
control over major policy decisions, the autonomy for teachers behind
the closed classroom doors permits some degree of intrinsic involve-
ment in the teaching job.

The other item in the influence and control characteristic,

X 5, having influence within the school building, was a significant

2
predictor for decreasing alienation from participation in school

decision making. Thus, the two major predictors for participation

35Lawler and Hall, "Relationship of Job Characteristics to
Job Involvement," p. 310.

lll

need satisfaction were the control and influence variables. The two
workplace characteristic categories of relevant test of teacher
abilities and social value of labor were not as vital as teacher
influence and control for this sample in predicting alienation from
participation in school policy creation. This relationship makes
conceptual sense since influence and control imply an exercise of
political power in decision making to a greater degree than the items
for relevant test of abilities and social value of labor. Thus, an
increase in the influence and control of teachers over their work in
general would also tend to improve their opportunities for participa-
tion in policy formulation.

Two of the three variables comprising the relevant test of
teacher abilities category were significant predictors. The more the
job of teaching was considered appropriate, X26, by the sample, the
less alienated they were from attaining self-actualization through
involvement in their labor as a teacher. When the job was assessed
as giving teachers a chance to do things they do best, X28, job
involvement increased. One reason for job involvement, therefore,
seems to be a function of when the labor demanded is in line with the
skills and expertise teachers acquire through their preservice
training. Excessive record keeping and crowded classrooms, for
example, may be variables which teachers might feel detract from
applying their technical teaching skills and subsequently result in
less involvement in their teaching job.

Creativity in the job, X27, was the one item in teacher

ability category that was not a significant predictor for the pooled

ll2

sample for any of the three alienation factors. For the individual
regressions it was nevertheless significant in explaining an increase
in job involvement for teacher education students who had not student
taught and accounting for a reduction in alienation from the oppor-
tunity for self-actualization for first-year teachers.

Two of the four social value of labor variables were signifi-
cant predictors of the self-actualization need satisfaction index for
the pooled sample. Parent concern and perception of the role of the
school, X29 and X30, accounted for a decrease in alienation. Interest
in the school from parents, one of the primary consumers of public
education, may be a means by which teachers are able to assess the
social importance of their work.

The three workplace characteristics categories (l) teacher
influence and control, (2) relevant test of teacher abilities, and
(3) social value of labor contained items which were significant
predictors for only the self-actualization factor. The variance in
the participation need satisfaction factor was best explained by
the influence and control items, whereas relevant test of teacher
abilities items were significant variables for the job involvement
factor. Apparently the self-actualization factor is a more universal
concept which is affected by a broad range of workplace
characteristics. The participation and involvement factors, however,

are more associated with specific workplace categories.

ll3

Comparison of Four Career Stage Regressions to
Pooled Regression of Individual Alienation
TScores on WorkplaceTCharacteristics

 

 

 

Results
All twenty-three of the pooled regressions of individual

scores comprising alienation, X] to x 3, on workplace characteristics,

2
X24 to X32, were statistically significant at the 95 percent or
greater probability level. For the teacher career stages, five were
significant for teacher education students who had not student taught,
four for students who had completed student teaching, seven for first-
year teachers, and seventeen for experienced teachers. The F-test
comparing the pooled sample to the individual career stage regressions
indicates that pooling is the legitimate level of analysis except for
dependent alienation variables, opportunity for accomplishment, X3,
and growth, X4. These results are displayed in Table 4.8 (pp. l06-7)
and Table 4.9 (pp. ll4-lS) and Appendix E.

A significant proportion of the variance was accounted for by
the workplace characteristic variables for the opportunity for
accomplishment dependent variable, X3, for preservice teachers who
have not student taught (R2 = .30), first-year teachers (R2 = .39),
and experienced teachers (R2 = .35). For teacher education students
who have not student taught the most significant workplace variables
were influence and control, X24 and X25, and the job giving teachers
a chance to do things they do best, X28. When there is little Control
in the job, alienation from the opportunity for accomplishment

increases whereas teacher influence within the school building

ll4

Table 4.9.--Significant Multiple Regressions of Individual Alienation Scores (x1.....x23) on Workplace Characteristics
(x24.....x32) by Teacher Career Stages.

 

Individual Score R2 a Most Significant Workplace Variables bi (with o)

 

1. Teacher Education Students Who Have Not Student Taught:

 

x3 (Accomplishment [B-A])a .30b .007c x24 (Control and Final Say Over Job). .16d (.014)c;
x25 (Influence Within School Building). -.19 (.019);
X23 (Job Gives Chance to Do Things Teacher Does Best),
.23 (.033)
X4 (Growth [B-A]) .35 .001 X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job), .14 (.026);
x27 (Creativity in Job). -.27 (.031); x29 (Parents
Regard School as “Baby-sitting” Agency). -.18
(.008); X30 (Parents Deeply Concerned about a Top
Quality Education), -.23 (.002); X3 (Parents Who
Want Feedback on Their Children). .17 (.057)
x20 (Personally Involved in Job) .28 .009 x25 (Influence Within School Building), .25 (.005)
X21 (Important Involvement in Job) .22 .057 X25 (Influence Within School Building). .32 (.026);
x27 (Creativity in Job), .46 (.040)
x22 (Satisfaction from Job) .26 .025 X27 (Creativity in Job), .64 (.017)
2. Teacher Education Students Who Have Completed Student Teaching:
X (Personally Involved in Job) .33 .009 X (Job Gives Chance to Do Things Teacher Does Best).
20 28
.42 (.008)
x2] (Important Involvement in Job) .48 <.0005 X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job), .23 (.059);
x23 (Job Gives Chance to Do Things Teacher Does Best),
.80 (<.0005)
x22 (Satisfaction from Job) .40 .001 x24 (Control and Final Say Over Job), .31 (.017);
X23 (Job Gives Chance to Do Things Teacher Does Best).
.41 (.028)
X23 (Live. Eat. and Breathe Job) .29 .034 X24 Control and Final Say Over Job), .27 (.036);

x28 Job Gives Chance to Do Things Teacher Does Best),
.63 (.015); X3 (Parents Who Want Feedback on
Their Children), .52 (.047)

3. First-Year Teachers:

x2 (Independence [B-A]) .44 .002 X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job), .23 (.006);
x27 (Creativity in Job). -.33 (.004)

X3 (Accomplishment [B-A]) .39 .008 X23 (Job Gives Chance to Do Things Teacher Does Best).
-.28 (.018); X (Parents Deeply Concerned about
a Top Quality agucation),-.21 (.036)

x4 (Growth [B-A]) .39 .009 X30 (Parents Deeply Concerned about a Top Quality
Education), -.39 (.001)

x5 (Participation in Determining Teaching .33 .038 X26 (Job Appropriate for Abilities). -.42 (.012)

Assignment [B-AJ) .
X19 (Eartagipation in Curriculum Detenmination .31 .053 X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job). .25 (.078)e
B-A
x20 (Personally Involved in Job) .31 .055 x26 (Job Appropriate for Abilities). .23 (.043)
X21 (Important Involvement in Job) .38 .010 X30 (Parents Deeply Concerned about a Top Quality

Education). .24 (.084)e

llS

Table 4.9.--Continued.

 

Individual Score R2 a Most Significant Workplace Variables bi (with a)

 

4. Experienced Teachers:

 

X1 (Self-fulfillment [B-A]) .51 <.0005 X26 Job Appropriate for Abilities), -.43 (<.0005);
X29 Parents Regard School as "Baby-sitting" Agency),
.31 (.008); X3 (Parents Who Want Feedback on
Their Children). .46 (.012)

X2 (Independence [B-AJ) .33 .001 X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job), .25 (.018)

X3 (Accomplishment [B-A]) .35 .001 X23 (Job Gives Chance to Do Things Teacher Does Best).
-.43 (.002); X 9 (Parents Regard School as "Baby-
sitting Agency). .21 (.043)

X (Growth [B-AJ) .48 <.0005 X (Jobicives Chance to Do Things Teacher Does Best).

4 28
-.35 (.035)
X5 (Participation in Determining Teaching .28 .009 X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job), .29 (.007)
Assignment [B-AJ)

X6 (Participation in Evaluating Own Work [C-A])f .32 .002 X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job). .61 (.002)

X7 (Participation in Evaluating Own Work [B-AJ)g .30 .004 X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job), .37 (.044)

X8 (Participation in Disciplinary Policies .32 .002 Xz‘ Control and Final Say Over Job). .59 (.003);

[040) x25 Influence Within School Building). -.53 (.013)
X9 (Eartacipation in Disciplinary Policies .24 .032 X25 (Influence Within School Building). -.23 (.100)e
B-A

X12 (Participation in Standardized Test .29 .005 X25 {Influence Within School Building), -.68 (.002);
Selection [C-A]) X27 Creativity in Job). .70 (.018)

XM (Participation in Budget Determination .32 .002 X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job). .35 (.059);
[C-A]) x25 (Influence Within School Building). -.49 (.015)

X1S (Earticipation in Budget Determination .27 .010 X25 (Influence Within School Building), -.36 (.066)e
B-A

X17 (Participation in Hiring of New Adminis- .29 .006 X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job), -.46 (.017);
trators [B-A]) x25 Influence Within School Building). -.41 (.050);

X32 Principal Provides Adequate Information on
Teacher's Performance). -.39 (.015)

X18 (Participation in Curriculum Determination .37 <.0005 X24 (Control and Final Say Over Job), .42 (.010);
[c-AJ) x25 (Influence Within School Building). -.48 (.007)

X19 (Earticipation in Curriculum Determination .36 <.0005 X26 (Job Appropriate for Abilities), .31 (.088)e
8-A

X20 (Personally Involved in Job) .30 .002 X27 (Creativity in Job), .23 (.041)

X22 (Satisfaction from Job) .29 .005 X25 (Job Appropriate for Abilities), .42 (.001);

X29 (Parents Regard School as "Baby—sitting" Agency),
.23 (.058)
aB-A for X ..,X is a measure of dissatisfaction with A how much of the factor mentioned in the item is associ-

ated with the subjlct's pfiesent or prospective teaching Job and 8 how much of the factor they feel should be associated
with their job. ‘

bCoefficient of multiple determination; proportion of variance in individual score explained by X24.....X32.

cl-significance level.

dRegression coefficient.

eNo independent variable was significantly different from zero to the 95 percent level.

fC-A for X5, X3, X 00 X12, X1 , X15, and X13 is a measure of dissatisfaction with C the amount of the factor
that would be associated w th the sub ect 5 job if_he or she were given “release time" during the school day once a week.

98-A for X7, X9, X 1. X13, X1 , X17, and X1 is a measure of dissatisfaction with B the amount of the factor
that would be associated w th the sub ect 5 Job if 2e or she had to commit one hour once a week after school.

ll6

decreases alienation. X28 predicted a positive change in alienation.
For first-year teachers the significant predictors, the job giving
teachers a chance to do things they do best, X28, and parents being
concerned about a top quality education for their children, X30.
predicted a decline in the alienation index for opportunity for
accomplishment. For experienced teachers, parents regarding the
school as a ”baby-sitting" agency, X29, accounted for a significant
increase in alienation from accomplishment, while, like first-year
teachers, when the teaching job lets teachers do those activities at
which they feel best qualified, X28, alienation is lowered.

Again, a significant proportion of the variance was explained
by the workplace characteristics for opportunity for growth, X4, for
teacher education students who have not student taught (R2 = .35),
first-year teachers (R2 = .39), and experienced teachers (R2 = .48).
Five of the nine workplace items were significant in accounting for
the variance in opportunity for growth. The workplace variables were
little control and final say in job, X24 (increase in alienation),
creativity in job, X27 (decrease), parents regarding school as
"baby-sitting" agency, X29 (decrease), parent concern for quality
education, X30 (decrease), and parents wanting feedback on their
children (increase). For first-year teachers parent concern regarding
the quality of education, X30, predicted a decrease in alienation.

The job giving a teacher the chance to do things teachers do best,
X28’ was the primary significant workplace variable for experienced

teachers.

117

For the remaining twenty-one significant pooled regressions
all but one had a multiple correlation coefficient (R) greater than
.30. The five pooled regressions in which workplace characteristics
accounted for the largest amount of variance were opportunity for

self-fulfillment, X1 (R2 = .30); personally involved in job, X20

(R2 = .28); important involvement in job, X2] (R2 = .25); satisfaction

from job (R2 = .25); and participation in hiring new administrators

2 = .20).

with "release time" option, X16 (R
The most significant variables accounting for the variance in
the twenty-one pooled regressions were little control and final say,
X24, in thirteen equations and the teacher career stages in twelve
cases. Other significant independent variables were influence within
the school building (3 instances), X25; job appropriate for abilities
(3), X26; creativity in job (1), X27; job gives chance to do things
teacher does best (2), X28; parents deeply concerned about a top quality
education (2), X30; and principal provides adequate information on
teacher's performance (1), X32. With the exception of principal

feedback, X32, this group of workplace characteristics are the ones

which in previous analysis (see sections Multiple Regression Analysis

 

of Alienation Factors on Workplace Characteristics and Pooled Multiple

 

 

Regression Compared to Individual Career Stage Regressions above) had
been significant independent variables. Along with teacher career
stages, the principal providing adequate information on the teacher's
performance, X32, was a significant predictor in explaining the vari-
ance for participation in hiring of new administrators given the
after hours option, X17. Principal feedback served to decrease

alienation from the opportunity for participation in the hiring process.

118

Discussion

 

As with the three alienation factors, workplace characteris-
tics account for a significant proportion of the variance in the
individual items which comprise alienation. The findings suggest
that the workplace categories of (1) teacher influence and control,
(2) relevant test of teacher abilities, and (3) social value of labor
are appropriate groupings for analyzing the relationships between
teacher alienation and workplace characteristics. The consistency
of significantly correlated results supported the hypothesis that
the majority of workplace items were ones which were predictors of

alienation levels of teachers.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter provides an overview of the present study. A
summary of the problem situation, theoretical framework, review of
related literature, and the methodology (including results and discus-
sion) is presented. A conclusion section summarizes the findings and
interpretations. The chapter also contains recommendations for imple-

mentation of the results and for additional research.

Introduction and Purpose

 

Public schools as workplaces purchase the labor power1 of
teachers for employment. Having sold their labor power to the schools,
teachers are faced with an employer who places constraints upon the

nature of their work. Managers of schools make numerous decisions

 

1Marx conceived of "labor power" as a commodity which workers
exchange for money or a price. The selling of labor power is a pre-
cursor of alienated labor. Marx states that "the exercise of labour
power, labour, is the worker's own life-activity, the manifestation
of his own life. And this life activity he sells to another person
in order to secure the necessary means of subsistence. Thus his life-
activity is for him only a means to enable him to exist. He works in
order to live. He does not even reckon labour as part of his life,
it is rather a sacrifice of his life. It is a commodity which he has
made over to another. Hence, also the product of his activity is not
the object of his activity. . . . What he produces for himself is
wages . . ." Marx, "Wage Labour and Capital," pp. 169-71.

 

 

119

120

which determine the processes and product of the labor of teachers.
Lack of participation in such administrative decisions by teachers may
have a negative effect upon their mental state. With their labor
serving more as a commodity than as a personally fulfilling activity,
teachers may experience alienation from their work.

Recent research on teaching has considered the way in which
teachers operate as decisions makers within their own classrooms.2 The
options of teachers as decision makers in classrooms may, however, be
severely limited by institutional constraints placed upon their work.
Furthermore, the message to teachers from teacher educators, school
administrators, and the public regarding the actual purpose and social
value of the product of the labor of teachers is often ambiguous and/or
contradictory. Under working conditions which may diminish the social
value of their labor and inhibit their control, teachers may find their
work alienating. Teachers may, therefore, experience their labor as
not belonging to them.

This study focuses upon teacher alienation of labor as it
relates to such public school workplace characteristics as (1) work
being a relevant test of teacher abilities, (2) the social value of
teacher labor, and (3) teacher influence and control. Alienation of
labor is inversely related to high degrees of need satisfaction

attainment and job involvement by teachers (see Questionnaire Descrip-

 

tion section below). Also investigated is the difference among career

stages of teachers from preservice to the field in levels of alienation.

 

2Shavelson, "Teachers' Decision Making," pp. 372-414; Shulman,
"Teaching as Clinical Information Processing."

121

The Problem Situation

 

John Dewey characterized a despotically governed society as
having pe0ple "engaged in activity which is socially serviceable, but
whose service they do not understand and have no personal interest in.”3
In contrast, a democratic polity emphasizes egalitarianism manifested
in participatory decision making. Dewey explained,

. . a society which makes provision for participation in its
good of all its members on equal terms and which secures
flexible readjustment of its institutions through interaction
of the different forms of associated life is in so far demo-
cratic.4
Furthermore, Morgart, Mihalik, and Martin contend that "there can be
no political democracy without genuine democratization of the workplace
as well."5

The governing of schools as workplaces raises the issue of the
democratic involvement of teachers in the school decision making pro-
cess. During their preservice training teachers may be anticipating
careers as professionals with a substantial degree of control over
their labor. Hoy explains that students in teacher education programs
are socialized into "ideal images and practices."6 But upon beginning

work as a teacher, the teacher new to the occupation "may suddenly be

confronted with a set of organizational norms and values at variance

 

3Dewey, Democracy and Education, p. 98.

 

41bid., p. 115.

5Morgart, Mihalik, and Martin, "Alienation in and Educational
Context: The American Teacher in the Seventies," p. 3.

6
p. 315.

Hoy, "Infuence of Experience on the Beginning Teacher,"

122

with those acquired in formal preparation."7 It may well be that for
beginning teachers there arises a dissonance between their anticipated
ideal of some form of participatory democracy and the operating reality
of schools despotically organized.

Having control over the decisions affecting one's occupation
is generally the domain of those who claim professional status. In his
analysis of teachers Lortie observes that teaching is not a profession
in the usual sense since teachers "are officially employees without
powers of governance. Public schools . . . have no legally-based
'senates' or similar arrangements for collective participation by
faculty members in the overall operation of the organization."8

The exclusion of teachers from long-range curricular planning,9
for example, may have serious implications for the implementation of
improved instructional programs and techniques in public school
classrooms. Wolcott notes, "New procedures introduced in the educator
subculture are invariably imposed gn_teachers rather than by

teachers."10

Furthermore, Lortie states that "the fragile nature of
the teacher's autonomy is an autonomy which . . . possesses not

legitimation in the official statement of authority distribution in

 

71bid.

8Lortie, "Balance of Control and Autonomy in Elementary School
Teaching," pp. 4, 19.

9Smith, "Teacher Planning for Instruction," pp. 7, ll.

1OWolcott, Teacher versus Technocrat, pp. 195, 212.

123

American public schools.“]] Such working conditions are the same ones

which Dewey assailed for failing to account for "human factors and
relationships" by means of "a corresponding distortion of emotional
life."12
Such a "distortion of emotional life" within the public school
workplace may be expected to have detrimental psychological effects
upon teachers. Morgart, Mihalik, and Martin explain that
. . if teachers' needs remain essentially peripheral in the
decision-making process determining the nature of their work
role, then it becomes easier to understand why teachers like
other workers might experience their work activities as
alienating rather than as a means of developing their mental
and emotional growth.13
The institutional arrangements of schools which may negatively affect
both the autonomy and mental state of teachers appears also to be a
major factor in teachers' concerns about their jobs. Corwin states,
"There is reason to believe that a desire for more influence over
policy and disagreement with central level decision making and district

goals account for much of the teacher militancy and dissatisfaction."14

Theoretical Framework

 

A conceptual framework for analyzing the potentially adverse

psychological effect of a career in teaching is through an examination

 

1lLortie, "Balance of Control and Autonomy in Elementary School
Teaching," p. 41.

12Dewey, Democracy and Education, p. 99.

13Morgart, Mihalik, and Martin, "Alienation in and Educational
Context: The American Teacher in the Seventies," p. 2.

14Corwin, "The New Teaching Profession," p. 238.

124

of teachers as workers in the schooling production process. Further-
more, according to Dreeban, conceptualizing the school as a workplace
helps "to show that there are concepts and perspectives derived from
other areas of the world of work that, when applied to the schools,
make them more understandable."15
The notion of alienation is concerned with the intrinsic nature
of work and provides a theoretical framework from which to examine the
teacher as laborer. Alienation represents a person's separation from
oneself and one's work. There are four aspects which constitute the

whole of alienating labor:

1. The relation of the worker to the product of labour as an
alien object exercising power over him . . .

 

2. The relation of labour to the act of production within the
labour process. The relation is the relations of the
worker to his own activity as an alien activity not
belonging to him. . . . Estranged labour turns thus:

 

3. Man's species being, both nature and his spiritual species
property, into a being alien to him, into a means to his
individual existence . . .

 

 

4. The estrangement of man from mag,16

 

To determine the degree of alienation of workers, job satisfac-
tion is generally an inappropriate measure for alienation of labor.
Researchers approaching the topic from that perspective often "are
thus concerned less with the nature of the work performed than with

"17

considerations pertaining to professional status. Faunce, therefore,

 

15Dreeban, "The School as a Workplace," p. 450.

16Marx, "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,"
pp. 60-63.

17

Schacht, Alienation, p. 169.

 

125

prefers to focus upon the "quality of work experience" rather than job
satisfaction. More specifically, alienation of labor can be seen
through "a withdrawal of self investment" from an occupational role.18
If teachers are alienated and have divested themselves from
their work, the explanation may be that from the perspective of
teachers there may be an inadequate opportunity within their workplace
to experience such need satisfaction elements as autonomy, creativity,
and recognition for achievement. A sense of withdrawal of self invest-
ment from one's work relates directly back to the Marxian concept of
being estranged from both the product and act of the labor process.

19 and a high self investment in one's work imply

Both Marxian humanism
a positive, self actualizing unity between the mental state and the
labor of an individual.

Research leading to a comprehensive understanding of teachers
in the work world is limited. As of 1973 Dreeban reports that "for the
most part, the work of teachers has remained unconceptualized as have
those aspects of the environment that may in fact be related to the

k."20

character of the wor On this point, Morgart, Mihalik, and Martin

 

18Faunce, "Self Investment in the Occupational Roles" PP- 2, 18-

19Marx defined humanism as the " ositive transcendance of
. . human self-estrangement . . .; the complete return of man to
himself as a social (i.e., human) being . . ." (Marx, "Economic and
Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844," p. 70); on this point Ollman adds
that all individuals "are considered alienated in the way and to the
degree that their members fall short of the [humanistic] ideal. . . .
The forms of alienation differ for each class because their position
and style of life differ . . ." (Ollman, Alienation: Marx's Conception
of Man in Capitalist Society, p. 132).

 

20Dreeban, "The School as a Workplace," p. 454.

126

add, “It is clear that work alienation, especially as it may be a
growing phenomenon for the modern public school teacher, is a complex
and as yet relatively unanalyzed motif in social/administrative science

of education."21

Review of Related Research
Most research upon teacher alienation has to date derived its
theoretical base from Seeman's 1959 essay, "On the Meaning of Aliena-
tion." However, only one aspect of Seeman's five factor model,
self-estrangement, coincides with Marx's theory of alienation of

22 Research upon job satisfaction and morale of teachers is

labor.
hindered by a poor conceptual base and from a lack of consensus on

terminology.23 Studies which attend to participation of teachers in
decisions which affect the processes and product of their labor begin
to lend insight into teacher alienation. Most studies in this realm
consistently report that high job satisfaction and morale of teachers

is positively related to their involvement in school policy

 

2lMorgart, Mihalik, and Martin, "Alienation in and Educational
Context: The American Teacher in the Seventies," p. 41.

22This departure from Marx is acknowledged by Seeman in his
discussion of powerlessness (Seeman, "On the Meaning of Alienation,"
p. 784). The diffuse nature of Seeman's model for analyzing the
school as a workplace as it relates to teacher alienation has posed
problems for educational researchers. See Bush, "Alienation and Self
Ideal Discrepancy;“ Hearn, "Teachers' Sense of Alienation with Respect
to School System Structure;" Parker, "Alienation of Public School
Teachers;“ and Moeller and Charters, "Relation of Bureaucratization to
Sense of Power Among Teachers."

23In a cross-cultural study of teachers, Fraser found defining
job satisfaction a frustrating task since it is used as a "global and
multifaceted concept" (Fraser, "Organizational Properties and Teacher
Reactions," p. 22).

127

determination.24 None of these studies, however, comment in a precise
and thorough manner upon the crucial elements of alienation theory,
i.e., the relationship of teachers to the mode and outcome of their
labor and the corresponding association of this relationship upon their
mental state.

Regarding the process of alienation, little empirical research
is available on the effect of the labor of teaching upon teachers from
preservice training, to the first year of work, and eventually into
being an "experienced" teacher. Schacht states that for the term
alienation to be appropriately applied, it needs to suggest an evolving

25 Therefore, a contribution to empirical research

state of affairs.
upon teacher alienation would be to look at the various stages of

career development through which teachers proceed.

Methodology;

 

Sample

Four groups of subjects received the questionnaire. The

common characteristic among all subjects was that (1) they received or

 

24See Barakat, "Alienation from the School System;" Belasco
and Alutto, “Decisional Participation and Teacher Satisfaction;" "Who
Should Make What Decisions?" Ambrosie and Heller, "The Secondary
School Administrator and Perceived Teacher Participation in Decision-
Making;" McClure, "Decision Making at the Institutional Level;" Knoop
and O'Reilly, "Participative Decision Making in Curriculum;" Ingle and
Munsterman, "Relationship of Values to Group Satisfaction;" Ellenburg,
"Factor Affecting Teacher Morale;" and Chung, "Teacher-Centered
Management Style of Public School Principals.“

25Schacht, Alienation. PP. 179-80.

 

128

are receiving their preservice training through the teacher education
curriculum at Michigan State University and (2) they were teaching at
or being certified at the elementary school level in Michigan. Teachers
in the field were limited to those currently teaching in Michigan
public schools. The four groups are:
- preservice elementary education majors who have not student
taught
- preservice elementary education majors who have completed student
teaching
- first-year teachers at the elementary level

- experienced teachers (four years or more) at the elementary level

Questionnaire Description

 

The questionnaire was designed to measure two distinct cate-
gories of information, alienation of labor and workplace characteris-
tics. Alienation of labor was measured by two factors: (1) need
satisfaction and (2) job involvement. Workplace charaCteristics
included items on teacher influence and control, relevant test of
teacher abilities, and the social value of teacher labor. There were
two parallel forms of the questionnaire, one for students in teacher
education and another for teachers in the field. The questionnaire
for students reflected the fact that they were not presently employed
as teachers and asked them to project upon their prospective experi-
ences as teachers. The other questionnaire is based on the actual
experiences of teachers (see Appendices A and B).

Lawler and Hall offer a conceptual and methodological framework

for examining the topic of teacher alienation. Their factors of need

129

satisfaction and job involvement offer a means for capturing the con-
cept of alienation of labor. Those factors are defined by Lawler and
Hall in the following manner:
- need satisfaction: the degree to which the higher order needs of
self-actualization, autonomy, and responsibility are fulfilled
- job involvement: "the degree to which a person is identified
with his work, or the importance of work, or the importance of
working in his self-image."26
Lawler and Hall's need satisfaction factor included two general
items on workplace participation. Belasco and Alutto in their study
of teacher participation in the school decision making process posed

27 Influenced by the Belasco and Alutto

twelve decision situations.
approach, need satisfaction items developed by Lawler and Hall regarding
opportunity for participation in decision making were altered in this
study for the following reasons: (a) to reflect decisions relevant to
public school teachers and (b) to expand the number of items (from two
items to eight) to include a variety of school decisions. Seven of the
need satisfaction participation items (8-14) were altered to reflect a
time trade-off an individual must make to participate in the school
decision making process.

The job involvement aspect of alienation included four items

used by Lawler and Hall (see items 6-7 and 15-l6). The nineteen need

 

26Lawler and Hall, "Relationship of Job Characteristics to Job
Involvement," pp. 306 and 308; Lodhahl and Kejner, "The Definition and
Measurement of Job Involvement," p. 26, as cited in Lawler and Hall,
p. 306.

27Belasco and Alutto, "Decisional Participation and Teacher
Satisfaction," p. 49.

130

satisfaction difference scores plus the four job involvement observa-
tions serve as the basis for the data analysis on alienation.

The workplace characteristics which Lawler and Hall included as
appropriate in analyzing the relationship between job design variables
and alienation (need satisfaction and job involvement) were:

- the degree of influence and control felt by the job holder over
his/her work
- the degree to which the job is perceived as a relevant test of
the job holder's abilities
- the probability that the job holder would receive socially
meaningful feedback about his/her work
Five items from Lawler and Hall's questionnaire were used in this
present study to measure: (1) teacher influence and control in the
workplace (see items 17 and 21) and (2) if the job of teaching is a

28 To reflect

relevant test of teacher abilities (see items 18-20).
Lawler and Hall's third job design component of feedback, four ques-
tions used by Brookover (see items 22-25)29 were included to assess
the social value of the labor of teachers. That is to say, those four
items are situations which measure the degree to which teachers
receive socially meaningful feedback upon their work.

All workplace characteristics items were on a 7-point scale,

from 1 strongly agree to 7 strongly disagree. There were nine items

 

28Lawler and Hall, "Relationship of Job Characteristics to Job
Involvement," p. 306.

29Brookover, "Teacher Questionnaire: School Social Climate

Study."

131

on workplace characteristics that reflect the perceptions of teachers

or prospective teachers.

Analysis Procedures

 

Using the total sample, a factor analysis was initially con-
ducted on the twenty-three individual scores comprising alienation.

30 For subse-

The factor analysis resulted in a three factor solution.
quent analyses both the twenty-three individual scores and the three
factors were used as dependent variables. The factors provide a broad
conceptualization of the phenomenon of alienation. Analysis with the
individual scores allows for observations on the relative strength of
the components comprising the three factors. For ease of interpreta-

tion the hypotheses being tested are stated in terms of the factors.

The alienation indices refer to relative levels of alienation among
the four groups of subjects.

Analysis of variance with pg§t_hgg_complex comparisons among
the teacher career stage means on the factors and individual scores
comprising alienation was conducted. This required the initial compu-
tation of twenty-six equations (three factors and twenty—three indivi-
dual scores).

Next, for each career stage the three factors and twenty-three
individual scores for alienation were regressed on the nine workplace
characteristic scores. Following this, the sample was pooled into one
regression equation. This pooled multiple regression was then
compared to the individual career stage regressions. An F-test was

performed to determine if the four sets of regressions for the career

 

30Principal factoring with iteration followed by the varimax
orthogonal rotation was used to compute the factors.

132

stages came from the same population. For both the analysis of
variance and multiple regression analysis a significance level at the
95 percent probability level was set. All findings are based on the

self-reported perceptions of subjects on the present instrument.

Results and Discussion

 

Factor Analysis: Results
andIDiscussion

 

 

The three factor solution accounted for 52.6 percent of the
variance and most closely approximated simple structure. The three
factors are

- self-actualization need satisfaction
- participation need satisfaction
- job involvement
The job involvement factor replicated the findings of Lawler

and Hall with scientist-531

32

and Cummings and Bigelow with blue-collar
workers. With the addition in this present study of personal time
trade-off decision regarding opportunity for participation on the need
satisfaction items, the factor analysis produced two factors for need
satisfaction. Previous research had not included personal time
allocation possibilities resulting in a single need satisfaction
factor.

The results of the factor analysis indicate that when the

need satisfaction variables regarding opportunity for participation

 

31Lawler and Hall, "Relationship of Job Characteristics to
Job Involvement," p. 309.

32Cumnings and Bigelow, "Satisfaction, Job Involvement, and
Intrinsic Motivation," pp. 523-25.

133

were altered to include a personal time allocation, the pre- and
inservice teachers sampled interpret their need for participation in
the school decision making process as different from their self-
actualization need for self-fulfillment, growth, accomplishment, and
independence. When variable "participation in determining own teaching
assignment" was presented without a personal time allocation considera-
tion, the item did not load on one unique factor.

Analysis of Variance with Post Hoc

Comparisons among Career Stage

Means on Alienation Factors:
ResUlts and Discussion

 

 

 

 

Through analysis of variance the following hypothesis was
tested:

H]: The rank order of the group means for the alienation of labor
variables (as measured by need satisfaction and job involve-
ment) from least to greatest amount of alienation will be
significantly different as follows: (1) students in teacher
education who have not student taught, (2) students in teacher

education who have completed student teaching, (3) first-year

teachers, and (4) experienced teachers.

For each of the three alienation factors a significant
difference existed among the four groups. In no cases, however, did
the teacher education students differ significantly as hypothesized
between each other nor did the teacher groups. Differences in the
direction alternatively hypothesized were consistently found between
teacher education students and teachers. Although possessing mean

scores in the direction hypothesized, students who had completed

134

student teaching were not significantly different than first-year
teachers in their levels of alienation.

Both groups of teacher education students were less alienated
than the teacher samples regarding the opportunity to experience self-
actualization as a teacher. Preservice teachers who had not student
taught were also less alienated from the opportunity for participation
in the school decision making process than both teacher groups.
Experienced teachers were more alienated from involvement in their
jobs as teachers than either of the teacher education samples.

The Scheffé pg§t_hgg comparisons suggest that despite the
student teaching experience, the teacher education student groups
sampled do not significantly differ in their conception of what
employment as a teacher holds for them. The majority of significant
contrasts were between teacher education students who had not student
taught and both teacher samples. Apparently becoming a first-year
teacher has the general effect of bringing that group's perception of
the work of teaching closer to those held by experienced teachers.

It may be that people enter a teaching career with an idealized image
of teaching, but only upon actual full-time involvement in their work
become significantly more alienated with teaching than when they
initially began their career as teacher education students.

On the three factors comprising alienation teacher education
students anticipated a lower degree of alienation from their prospec-
tive teaching jobs than teachers, especially experienced ones, were
presently perceiving. This may be explained by the fact that unlike
teacher education students, teachers have sold their labor power to

the public schools for employment. Marx's theory of alienation states

135

that a worker experiences alienation when the product and processes of

33 With

his or her labor is determined and reified by external forces.
their labor serving more as a commodity than as a personally fulfilling
activity, teachers may be experiencing alienation from their work. As
Maslow has observed for the general laboring population, the self-
esteem of teachers may also rest "on good, worthy work to be intro-
jected, thereby becoming part of the self."34
Using Aiken and Hage's guidelines for participation, "the
degree to which staff members participate in setting the goals and

35

policies of the entire organization," teachers sampled in this study

felt a relatively high degree of alienation from the school decision
making proces. These results support research on work in schools36

and other settings37 which report a positive relationship between

 

33
pp. 60-63.

Marx, "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,"

34Maslow, Eupsychian Management, pp. 12-13.

35Aiken and Hage, "Organizational Alienation," p. 498

36See Barakat, "Alienation from the School System," Belasco and
Alutto, "Decisional Participation and Teacher Satisfaction;" “Who
Should Make What Decisions?" Ambrosie and Heller, "Secondary School
Administrator and Perceived Teacher Participation in Decision-Making;"
McClure, "Decision Making at the Institutional Level;" Knoop and
O'Reilly, "Participative Decision Making in Curriculum;" Ingle and
Munsterman, "Relationship of Values to Group Satisfaction;" Ellenburg,
"Factor Affecting Teacher Morale;" and Chung, "Teacher-Centered
Management Style of Public School Principals."

37Fromm, To Have or To Be, p. 101; March and Simon, Organiza-
tions, p. 95; Vroom, Work and Motivation, p. 118; Bachman and Tanne-
Baum, "The Control-Satisfaction Relationship," p. 247; and Lawler and
Hall, "Relationship of Job Characteristics to Job Involvement,"
pp. 310-12.

136

worker satisfaction and control (or desire for control) over his or her
labor.

Teachers were significantly less involved in their jobs than
teacher education students anticipate they will be. Alienation of
labor can be seen through "a withdrawal of self investment" or personal

38

involvement from one's job. Along these lines Maslow adds, “The only

happy people I know are the ones who are working well at something they
consider important. . . . This was the universal truth for all my

self-actualizing subjects."39

Possibly due to the vagueness of the
product of schooling and the external control over the process of
teacher labor, teachers may come to question the value and importance
of the work they are performing.

Analysis of Variance with Post Hoc

Comparisons among_Career Stage

Means on IndividUal Alienation
Scores: Results and Discussion

 

 

 

 

Analysis of variance with pg§t_hgg comparisons were also
conducted on the twenty-three individual scores comprising alienation.
This series of pg§t_hgg_comparisons assessed the differences among
the teacher career stage means towards each individual score. Seven-
teen of the twenty-three individual analyses of variance exhibited a
significant difference among the group means.

As in the case of the three alienation factors, teacher educa-

tion students did not differ significantly between each other. This

 

38Faunce, "Self Investment in the Occupational Role,‘I p. 18.

39Maslow, Egpsychian Management, p. 6.

137

was also true for the teacher groups except in one case. In that
single instance experienced teachers were less alienated than first-
year teachers from the opportunity for participation in text book
selection when allocating an hour of their time once a week after
school. With this one exception, differences in the direction alter-
natively hypothesized for the three factors were consistently found
between teacher education students and teachers on the seventeen
significant analyses of variance.

From a total of forty-one significant subset comparisons, only
three were between teacher education students who had completed student
teaching and first-year teachers. The three differences were on oppor-
tunity for participation items. First-year teachers were more
alienated than preservice teachers who had student taught with respect
to participation in evaluating one's own work, standardized test
selection, and hiring new administrators. A possible explanation for
this difference is that these particular participation opportunities
may be examples of ones which become most immediately meaningful to the
novice teacher in contrast to what they may have anticipated when they
were teacher education students who had completed student teaching.

Three of the four items which comprise the self-actualization
need satisfaction factor displayed significant differences among the
groups. Preservice teachers who had not student taught were less
alienated than both groups of teachers from the opportunity in the
teaching job for self-fulfillment, accomplishment, and growth. Teacher
education students who had completed student teaching were also less
alienated than experienced teachers regarding the opportunity for

growth. Given the control exercised externally of teachers over the

138

production process of teaching, teachers may not be presently experi-
encing these self-actualizing needs and are withdrawing their intrinsic
involvement from their labor. Teacher education students, however, in
contrast to teachers anticipate they will be able to attain self-
fulfillment, accomplishment, and growth through the work of teaching.
Seven different school decision making possibilites with two
different personal time allocation considerations were presented to
the sample. All seven participation categories produced significant
differences among the means when the potential for "release time"
during the school day once a week was available. Allocating an hour
once a week after school for participation in school decision making
resulted for four of the seven opportunity for participation variables
in significant group mean differences. Opportunity for participation
after school produced alienation scores lower than the "release time"
option on the same item. This difference may reflect that the sample
overall is more willing to allocate their time during the school day
than after regular work hours in order to participate in decision
making. Despite the perceived willingness, the higher scores on the
"release time" option also suggest, especially for the teacher
samples, the possibility that dissatisfaction prevails in part since
teachers are denied participation in a large number of school decisions
which affect their work.40
The highest levels of alienation from participation in

decision making opportunities were in the hiring of new administrators

 

40Smith, "Teacher Planning for Instruction," pp. 7, ll;
Lortie, "The Balance of Control and Autonomy in Elementary School
Teaching," pp. 4, 19.

139

for the school district, budget determination for the teachers' own
school, and standardized test selection. Alienation from the hiring
process of administrators may be because administrators control

4] Furthermore,

numerous decisions which affect the labor of teachers.
teachers generally have little voice in employment decisions regarding
administrators. The concern over school budget may be a function of
teachers desiring increased decisional input on instructional materials
which they feel are needed for them to perform their work as
teachers.42 Alienation from participation in standardized test selec-
tion may be explained by the existence of a large number of teachers
who consider standardized tests an unnecessary intrusion into their
workplaces.43
A comparatively moderate degree of alienation from participa-
tion options was produced for evaluating one's own work, curriculum
determination, and text book selection. Alienation from the oppor-
tunity to participate in evaluating one's own work may stem from

schooling production goals which are never explicitly stated for the

teacher. Greene in Teacher as a Stranger suggests that "the teacher's

 

feeling of responsibility may well be eroded by an implicit demand

that he be the agent of an externally defined purpose, which he can

 

“Ibid.

42This interpretation is based in part on discussions with
teachers who participated in the questionnaire pilot.

4?Quinto and McKenna, Alternatives to Standardized Testing.

 

140

only understand as a slogan or still another expression of prevailing

peity."44
The relatively moderate lack of participation in curriculum

and text determination may be a function of teachers generally not

45 In the case of text book

controlling "long-range planning decision."
selection experienced teachers were less alienated than first-year
teachers when allocating an hour of their time once a week after
school. As new full-time members to the employment of teaching, first-
year teachers may be concerned over the lack of input they have in
determining the text books for use in their own classrooms.

The least amount of alienation among the four groups of sub-
jects for an opportunity for participation variable was in disciplinary
policies for students. Disciplinary policies for this sample may be
a realm in which a large degree of participation by teachers presently
exists. Bowles and Gintis contend that a central role of schooling is
to reproduce the unequal hierarchical relationships found in work

46 Teacher

settings by creating students submissive to authority.
involvement in creating and carrying out disciplinary policies may be
a way in which the function of submission is attained.

Three items representing job involvement resulted in signifi-

cant mean differences between teacher education students and teachers.

 

44Greene, Teacher as Stranger, pp. 269-70.

45Smith, "Teacher Planning for Instruction," p. 7.

46Bowles and Gintis, Schooling in Capitalist America,
pp. 125-48.

141

Both groups of preservice teachers anticipate being more personally
involved in their work, having more important involvement in their job,
and receiving more satisfaction from a teaching career than experienced
teachers. Based on the responses to the job involvement variables,
students who had not student taught projected more important involve-
ment in and satisfaction from the work of teaching than first-year
teachers perceived they presently had in their jobs. Thus, subjects
who had been in a teaching career longest were the least involved

group in their labor. As noted previously for the job involvement
factor, alienation may increase asteachers experience "a withdrawal of

self investment" from their occupational role.47

Multiple Regression Analyses of
Alienation Factors on Workplace
Characteristics: Results and
Discussion

 

 

 

 

Multiple regression was used to test the following hypothesis:
: For each of four career stages of a teacher (students in
teacher education who have not student taught, students in
teacher education who have completed student teaching, first-
year teachers, and experienced teachers), a significant
proportion of the variance of alienation of labor (as
measured by need satisfaction and job involvement) will be
explained by workplace characteristics (as measured by teacher
influence and control, a relevant test of teacher abilities,

and the social value of teacher labor).

 

47Faunce, "Self Investment in the Occupational Role," p. 18.

142

A significant proportion of the variance at the 95 percent
level was explained for the self-actualization need satisfaction factor

by the nine workplace variables for teacher education students who had

not student taught (R2 = .26), first-year teachers (R2 = .51), and

2

experienced teachers (R = .47). The workplace items significantly

predicted the variance for the participation need satisfaction factor

for experienced teachers (R2 = .41). The job involvement factor had a

significant proportion of its variance accounted for by the workplace
characteristics for preservice teachers who have not student taught

(R2

.31), preservice teachers who have completed student teaching

2 .48), and experienced teachers (R2 = .21).

(R

The statistical comparison of the four individual regressions
to the pooled sample indicated that pooling was permissible. There-
fore, regardless of the statistical significance of the explained
variance for the individual regressions, the difference among the
separate career stage regressions were not significant when compared
to the pooled sample.

For the pooled sample a significant proportion of the variance
in the three alienation factors was explained by the workplace vari-
ables: self-actualization need satisfaction (R2 = .34), participation
need satisfaction (R2 = .23), and job involvement (R2 = .28).

When the sample was pooled, therefore, the alternative hypothesis
regarding a significant relationship between the three alienation
factors and workplace characteristics was supported. That is, a
significant proportion of the variance for self-actualization need
satisfaction, participation need satisfaction, and job involvement

vvas accounted for by the workplace characteristics teacher influence

143

and control, relevant tests of teacher abilities, and social values of
labor. When analyzing the data along individual career stages, only
for experienced teachers were all three equations able to explain a
significant proportion of variance. This may be due to experienced
teachers attaching more meaning to the workplace variables than
beginning and preservice teachers.

Within the category of teacher influence and control, "little
control and final say over the job" was a significant predictor for
all three factors. The behavior of that item was theoretically con-
sistent with the two need satisfaction factors. The more the pre- and
inservice teachers agreed that they anticipated having or had little
control over their work, the higher the discrepancy or alienation
index.

The response on the “little control" item was similar for job
involvement except that little control predicted higher job involvement.
Lawler and Hall had found minimal (r = .05) correlation between job

48 Added to their finding is the possible

involvement and control.
interpretation that little control increase job involvement. These
two findings raise the question of the multiple meanings this item may
have had for subjects in both studies. Perhaps phrasing the item

" . no control . . ." rather than ". . . little control . . ."
would reduce any potential ambiguity. Another possible explanation is
that despite the degree of external control exercised over teachers,

there exists aspects of the job which allow for one's involvement in

 

48Lawler and Hall, "Relationship of Job Characteristics to Job
Involvement," p. 310.

144

their teaching work. Possibly, despite the lack of control over major
policy decisions, the autonomy for teachers behind the closed classroom
doors permits some degree of intrinsic involvement in the teaching job.

The other item in the influence and control characteristic,
"having influence within the school building,” was a significant pre-
dictor for decreasing alienation from participation in school decision
making. Thus, the two major predictors for participation need satis-
faction were the control and influence variables. The two workplace
characteristic categories of relevant test of teacher abilities and
social value of labor were not as vital as teacher influence and con-
trol for this sample in predicting alienation from participation in
school policy creation. This relationship makes conceptual sense
since influence and control imply an exercise of political power in
decision making to a greater degree than the items for relevant test
of abilities and social value of labor. Thus, an increase in the
influence and control of teachers over their work in general would
also tend to improve their opportunities for participation in policy
formulation .

Two of the three variables comprising the relevant test of
teacher abilities category were significant predictors. The more the
job of teaching was considered appropriate by the sample, the less
alienated they were from attaining self-actualization through involve-
ment in their labor as a teacher. When the job was assessed by
teachers as giving them a chance to do things they do best, their
perceived job involvement increased. Job involvement seems to be the
most predictable, therefore, when the labor demanded is in line with

the skills and expertise teachers acquire through their preservice

145

training. Excessive record keeping and crowded classrooms, for example,
may be variables which teachers might feel detract from applying their
technical teaching skills and subsequently result in less involvement

in their teaching job.

Creativity in the job was the one item in teacher ability
category that was not a significant predictor for the pooled sample
for any of the three alienation factors. For the individual regres-
sions it was nevertheless significant in explaining an increase in job
involvement for teacher education students who had not student taught
and accounting for a reduction in alienation from the Opportunity for
self-actualization for first-year teachers.

Two of the four social value of labor variables were signifi-
cant predictors of the self-actualization need satisfaction index for
the pooled sample. Parent concern and perception of the role of the
school accounted for a decrease in alienation. Interest in the school
from parents, one of the primary consumers of public education, may be
a means by which teachers are able to assess the social importance of
their work.

Each of the three workplace characteristic categories
(1) teacher influence and control, (2) relevant test of teacher abili-
ties, and (3) social value of labor contained variables which were
significant predictors for only the self-actualization factor. The
variance in the participation need satisfaction factor was best
explained by the influence and control items, whereas relevant test of
teacher abilities items were significant variables for the job
involvement factor. Apparently the self-actualization factor is a

more universal concept which is affected by a broad range of workplace

146

characteristics. The participation and involvement factors, however,
were more associated with specific workplace categories.
Multiple Regression Analysis of Individual

Alienation Scores on WorkplaceCharac-
teristics: Results and Discussion

 

 

 

All twenty-three of the pooled regressions of individual
scores comprising alienation on workplace characteristics were statis-
tically significant at the 95 percent or greater probability level.
For the teacher career stages, five were significant for teacher educa—
tion students who had not student taught, four for students who had
completed student teaching, seven for first-year teachers, and seven-
teen for experienced teachers. The F-test comparing the pooled sample
to the individual career stage regressions indicates that pooling is a
legitimate level of analysis except for the two dependent alienation
variables opportunity for "accomplishment" and "growth."

A significant proportion of the variance was accounted for by
the workplace characteristic variables for the opportunity for
accomplishment dependent variable for preservice teachers who have

2 = .30), first-year teachers (R2 = .39), and

not student taught (R
experienced teachers (R2 = .35). When teacher education students who
have not student taught project little control in the job, alienation
from the opportunity for accomplishment increases whereas teacher
influence within the school building decreases alienation. The job
giving teachers a chance to do things they do best predicted a posi-
tive change in alienation for preservice who had not student taught.

For first-year teachers the significant predictors "the job giving

teachers a chance to do things best" and "parents being concerned

147

about a t0p quality education for their children" predicted a decline
in the alienation index for opportunity for accomplishment. For
experienced teachers, parents regarding the school as a "baby-sitting"
agency accounted for a significant increase in alienation from
accomplishment, while, like first-year teachers, when the teaching job
lets teachers perform those activities at which they feel best quali-
fied, alienation is lowered.

Again, a significant proportion of the variance was explained
by the workplace characteristics for opportunity for growth for teacher
education students who have not student taught (R2 = .35), first-year
teachers (R2 = .39), and experienced teachers (R2 = .48). Five of the
nine workplace items were significant in accounting for the variance in
opportunity for growth: little control and final say in job (increase
in alienation), creativity in job (decrease), parents regarding school
as ”baby-sitting” agency (decrease), parent concern for quality educa-
tion (decrease), and parents wanting feedback on their children
(increase). For first-year teachers parent concern regarding the
quality of education predicted a decrease in alienation. The job
giving a teacher the chance to do things teachers do best was the
primary significant workplace variable for experienced teachers in
predicting a decline in alienation.

For the remaining twenty-one significant pooled regressions
all had a multiple correlation coefficient (R) greater than .30. The
five pooled regressions in which workplace characteristics accounted
for the largest amount of variance were opportunity for self-fulfillment

2 2

(R = .30), personally involved in job (R = .28), important

148

2 2

involvement in job (R = .25), satisfaction from job (R = .25), and
participation in hiring new administrators with "release time"
option (R2 = .20).

The most significant independent workplace variables accounting
for the variance in the twenty-one pooled regressions were "little
control and final say" in thirteen equations and the teacher career
stages in twelve cases. Other significant independent variables were
influence within the school building (3 instances), job appropriate
for abilities (3), creativity in job (1), job gives chance to do
things teacher does best (2), parents deeply concerned about a top
quality education (2), and principal provides adequate information on
teacher's performance (1). With the exception of principal feedback,
this group of workplace characteristics are the ones which in previous
analysis on the alienation factors had been significant independent
variables. Along with teacher career stages, the principal providing
adequate information on the teacher's performance was a significant
predictor in explaining the variance for participation in hiring of
new administrators given the after hours option. Principal feedback

served to decrease alienation from the opportunity for participation

in the hiring process.
Conclusions

It should be noted that the results of this study are generaliz-
able to the present sample who was teaching at or being certified at
the elementary school level in Michigan and received or are receiving
their preservice training through the teacher education curriculum at

Michigan State University. Given the possible similarities among

149

teacher training institutions and teaching experiences at the elemen-
tary level in other states, discreet and tentative generalizations
could potentially be made to other pOpulations. The assumption in
making such generalizations would be that at a macro-level both
experiences gained in teaching training and the mode of production in
elementary schools across the nation display low variability.

Other considerations in interpretation include that the
findings are based on the self-reported perceptions of subjects on the
present instrument. Also, the alienation indices refer to relative
levels of alienation among the four groups of subjects. Finally, there
may be other workplace variables with more explanatory power than those
chosen for this study.

The factor analysis results suggest that need satisfaction and
job involvement are distinct job attitude categories for people in a
teaching career. Need satisfaction from the work of teaching had two
dimensions. Subjects differentiated between need satisfaction condi-
tions which provide self-actualizing experiences and those which allow
for school decision making participation opportunities.

In nearly all the pg§t_hgg_mean comparisons on the indicators
of alienation, both the three factors and the twenty-three individual
alienation scores, teachers (experienced and/or first year) were
significantly more alienated than teacher education students (not
student taught and/or completed student teaching). The alternative
hypothesis, however, was not supported since the four groups sampled
did not differ significantly among themselves on any comparisons. Not
having student taught resulted in significantly lower mean alienation

scores than the teacher samples, yet was not significantly different

150

from students who had completed student teaching. Most differences
for preservice teachers who had finished student teaching were with
experienced teachers. The findings indicate that both preservice
groups anticipate more involvement and a higher level of need
satisfaction attainment through a teaching career than teachers are
presently realizing. Since teacher training programs focus primarily
on a set of technical skills, students may not have an adequate chance
to examine the organizational structure of the school workplace and
the total occupational role they will have as teachers.

Regarding the participation time trade-off possibilities, all
of the groups were more dissatisfied with the opportunity to become
involved in school policy determination given "release time" during
the school day rather than after work hours. Teachers may be desiring
more input into decision making as a regular part of their job rather
than as an adjunct to their work after hours. As a normal function
of their employment, administrators, however, are full participants
in school policy formulation which directly affects the labor of
teachers. The strong administrative role in decision making may
explain the high degree of alienation by subjects on the options of
hiring new administrators, budget determination, and standardized
test selection. Despite the relatively high index of dissatisfaction
registered, teacher education students remained significantly less
alienated in those three and all other opportunities for participation.

The consistent trend of the teaching samples to be more
alienated and less self invested in their labor than teacher education
students project in their teaching careers may signify the overall

personally frustrating nature of teacher work. Since many beginning

151

teachers do not make a life career of teaching, the experienced

teacher sample represent teachers who, of course, had not dr0pped

out from teaching. The perceptions of the experienced teachers in

this sample were similar to the correlational results of an
international study on teachers. Commenting upon the inverse relation-
ship between age and job satisfaction, the cross-cultural report
concluded that "the 'commitment' of older teachers to teaching was a
function of resignation rather than the intrinsic worth of the task."49

The statistical comparison of the individual regressions
representing the four groups of subjects to the pooled sample indicated
that pooling was permissible for the three alienation factors and
twenty-one of the twenty-three individual alienation scores. When
the sample was pooled, the hypothesis regarding the existence of a
significant relationship between the three factors and the workplace
characteristics was supported. Furthermore, all of the twenty-three
of the pooled regressions of individual scores comprising alienation
on workplace characteristics were statistically significant.

Each of the three workplace characteristic categories (1)
teacher influence and control, (2) relevant test of teacher abilities,
and (3) social value of labor contained items which were significant
predictors for only the self-actualization factor. Apparently the
self-actualization factor is a more universal concept which is
affected by a broad range of workplace characteristics. The partici-
pation and involvement factors, however, are more associated with

specific workplace categories. The variance in the participation need

 

49
pp. 26-27.

Fraser, "Organizational Properties and Teacher Reactions,"

152

satisfaction factor was best explained by the influence and control
items, whereas relevant test of teacher abilities items were signifi-
cant variables for the job involvement factor.

A review of the results of both the analyses of variance and
the multiple regressions suggests that alienation levels of people in
a teaching career are related to the career stage of the subject and
to school workplace characteristics. The longer subjects had been
working as teachers, the more alienated and less involved they were
with their labor. Compounded with this finding was the presence of
workplace variables which accounted for a significant increase or
decrease in alienation levels. It appears, therefore, that particular
points in a teacher's career and working conditions are meaningful
indicators for explaining the degree of alienation and intrinsic

satisfaction a teacher is experiencing with his or her job.

Recommendations

 

The findings from this study have implications for teacher
educators, teachers, school administrators, and researchers investi-
gating teacher job satisfaction or morale. The results indicate that
students in a teacher training program have a somewhat idealized
version of what their teaching job will entail when compared to the
actual perceptions and experiences of teachers. Teacher educators
may want to expand the preservice curriculum to include information
pertaining to the organizational structure of public schools. In
conjunction with data on the organizational and social milieu of the
schools, the occupational role of teachers could also be addressed.

Consideration to the comprehensive nature of the teaching job would be

153

constructive since teacher education programs mainly focus on a set
of technical classroom skills without attending to broader school
concerns such as curricular goal setting and general policy determina-
tion. Taken a step further, teacher education programs could begin the
task of training preservice teachers in organizational skills which
would enable teachers to become more involved in the school policy
making process.

Following the lead of industrial unions, labor negotiations
by teachers with the school district management are primarily inter-
ested in the extrinsic conditions of the job: wages and hours.
Attention to only material benefits may not necessarily alleviate
possible teacher alienation from their work. Given the results of
this study and "the fragile nature of the teacher's autonomy,"50
teacher organizations may wish to include in negotiations considera-
tions for the intrinsic satisfaction of their members. Collective
bargaining points could include a more equal voice with administrators
in school decision making which could allow teachers to exercise more
control and influence over the processes and product of their labor.

School administrators in a proactive effort may desire to
alter the design of the teaching job in an attempt to decrease teacher
dissatisfaction. SChool officials may wish to combat teacher aliena-
tion by allowing direct participation of teachers in long-range
planning decisions which determine the nature of the teaching job.

With the rising public interest in basic learning competencies for

 

50Lortie, "The Balance of Control and Autonomy in Elementary
School Teaching," p. 41.

154

students, school districts are having to depend on their teachers to
implement curricular improvements. But, if "new procedures introduced
in the educator subculture are invariably imposed gfl_teachers rather

5] teacher resistance and alienation appear to be an

than by_teachers,"
anticipated outcome.

Previous research on teachers as workers has generally failed
to tie the subjective feelings of teachers to concrete events per-
taining to their labor within the school system. Researchers in the
area of teacher job satisfaction, morale, and/or alienation may find
constructive Marx's theory of alienated labor. Marx's conceptualiza-
tion of alienation is concerned with the intrinsic nature and
humanistic potential of work. Alienation theory offers a model for
considering the mental state of the teacher and the events which affect
teacher labor. Furthermore, as the factor analysis results indicated,
research upon the school as a workplace will need to consider condi-
tions which may relate to the intrinsic labor needs of teachers for

both participation in school policy formation and self-actualization.

Further research in teacher alienation is needed which can go

beyond the data generated from this study. Future studies may wish to
analyze other workplace variables which may have explanatory power
greater than and/or in addition to those chosen for this study.
Studies which attempt to develop a taxonomy for categorizing school
management systems along a democratic-despotic continuum are needed.
With such an organizational taxonomy, relationships between management

styles and the psychological well-being of teachers could be more

 

51Wolcott, Teacher versus Technocrat, p. 195.

155

clearly determined. Furthermore, in-depth teacher interviews which
probe the questionnaire items in this study would greatly enhance the
current state of knowledge regarding the interpretation by teachers of

the use of their labor.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aiken, Michael, and Hage, Jerald. Organizational Alienation: A Com-
parative Analysis." American Sociological Review 31 (August
l966):497-507.

 

Ambrosie, Frank, and Heller, Robert W. "The Secondary School Adminis-
trator and Perceived Teacher Participation in the Decision-
Making." The Journal of Experimental Education 40 (Summer
l972):6-l3.

 

Applegate, Jane H. "The First Year Teacher Study." Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, April 1977.

Bachman, Jerald G., and Tannebaum, Arnold S. "The Control-Satisfaction
Relationship Across Varied Areas of Experience." In Control in

 

Organizations. PP. 241-49. Edited by Arnold S. Tannebaum.
New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1968.

 

Barakat, Halim Isber. "Alienation from the School System: Its Dynamics
and Structure." Bethesda, Maryland: ERIC Document Reproduction
Service, ED 014 815, 1966.

Belasco, James A., and Alutto, Joseph A. "Decisional Participation
and Teacher Satisfaction." Educational Administrative
Quarterly 8 (Winter 1972):44-58.

 

Bidwell, Charles E. "The Administrative Role and Satisfaction in
Teaching." The Journal of Educational Sociology 29 (September
1955):41-47.

Blumenkrantz, David, and Tapp. Jack T. "Alienation and Education: A
Model for Education." The Journal of Educational Research 71
(November/December l977)?lO4-9.

 

Bowles, Samuel, and Gintis, Herbert. Schooling in Cgpitalist America:

 

Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life.
new York} Basic Books, Inc., 1976.

 

Brookover, Wilbur 8. "Teacher Questionnaire, School Social Climate
Study." East Lansing, Michigan State University, October 1974.

156

157

Bryce-Laporte, Roy S., and Thomas, Claudwell S., eds. "Introduction."
Alienation in Contemporary Society: A Multidisciplinary
Examination. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1976.

 

Bush, Endilee P. ”Alienation and Self Ideal Discrepancy: Desegregation
Effects in High School Teachers on High School Teacher."
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational
Research Association, Chicago, April 1974.

Chung, Ki-Suck. "Teacher-Centered Management Style of Public School
Principals and Job Satisfaction of Teachers." Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Minneapolic, March 6, 1970.

Cogan, Morris L. "Current Issues in the Education of Teacher." In
Teacher Education: The SeventyrFourth Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education. Edited’by KevinRRyan.
Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education, 1975.

Conway, James A. "Power and Participation Decision Making in Selected
English Schools." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, New York, April
1977.

Corwin, Ronald G. "The New Teaching Profession." In Teacher Educa-
tion: The Seventy-Fourth Yearbook of the National Society for
the Study of Education. Edited by Kevin Ryan. Chicago: The
National Society for the Study of Education.

 

. “The School as an Organization." In The School in Society:
Studies in the Sociology of Education. Edited by Sam 0.
Sieber and David E. Wilder. New York: The Free Press, 1973.

 

Coughlan, Robert J. "Dimensions of Teacher Morale." American Educa-
tional Research Journal 7 (March l970):221-34.

 

Coverdale, G. M. "Some Determinants of Teacher Morale in Australia."
Educational Research 16 (November l973):34-39.

Cummings, Thomas G., and Bigelow, John. "Satisfaction, Job Involve-
ment, and Intrinsic Motivation: An Extension of Lawler and
Hall's Factor Analysis." Journal of Applied Psychology_6l
(l976):523-25.

Dewey, John. Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan Co., 1920.
Dreeban, Robert. "The School as a Workplace." In Second Handbook of

Research on Teaching, pp. 450-73. Edited by Robert M. W.
Travers. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1973.

 

Ellenburg, F. C. "Factors Affecting Teacher Morale." NAASP Bulletin
56 (November l972):37-45.

 

158

Faunce, William A. "Self Investment in the Occupational Role." Paper
presented at meetings of the Southern Sociological Society,
New Orleans, April 6, 1972.

Fraser, Graeme S. "Organizational Properties and Teacher Reactions."
Comparative Education Review 14 (February l970):20-29.

 

Fromm, Erich. To Have or To Be. New York: Harper & Row, 1976.

 

Fuller, Frances F., and Brown, Oliver. "Becoming a Teacher." In
Teacher Education: The Seventy-Fourth Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education. Edited'by Kevin Ryan.
Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education.

 

Glatthorn, Allan. "Decision Making in Alternative Schools.” NASSP
Bulletin 57 (September l973):llO-l9.

Grassie, McCrae C., and Carss, Brian W. "School Structure, Leadership
Quality and Teacher Satisfaction." Educational Administration
Quarterly 9 (Winter l973):lS-26.

 

Greene, Maxine. Teacher as Stranger: Educational Philosophy for the
Modern Age. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co.,
Inc.,‘1973.

 

 

Guion, Robert M. "Industrial Morale (A Symposium): 1. The Problem of
Terminology." Personnel Psychology 11 (Spring 1958):59-64.

 

Harman, Harry H. Modern Factor Analysis. 2nd ed. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1967.

 

Hearn, James J. "Teachers' Sense of Alienation with Respect to School
System Structure." Phi Delta Kappan 52 (January 1971):312.

 

Herzburg, Frederick; Mausner, Bernard; and Snyderman, Barbara Bloch.
The Motivation to Work. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
1959.

 

Hoy, Wayne K. "The Influence of Experience on the Beginning Teacher."
The School Review 76 (September 1968):312-22.

 

Ingle, Earl 8., Jr., and Munsterman, Richard E.. "Relationship of
Values to Group Satisfaction." Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New York, April 7, 1977.

Johnston,iL Econometric Methods. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1972.

 

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. 2nd ed.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973.

 

159

Kerlinger, F., and Pedhazur, E. Multiple Regressions in Behavioral
Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and’Winston, Inc., 1973.

 

Kim, Jae-On. "Factor Analysis." In Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences. 2nd ed. Edited by Norman H. Nie, C. Hadlar Hull,
Jean G. Jenkins, Karin Steinbrenner, and Dale H. Bent. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

 

Kim, Jae-On, and Kohout, Frank J. "Special Topics in General Linear
Models." In Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. 2nd
ed. Edited by NormafifiH. Nie, C. Hadlar Hull, Jean 0. Jenkins,
Karin Steinbrenner, and Dale H. Bent. New York: McGraw-Hill,

975.

 

Knoop, Robert, and O'Reilly, Robert. "Participative Decision Making
in Curriculum." Bethesda, Maryland: ERIC Document Reproduction
Service, ED 102 684, 1975.

Koplyay, Janos, and Mathis, Claude B. "The Relationship Between
Teacher Morale and Organizational Climate." Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, February 16, 1967.

Lawler, Edward E., and Hall, Douglas T. "Relationship of Job Charac-
teristics to Job Involvement, Satisfaction, and Intrinsic
Motivation." Journal of Applied Psychology 54 (l970):305-12.

 

Lodhahl, T. M., and Kejner, T. M. “The Definition and Measurement of
Job Involvement." Journal of Applied Psychology 46 (1963):26.
Cited by Edward E. Lawler and Douglas T. Hall, "Relationship
of Job Characteristics to Job Involvement. Satisfaction, and
Intrinsic Motivation," Journal of Applied Psychology 54
(1970):306.

Lortie, Dan C. Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1975.

 

"The Balance of Control and Autonomy in Elementary School
Teaching." In The Semi-Professions and Their Organizations:
Teachers, Nurses, Social'Workers. PP. 1-53. Edited’by
Amitai Etzioni. New York: The Free Press, 1969.

 

March, James G., and Simon, Herbert A. Organizations. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958.

 

Marx, Karl. "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of l844.‘I In Ihg_
Marx-Engels Reader, pp. 52-106. Edited by Robert C. Tucker.
New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1973.

 

. "Wage Labour and Capital." In The Marx-Engels Reader,
pp. 167—90. Edited by Robert C. Tucker. New York: W. W.
Norton & Co., 1973.

160

Maslow. Abraham H. Eupsychian Management. Homewood, Illinois:
Richard D. Irwin, Ihc., 1965.

 

Mathis, Claude. ''The Relationship Between Salary Policies and Teacher
Morale." Journal of Educational Psychology 50 (December 1959):
275-79.

 

McClure, Robert M. "Decision Making at the Institutional Level."
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educa-
tional Research Association, New Orleans, March 1973.

Meadows, Paul. "Thematic Strategies and Alienation Theory." In
Alienation in Contemporary Society: A Multidisciplinary
Examination. Edited byRRoy S. Bryce-Laporte and Claudewell S.
Thomas. 7New York: Praeger Publishers.

 

 

Miller, George A. "Professionals in Bureaucracy: Alienation Among
Industrial Scientists and Engineers." American Sociological
Review 32 (October l967):755-68.

 

Miskel, Cecil; Glasnapp. Douglas; and Hatley, Richard. "A Test of the
Inequity Theory for Job Satisfaction Using Educators' Atti—
tudes Toward Work Motivation and Work Incentives." Educational
Administration Quarterly 11 (Winter 1975):38-54.

 

 

. "The Motivation of Educators to Work." Educational Adminis-
tration Quarterly 9 (Winter l973):42-53.

 

 

Moeller, Gerald H., and Charters, W. W. "Relation of Bureaucratization
to Sense of Power Among Teachers." Administrative Science
Quarterly 10 (March l966):444-65.

 

Mohr, Laurence 8. "Administrative Structure, Effectiveness, and
Efficiency: A Prospectus for Research in Organizational
Aspects of Education." Paper prepared for the National
Institute of Education, n.d.

Morgart, Robert A.; Mihalik, Gregory; and Martin, Dan T. "Alienation
in and Educational Context: The American Teacher in the
Seventies." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American
Educational Research Association, Chicago, April 1974.

Morrow, Allyn A., and Thayer, Frederick C. "Collaborative Work
Settings: New Titles, Old Contradictions." The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 13 (November 3, 1977):448-57.

 

Murnane, Richard J., and Phillips, Barbara R. "The School as a Work-
place: What Matters to Teachers?" Mathematical Policy Research
and the University of Pennsylvania, March 1977.

Ollman, Bertell. Alienation: Marx's Conception of Man in Capitalist
Society. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.

161

Pacheco, Arthur Joseph. "The Concept of Alienation: From Critical
Theory to Social Deviance." Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford
University, 1976. Dissertation Abstracts International 36
(June l976)7925-A.

 

Parker, James Hill. "The Alienation of Public School Teachers: A
Reference Group Theory Approach." Contemporary Education 41
(May l970):276-79.

 

Popkewitz, Thomas S., and Wehlage, Gary. ”Schooling as Work: An
Approach to Research and Evaluation.” Teachers College Record
79 (September 1977).

 

Quinto, Francis, and McKenna, Berhard. Alternatives to Standardized
Testing. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association,
1977.

 

Rotter, Julian B. "Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus
External Control of Reinforcement." _P§ychological Monographs
8O (l966):1-28.

 

Schacht, Richard. Alienation. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co.,
Inc., 1970.

 

Seeman, Melvin. "On the Meaning of Alienation." American Sociological

 

Review 24 (December l959):783-91.

Sergiovanni, Thomas. "Factors Which Affect Satisfaction and Dissatis-
faction of Teachers." The Journal of Educational Administra-
tion 5 (May l967):66-82.

 

Shavelson, Richard J. "Teachers' Decision Making." In The Psychology
of Teaching Methods: The Seventy-Fifth Yearbook of the National

 

 

Society for the Stugy of Education. Edited by N. L. Gage.
Chicago: University of Chicago PFess, 1976. pp. 372-414.

 

Shulman, Lee 5. "Teaching as Clinical Information Processing." In
National Conference on Studies in Teaching. Edited by N. L.
Gage. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, 1975.

 

Smith, Jeffrey K. "Teacher Planning for Instruction." Rutgers
University, Studies of Educative Processes, Report No. 12,
October 1977.

Stopsky, Fred. "The School as a Workplace: Extending Democracy to
Schools." International Review of Education 21 (l975):493-506.

 

‘Travers, Robert M. W., and Dillion, Jacqueline. The Makigg_of a
Teacher: A Plan for Professional Self-develgpment. New York:
Macmillan Publishing Co., 1975.

162

Vroom, Victor H. Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons ,
Inc., 1964.

 

"Who Should Make What Decisions?" Administrators Notebook 3 (April
1955).

 

Wolcott, Harry F. Teacher versus Technocrat: An Educational Innovation

 

in AnthropologicalfiPerspective. Eugene, Oregon: University‘of
Oregon Press, 1977.

 

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FIRST-YEAR AND EXPERIENCED TEACHERS

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

WS'ITI'L'TE FOR RESEARCH ON TEACHING
COLLEGE OF EDUCATIO\ - ERICKSON H.411

EMT LANSING ' MICHIGAN ' 48824

April, 1978

NOTE: All information you provide is confidential. No names of participants
will be used in this study. Names are asked for the purpose of or-
ganizing returned questionaires and for sending summary reports to
participants desiring one.

NAME: SEX: Male Female
(optional) (circle one)

Would you like to receive a summary of the results of this study? Yes No
(circle one)

If yes, please provide a mailing address to which you would like the report
sent:

 

 

 

(include zip code)

At what grade level are you presently teaching?

 

Including this year, how many years have you been teaching? years.
How would you describe the community in which you teach? (circle one)

rural suburban urban

How many teachers are on your building staff?

 

THANK YOU —— PLEASE PROCEED TO THE QUESTIONAIRE

163

1(54

uu<m HRH! NIH OH HDBHHBOO andfldh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

huucouun swam-«cal hanaouue haflolacaa .ucuvuusn noose-
»uoe hdoueuovos hum» huo> humueuovoa heme as aw unoecmuooe wag
. A . . N .n 14 all N N . .4 inllHlIJ iguana ouwuuonu he an cod»
N e m e N N N N e n e N N n -eeaeuuuua one an mesons
iNUNuuen you muucauuonao .m
xuwcouuo auunedcus a—weouun auuesunue
auo> aueueuovos auo> auo> a~ouauovoe >u0>
a . . N N N _ _ N m. 11 A _ _ .ucosaodobov new :uaoum
N e n e N N N N o n e N N N Nonsense new so.e=ouoaeo 2:
a—wcouun Auueeucus anacouuo Amuoaucua
>uo> adouuuovoe >uo> >uo> auouuuovos auo>
_ _ N N _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ .ucussnu—anuue
h e m e n u ~ N o n a n N u o—«asruuoa mo mcugooh .n
a—ucowuo xfiuesucus auwcouun h—umeucue
>uo> a~ouuuovoe >uo> Auo> agoueuovos auo>
N1 a N N m N _ . 1. N _ (a _ _ ..cONuon can usmnozu ucov
N e m e N N a N e m e n N N -euaueca new Nonesuuoeao .N
Auxcouun >-QEN=NE zuwcouuo zuuqeacue
any: adououovoe auo> auo> >~oumuovoe >uo>
n. 114 a . . a . . N . 141 A. N. _ anus—uuuuau
N e a e N N N N o n e N N N -NNu. No .meNNuuN .—

 

 

 

.uo:umou u as non Nana sue: voueu
cocoon on vfioosn aouu osu sous: cu moumov

 

hocuuou a on no“ use» zuaz vouuNOOaaa
Nuucuuouu .N son“ or» :ouza ou oouwoc

<

 

mxuhu

 

 

m mum <

usoa announce uuoa ;u_;3 ocd— ozu so an suscucu ~V panes: o:u msuxmo usuuu was how

 

 

.EouN sumo vanaou mwnagoou unoz communes anon node:

mmu<onHmm=O MGDHHPH< cow

 

 

mess—cu soon you As swoops» NV ocu~ ocu co hopes: oco oaouuu mid macaw you

.EouN ~e=QN>uu=N :oeo vumsou nwcu~oou

"monHDDKHmZH

165

mush hum: n59 ch ubznhzoo nmcudm

 

>~wcouun >uo>

I
[s

aflouuuovoe I q

I n
F N

 

afiuoeucus >uo> I d

 

 

huwcouuu auo> 1.5 huncouuo >uo> l n
j e I 9
Fa in
>~oumuovoe.l e >~0uowouoa l c

.uosoeou e no shop as

.I n I n ”aqueoueoo you scene

0;» mo :oNuucuBuouov

CI N I N or» =« meuuonuouu

than now huucauuonno .o

AudeeNcus auo>.l u a-ufi«:ue huo> l u

 

.xooz a mono hub uoosuu ozu wag
luau :oENu onen~ou= co>uw one:

so» Mfl nosoeuu e no no“ use»
sud: wouuuuonuu up on Eouu 0;»
yes: wave: 30% so~¢3 cu common

 

 

 

 

.~oc:um nouum xvo:

a mono use: oco cu m: was

face 0» no; so; Mfl hosomou
o no can use; sud: vououo .uocoeou e no can use»

inane on an Beau ogu use: sud: woueuoOoau.Nwmmmummm :NHH

v—noa no» soar: ou oouwov mw.sou« osu :mwsa cu cannon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

u a <
.53.“ :0: 32:3 39:03 nan» cocoon: noon 53:) m can 19$.
acsn~oo oouzu may now an annousu uv pad” may no hopes: «mm cauuuo on i a usage nah Nmzonhoathz~
oouwo oouwe ooummauv
Achouuo agouuuovoa hmwcouuu
. N N a _ _ .
n o n c n a N
.AOa as o>~o>cu as an comma; awn» quads» acouuoalu use! 059 .A
oouwe oouwe oouwmnuv
anwcouua a~0ucuovoe . huwcouua
_ N _ 4 . J .
s .o m e n N ~
.uozuoou u no shop as aw amuocoauon uo>~o>cu suns auo> I. H .

 

 

 

woos cocoon-e u

.aouu zone chosen oucauoou
non sous: As gasouxu uv ecu" ecu co nos-9:.uflm agenda 5 i a cloud you ”mzcununihhzu

 

 

 

166

mush HRH: nah OH MDIHHBDO madman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

395.5. hug ... N. 39.8: hug j s Sweep: 30> l s
.l o T_o .l o
21 m .l n I.n
aNOuuuovoE I c ANouuuouos.l a auououovoe_l e
. .Boounucuo ha
.I n .l n .l n =« on: How ouxou ~uwo«u
awauumcu ouuuooan «o w:«
.I N .I N .I « iuoogoa osu :N unauonuu
:3qu you zuucauuomao .cd
hafieeucua >uo>_l N auaeaucua auo>.l a hug-Eacua huo> I.H
afimcouuu >uo> I N aawcouuu auo>.l n handouua >uo>.l n
.I c I.@ .I o
I n l n i n
Amououovoe_l c >~ououovos.l q afiouwuovoe l.¢
.oucovauu
i n .l n .I n as how nouuuaoa muwcuu
inqoauv wo unmanuwa
I ~ I N .l N ibmuoo on» ad wouuonwo
ufiuuma how huucauuonno .o
Aufiqswcue auo> I.~ aflausacue >uo>_l a hauusucue auo> I.~
.Hoonum nouum sou:
expo: a mono amp Noosum ecu wad m mono u:o: oco on n:_u«E
than :oeNu encodes: co>Na ouoa i500 on no; no; Mfl nozomou zmsH
:oa.Mfl nozuwou o on non anon a an pen uooz sag: voumuu .uogucou u an ace use»
zuNa voumNuomww on o» sou“ ozu ioumm on no snow any mamm zuaz voumuuoumm aucomou
use: u~=o3 30> :oNss nu ooumov v—no: no» gouc3 cu oouwov .MN Eouu osu suds: ou oouwo

o a <

 

 

 

 

 

uu<m mez mus OH HDZHHZOO madman

 

 

 

 

 

167

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

zuwzoauu auo> fl N handouuo auo> l N huwcouuo huo> fl N
I o T o I o
I m I n r. n
mfiououovos I e auououovoe I c muououovos I e
.wcavaunp
I n I n I n Hoosom >8 Mom ovooc
gowns» no couuozwauouov
r N I N l N onu cu wcauonuouuuoa
you zuuuauuonno .N
auaoaacNa auo> I u afifiosqcua auo> I N auumeucua muoo I u
aawcouuo >uo>.l n huwcouua muo> fl N Auwcouuo huo> fl 5
I o I o I o
I n I n I m
auououovoe I e afiououovos I c agououovos I e .uouuuowv.
. Hoosuo 56 =« on:
I n I n I n now uuoou vowwvuov
lemon «0 acuuoouoo
I N I N I N of 5 wfiuonuofiuea
you huucauuoanc .u
afiuosucue zuo>.l a NNNoENcNE >uo> I a agmoENCNE auo> r H
.Hoozum nouuo xoos
.xoop o ooco Nov Noose» o5 9: o oven .30; one 3 no 3...
than :oENu oooouou: co>Nw ouoz iEoo cu no; no» mm.uo:ooou :mHH
no>_Mfl nocooou o am now usoz o no new Hana no“: vououo .uosooou m on AOH unom
soda voumuoonmo on ou EouN osu lemma on no EouN ocu use: now: wounuoomoo Nuucomoum
use: w~=o3 3oz sous: nu oouwoc mdmmw :om seas: o» oouwoc MM.EouN ozu nowc3 ou oouwov
m m a

 

 

 

 

 

168

n, 4 pail. 1L

mu<fi HRMZ MES 08 NDZHHZOO um<muh

 

ancouuo auo> I h

aNououovoe I e

 

aNNuanNS auo> I N

ancouuo hko> I s

mNououovoE I o

 

ANNoENcNE auo> I N

thcouuo huo> I h

NNououovoE I a
n

 

zNNoENcNE auo> I N

.BoouoooNo he now
won: on on ESNnoNuuno
osu mo :oNuchauouov
o:u cN :oNuonNoNuuon
you AUNcouuoano

00V#

 

ancouuu auo> I h

mNououovoE 1 q

 

NNHoENcNE ayww_l H

ancouuo >uo> l N

>Nououovos I q

 

aHHoENcNE >uo> I N

achouuo >uo> I n

hNououovoE I a

 

ANHoENcNE muo> l N

.uoNuuoNv

Noosoo 58 you ouououuu
iNcNEvo soc mo maNuN:
onu :N chquNONuuon
How huucouuoano

.n

 

.xooa o ooco mew Noozoo osu ch
luau :oENu omooNou: co>Nw ouos

ooz MM.uo:ooou o on non Hana
cuNs vouoNoommo on cu souN ozu
use: mammm 20> zoNca cu oouwov

 

 

U

 

.Noozun momma Noos
a oucc Lao: oco ON a: uNE
:600 0» cm; 20% MM.Ho£owou
m on NOa hoom zuN3 voumNo
temmo on cu EouN ocu uco3
anoa :oz :oNz3 ou oouwov

m

 

 

 

.uosooou a no non noon

NNNz vouoNoOmao NNucomoum

mfl_EoUN ozu :oNza cu oouwon
«

 

:uHH

 

169

 

"ugh HRH! RIB DH MDIHNIOO un<uah

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooumo ooh». oouweoNv
Mwmaouuo . - aNououowQa thcouom
1 N m — N N N
N o n e n N N
.o>Nuaouo on on oesoso I oi ooaNn non A: .m—
oouwo ooumo oouwooNv
thuouuo aNououovoa Nanouuu
. . _ _ _ _ .
N o m a n N N
.ooNuNNNNo as you ouoNumoanAo 0N Ann R: .0—
oouwo ooumo oouwoouv
aNu30uuo hNououovol achouuo
N N. N N _ _ N
N o n c n N N
.Non NE no on no nos: uo>o so. NoaNu use Nouucou oNuuNN o>nn N .NN
ooume oouwo oouwmoNv
Nchouuo hNououovoa anaouua
_ N 1N _ _ _ .
N o n e n N N
.30“ as osuooun use .uoo .o>NN N .oN
oouwo oouwo oouwoouv
ancouuo NNououovoa aNmaouuo
_ . . _ _ . _
N o n a n N N
.no« as Eouu ooaoo ouNN as cN coNuo-uoNuoo wanna one .nN

 

 

.EouN sumo whosou ochNoou

 

 

use» cocoon-o one» :oNzr AN nmnousu NV ocuN on» no uoaasc oco oNouNo nN I nN oEoUN nah “unenhpathzH

170

uu<m HRNz NIH OH HDBHHZOO na¢unu

 

 

ounouoa oz» NNo «No: oco: unsound oso
No NNo umoeNe Nooe ozone oaoo NnosNo No one:

. _ . . . . 1.

N o n a n N N

Noosoo :N chov ouo coquNgo uNozu to: co 50>

eoum Noonvoow uses mucouauo Noah mo mucouon osu No News so:

i

 

 

oouwo oouwo oouwova
Nchouun hNououovos thcouuo
. .fi N 1 N _ _
N o n a n N N

.coNuoonvo NuNNonv non o o>Nooou coquNso uNoso uosu vocuoocoo aNnoov one oucovsuo NE «0 oucouon 059

.Q

 

 

oouwc oouwo oouwooNv
ancouuo zNououovoE ancouun
_ N _ . _ . _
N o m e n N . N

.zocomo :chuuNuianon: o no NNNuoENua Noonoo NE ouowou ounovouo NE no mucouon ogk

 

 

 

 

 

oouwo oonwo oopammqv
Nchouuo NNououovoE zchouuo
_ . _ . . _ _
u o n q n N N
.chvNan Noozoo NE chuNa co moon was: no oocoancN o>os N .N$
ooumo oouwo oouwmmNm
Nchouuo hNououovoE Nchouuo
_ N N _ N n _
N o m c n N N

.uooa

on N uch:u on» or on oocoso o 08 ooaNm nan )2

.ON

 

 

171

.zoNH<muhooo bow nah so» Mz<=H

 

 

 

mouwm can»: mouwava
Nchouum NNUunuovoE Nchouuu
_ N _ _ _ _ .
N o m e n N N

.oucuvauo NE :UNz chov Eu N aNuum o:u\o: so; no :oNuqauoucN ouaavovo as novN>oun NunNucNun.Nr

.n

 

 

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON TEACHING EAST LANSING . MICHIGAN . 98324
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION. - ERICKSOV HALL

April, 1978

Would you like to receive a summary of the results of this study? Yes No
(circle one)

If yes, please provide a mailing address to which the report could be sent
during the summer:

 

 

 

(include zip code)

Will your teaching certification include the elanentary level? Yes No
(circle one)
Have you completed your student teaching assignment at the elementary level?

Yes No
(circle one)

What year are you in school? (circle one)

freshman sophomore junior senior

In which type of community would you prefer to teach? (circle one)

rural suburban urban

How many teachers would you prefer to have working in the same school
building with you?

 

THANK YOU-—-————-PLEASE PROCEED TO THE QUESTIONAIRE

T72

'173

nu<m PM”: nub OH HDIHHBDD na<udm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nchouus ANNochNa NNucouue ANNuENcNa .ustNNsa Noose.
buo> NNouoNovoB Nuo> Nuo> NNououovol Nuo> as :N ucchwNono ch
. N N N N TN N 11 N N N N n? N ogooou oNuNooon as no coNu
N o N .c N N N N o N .N N N N 55:38 9: 5 9:23
uNoNuuoa sou NuNcsuuoano .n
Nchouuo NNNoENcNE Nchouue ANNsaNsNe
Nuo> aNououovoe NN0> Nuo> aNououovoa >uo>
. N N N N N N N N N IN N N N .ucuanNosov use canon»
N o N e N N N N o . N N N N N choauun sou NNNcauNonno .e_
Nchouun NNNoENcNE Nchouuo NNNoaNcNE
Nuo> aNoueuovoe Nuo> Nuoe aNouoNovoe huo>
N N .N N N N N _ N N _ N N _ .ueosNuNNNEouo-
N o N e N N N N o N a N N N uNNN=NNNOs_No maNNooN .N
Nchouuo NNNoENcNe Nchouus NNNestNe
NN~> NNoueuovoE Nuo> Nuo> NNoueuovoe Nuu>
NT N NT! m N N N N N N N N N .soNuoa vs. usmsocu usov
N o N .N N N N N o N .N . N N N -59ch Now NuNcfiuofio .N
Nchouum NNNoeNcNe Nchouuu NNNuENcNE
sums aNounuovoe Nuo> NNo> NNousuovos huo>
N1 J N N N N N N J! N N N N uagfiuwwuaw
N o N N N N N N ... N .N N N N -NNo. «0 .9538 .N
.no« chzusou o>NuooNuoun mzuHN
.50“ chNosou o>Nuoonnouo use» :uNa vouon hash :uNa vouoNOOnus on On EONN
noon- mm stoau EouN oz» :oNca ou oouwov as» ousmNoNucs sea :osz oa uoumov
m «

 

 

 

 

.EouN some vuo3ou ochNoou use» someones aqua zoNJI
m use d melaNoo sues Now AN :wsouzu NV ocNN oNu so unasss oco oNouNo muN nEouN you

 

 

 

 

.EuuN Nost>chN some chose» ochNouu

N:ON connocmc News :oNss ocNN 0:» co AN swsousu NN noose: oNu uNoxNo nEouN NNe new umzcuaoamymzN

N¢N<ZONHmu=o NQDPNHH< mom

macs an“! MIR 0H MDBHHZOO lmdfluh

 

 

 

 

 

 

174

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NNucouu- Nuo> I N “Nassau. Nuo> l N NNusouu- Nuo> I N
I 0 1| 0 NI 0
1| n f- “ I a
boa-nova... I .N Saunas—Noe f .N 339308. I a
.uoaoeou e no sue: hi
I n l n fl. n 952.323 you ocean
0:» uo soNuooNsuouov
f. N I N l N 0.3 3 33233.»
nus.— .Nou NuNNBuuoNEo .c
NNquNsNe 50> I N ANN-BN5... Nag .... N 533.236 .03 I N _
.Nuu Noose» uzN chusv .Noosom
soounaaNo usoN scum :oeNu Nouns News a mono use:
oaoNou: 3.3 :03» can: use cu m: 35.60 3 can
so» mfl non chzosou o>Nu sea MN can chNOIOu o>Nu .Aon mstoeou 0>Nuooa :MBH
noon-cum use» :uN3 vuuoNo looanoun use» :uND vouoNo uncut usoa :uNa vousNoOuus
nouo- on o» BauN ozu use: nouns on 0» suuN can use: on cu souN 0:» ouemNONu
vN503 sea :uNss cu sonnet, stoa so» zoNsa on nouns umu.:o> soNsa o» ooumov
m m ..— N

 

.aouN nose unseen achNoou use» cocoon-e anon :oN:).m.mmu mm mm
ocasNou oouzu.mmm.mmw NN susougu NN ocNN ozu so wonasc.mmm oNouNo oN u a alOuN ugh "mzouhoauamzu

 

 

 

nouns soun- ooumoan
398.3. .NNou uneven NNmsouuLo.
1] . T N . N .
N o n e n N N

.uozosou s as can as o>No>cN NNNr as 0» comes: NNN3 yoga uchzu acouuonaN uses s:u yoga suanoNuss N .N

 

 

«onus sauna ouuwano
NNucouus ANONeuouoa NNucouum
1 d N N N N N
N o n c n N N

£053» a as 3.33 as N: NNNQNNo-uoa vgNoNEN goal ans: 3 NNNa N :5 3253»:- N .o

 

.IOUN goes nausea awaNNsau
as: ...-s... us!— NNoNNNa NN £985 NV so: on» so mflfl flag N u o '03 us.- 38:35

I75

 

mudfi BENZ ”28.09 HDZHHZOO um<uam

 

Nchouun Nuo>

I
h

NNoueuovoe_I c

 

.NNNsaNsNB Nuo> |.N

NNwdouua auo>_l N.

NNousuovoE

I
«n -o :n \o

 

ANNnaNsNE Nuu>.l N

Nchouun Nuo>.l N

hNououovoB.I

Nfifi'lflfio

 

hNNoaNsNa Nuo>_l

s-l

.sooumasNu as
am on: new nuxou NusONu
nosuuucN oNuNuonu No ch
uuooNoa osu sN chunaNo

 

£3.23 new .NuNNNsuuoNNNNo ..oN

 

Nchouun Nuo>.l N

NNONsuovoe_I e

I N

 

NNNuchNa Nuo> I_N

thcouuu Nuo>.l N

NNousuovoE.I e

I_N

 

NNNuaNcNa auo>_l N

theouue Nuo> I.N.

.NNououoNvoE I N»

 

hNNoaNcNa Nuo>.l N

.oucovsuo

as How ooNoNNon NuchN
-333 No 235...:
uauuno ecu 6N waNuaaNo

nNuunn now huNcsuuonao .o

 

 

.va NooNon ecu uchsv
sooumnmNo usoN EONN :wENu
onooNoN: vNoa cc>Nw who:
so» Mfl nan wCNzomou o>Nu
Iooomoua Naoz :uNa moumNo
towns on cu EoUN ecu New:

 

stoz DON zoNsa cu oopmov

U

 

.Noozoo

nouNm Now: a 00:0 N30:
moo Cu a: NNEEoo cu we:
:oa.mw new chzooou o>Nu
loommoun use» :uNa voNoNo
nouns on 0» EouN ecu use:

 

stos so» :osz Ou ooumov

m

 

.nofi wsNzunOU 0>Nuooa
Inoun u=ON :uNz voumNooono
on On EouN osu oumaNoNu

Isa 50% NoN:3 ou oopmov
<

 

ZMHH

 

 

I76

mo<m mez NSF OH szHHzou um<uuh

 

Nchouuo Num: 1 N

NNouuuovoa T e
r n
T

aNNuENcNE huo>—I N

 

NNwsouuo Nuo> o N

NNousuovoe

'—
net

 

‘—
o-l

NNNuaNcNE Nuo>

Nchouun hko> I N

NNoueuovoe I c

I
N

 

.mstNNsa

Noosoo he you name:
Newman «0 GONuosNauouov
egg :N chquNoNuuua
you huNcsuuonmo

.21

 

Nchouuo zuo>.l N

NNONouocoe I c

I N

 

NNNoeNcNE ano>NI N

NNmsouuo Nuo> I N

NNousuovoe I c

I N

 

NNNoeNcNE Nuo> I N

ANNoBNsNB hue: W N

Nchouua Nuo> I N

NNousuuvoe I

 

ANNuaNsNa Nuo> I N

.uoNNuan
Noonun Nssz on:

 

Mow nunou woNNvuov
Issue No :oNuooNoa
osu sN chuonNoNuuoa
you huNcsuuonno

 

.N

 

 

.mnv Noosum ecu mszzv
BoounmoNu unoz aouu :eENu
unmoNoN: vNoa co>Nm who?
SON.MN nan ucNNoamu o>Nu
locomoua poo» :uN3 voNcNo
Iommo on oN eouN may ucoa

 

stos sow NUNL3 cu oouuov

U

.Noosoo
nouwo News a mono usoz
mac 0» a: uNEEoo ON as:

so» MM nan chcooou o>Nu
Iowanoun Noon suN3 voumNo
tonne on ON EouN spa ucn3

 

 

 

stos so» :oNcs o» oouwov

n

 

.nofi chcooou o>Nuoog
Iooua N30» :uNs vouwNoommn
on o» EouN oxu ounNNoNu
LmM.SON.mwN:3 ou oouwwv

<

 

ZNHN

 

 

 

177

u" a .
FE kit

mu<m axmz Huh OB.mD2HHZOO um<muh

 

Nchouuu Nuo> I N

NNuuauovos I e
n

 

Nchouun.Num> I N

NNuuauuvqa I

on rs ~c |fl ‘0

 

Nanouun Nuo> I N

NNouauovoa I

«I -c_ In ‘0

 

.aoouuauNu Na you
60a: 0n— Ou gHflONHHn—O
«Su Mo coNunchhouov

 

I N I I N oau 6N wcdumnNUNuuma
f Ham Nuucaunoaao .¢
NNNnaach Nuo> f N NNNancaa Nu0> r N NNanNaua Nua> N
Nchouuo Nuu> I N Nchouun Nuu> I N Nchouuu Nuo> I N
I o I o I c
I n I m I n
I. N much» as I a NNouauovoE I e
NNouuuocos ¢ N v .uoauuoao
n I n I n Noonuo Na you uncuauuu
.I INcNEva 30: mo wcuuwn
N I N N onu cN wcuuunNoNuuua
.I How Nuucnuuoamo .n

 

NNNueNcNB Nuo> I N

 

NNNneNch Nuo> I N

 

I I
,4

NNNQENcNe Nuo>

 

 

.va Noosum 0;» ucNuac
aooummwNu ~30N eouu :mENu
unmoNuu: vaa cu>Nw who:
30% vapofi wCNsumwu u>Nu
Iowamoua use» suNz cmumNu
IOmmm on cu EwuN unu use;
mmmmm :ON ;UN:3 ou muuwmv
u

 

 

.Noosuu

amuww xuuz a 0060 use:
0:0 0» a: uNEEou by an:
:ON.Mfl no“ wcvsummu u>Nu
lawnmoun uDON Sufi: vmumNu
Iowmm as ou Ewuu ecu ucaa

 

stoz SON £UN53 Cu wouwov

m

 

.p0n wadsumou 0>Nuoon
Iooun u90N suas vuuoauommu
up 0» EouN «nu cunnwuwu
me.=ON.mwN:3 ou uauwwv

c

 

ZMHH

 

 

 

178

.uusm 92M: nah Oh maxuhzoo na<uam

 

 

ovum. ovum: ouuwuan
Nchouuu NNuuuuuvoa Nchouuo
. 1 . «I Ifi q _
N o n e n N N

.0>Nunouo on ou con-:0 I as Q>Nw NNNa yoga-o» - on gun A:

 

 

ovum: oouws oouwaan
NNucouu- NNououovoa I Nchouuo
_ _ _ . . . .

N o n e n N N
.ooNuNNNnn NI now ou-Nunouanu on NNN3 nocuaou - a. nan A:

 

 

«ohm. Gonna ouuuuan
Nchouuo NNounuavoa Nchouu-
. _ . _ _ . .
N o n o n N N

.uosnuou a on nan Na no 0v 0» ans: uo>o Nan NncNu nan Nouucou ONuuNN o>on NNN3 N

 

 

ovum. ovum: ouuwuqu
NNucouu. NNouquovoa Nchouuo
_ _ . . N . _
N o n c n N N

.aoN a! ecu-own an. .un» .o>NN NNN: N nus» ouanuNua- N

.o

 

 

 

nouns oouw- oouwnan
Nchouun NNouuuuvaa Nchouum
. _ _ _ _ . .
N o n e n N N

.NON uchouou Na scum «sou NNNs ouNN Na cN :ONuo-uuNun- nan-a 0:» uusu ou-ANoNucu N

.93.. no.0 326» .9303

 

m

uaoN non-o... noon £0Ns3 NN snaounu NV ocNN on» no Mania: one oNouNo nNInN clouN you «mzouhoauhnlu

179

.nusn HRH! NIH OH HDINHIOO flm<udh

 

 

IuIIuIa Iuaouua
0&0 HHQ M HI; “CONN 0‘“
No NNI quaNI uaoa uaonI oacu uaoaNI No one:
N N _ N . _ I.

N o n c n N N

NNoonuI 6N chon IuI coquNzo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

uNosu to: no ION loam xuupuoow ucI3 NNNa IuImNuNucI :ON on Iuaovauu HION No aucouIn Isa No NaIa ab: .eN
oouwI oouwI ImuwIva
Nchoqu NNIquovoa Nchouua
. . _ _ _ . .
N o m N n N N
.aoNquavI NuNNIav
no» I I>NIqu IIHINNgu uNogu uIau vocuoucou NNaIIv on NNN: canons». as No oucIuIA on» uIsu IuInNoNqu N .nu
IoumI ouumI oouwIan
Nchoqu NNouuuovoa Nchouuu
_ N N N N N N
N o n a n N N
.NuaINI :ucNuuNIINAIa: I II NoosoI NI chamou NNN:_IuaIu:uI N! No quuuun Isa uIsu IuInNoNqu N .NN
ouumI oouwu oouwIva
mecoqu I NNIquovoa NNm:oqu
. a _ N IN NII _
N o n c n N N
.chvNNaa Noonou Na anuNs no .00» gas: so oucosNNaN I>In NNN: N .Nm
oouwI IoumI ouuwIINv
Nchouuo NNIquovos NNmsoqu
. a . NI qu IN .
N o m a n N N

.uIIA ov N Iuchu 0;» on on IocIso I I! I>Nm NNN3 no:0IIu I II Jan A!

 

.6

4J-

180

zoNh<xmhoou Know MON Dow MZ<£H

 

 

 

wmuwu uuumu muuwIva
Nchouum NNIqumvos NNwaouua
N N N _ _ fl 1N
N c n I m N N
.quovaun Na :uNa
chov EI N oNowN o;a\o; 30; co coNuIsuoch quauva as ovN>oun NNND NInNucNun NE uISu IUIaNoNucI N .nu

 

 

APPENDIX C

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE AND COMPARISONS ON
ALIENATION FACTORS WITH TEACHER CAREER
STAGES AS INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Tab1e C-1.--Ana1ysis of Variance and Comparisons on SeIf—actuaIization
Need Satisfaction Factor, X33, with Teacher Career Stages
as Independent VariabIes.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probab111ty
Between Groups 3 407.30 135.76 9.69 <.0005
Within Groups 271 3793.60 13.99
TotaI 274 4200.90
N = 275

Subsets in which the group means on the SeIf—actuaIization Need Satis-
faction factor,a X33, differ significantIy at the .05 1eve1 under the
Scheffé procedure:

subset 1: 03
subset 2: E1 (1.15) < Ch (
(2.42) < EA (4.28)

(1.15) < 63 (3.33)b
4.28)

subset 3: 62

Note:

0
ll

1 teacher education students who have not student taught

C)
II

2 teacher education students who have compIeted student
teaching

(D
II

3 first-year teachers

(D
II

4 experienced teachers

 

aBased on B-A: A = present]! associated (teachers) or antici-
pate association (students) with teaching job and B = shou1d be
associated with teaching job.

bDissatisfaction increases with rise in mean score.

181

182

Table C-2.--Ana1ysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation
Need Satisfaction Factor, X34. with Teacher Career Stages
as Independent Variables.

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 11462.86 3820.95 10.38 <.0005

Within Groups 271 99705.82 367.92
Total 274 111168.68

 

N = 275

Subsets in which the group means on the Participation Need Satisfaction
factor,a X34, differ significantly at the .05 level under the Scheffé
procedure:

subset 1: G1 (12.65) < G3
subset 2: '6' (12.65) < '64 (28.35)

(26.8l)b
1

Note:

teacher education students who have not student taught

(D
II

- first-year teachers

CD CD
I»
II I

4 experienced teachers

 

aDetermined by time trade-off discrepancy scores between actual
(teachers) or anticipated (students) participation state and projected
participation state given time conmitment after school and/or "release
time" during day.

bDissatisfaction increases with rise in mean score.

183

Table C-3.--Ana1ysis of Variance and Comparisons on Job Involvement
Factor, X35, with Teacher Career Stages as Independent

 

 

Variables.
Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 433.98 144.66 7.34 <.0005

Within Groups 271 5335.09 19.68
Total 274 5769.07

 

N = 275

Subsets in which the group means on the Job Involvement factor, X35,
differ significantly at the .05 level under the Scheffé procedure:

subset 1: G1
subset 2: Gé (18.98) >'GA (16.82)

(19.97) > 64 (16.82)a

Note:

CD
ll

teacher education students who have not student taught

(D
II

2 teacher education students who have completed student
teaching

C)
II

4 experienced teachers

 

aJob involvement decreases with a decline in the mean score.

APPENDIX D

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE AND COMPARISONS ON INDIVIDUAL
ALIENATION SCORES WITH TEACHER CAREER STAGES
AS INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Table D-l.--Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Self-fulfillment
Score, X]. with Teacher Career Stages as Independent
Variables.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 32.44 10.81 6.24 <.0005
Within Groups 265 458.94 1.73
Total 268 491.38
N = 269

Subsets in which the group means on the Self-fulfillment score,a X1,
differ significantly at the .05 level under the Scheffé procedure:

)b

subset 1: G. (.22) < G3
subset 2: GA (.22) < 64 (1.09)

(.94

Note:

CD
ll

1 teacher education students who have not student taught

CD
ll

3 first-year teachers

CD
ll

4 experienced teachers

 

aBased on B-A: A = presently associated (teachers) or antici-
pate association (students) with teaching job and B = should be
associated with teaching job.

b . . . . . . .
Dissatisfaction increases w1th rise in mean score.

184

185

Table D—2.--Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Independence Score,
X2, with Teacher Career Stages as Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 4.83 1.61 1.17 .321
Within Groups 265 364.55 1.37
Total 268 369.38
N = 269

There were no subsets in which the group means on the Independence
score,a X2, differ significantly at the .05 level under the Scheffé
procedure.

 

aBased on B-A: A = presently associated (teachers) or antici-
pate association (students) with teaching job and B = should be
associated with teaching job.

186

Table D-3 --Ana1ysis of Variance and Comparisons on Accomplishment
Score, X3, with Teacher Career Stages as Independent

 

 

 

Variables.
Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 28.06 9.35 7.87 <.0005
Within Groups 266 316.10 1.19
Total 269 344.16
N = 270

Subsets in which the group means on the Accomplishment score,a X3,
differ significantly at the .05 level under the Scheffé procedure:

subset l: G} (.28) < 83 (.94)b
subset 2: E] (.28) < '64 (1.07)
Note:
G1 = teacher education students who have not student taught

(D
II

3 first-year teachers

(I)
ll

4 experienced teachers

 

aBased on B-A: A = presently associated (teachers) or antici-
pate association (students) with teaching job and B = should be
associated with teaching job.

bDissatisfaction increases with rise in mean score.

 

187

Table D-4.--Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Growth Score, X4,
with Teacher Career Stages as Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 63.26 21.09 12.82 <.0005
Within Groups 266 437.53 1.64
Total 269 500.80
N = 270

Subsets in which the group means on the Growth score,a X4, differ
significantly at the .05 level under the Scheffé procedure:

subset 1: El (.14) <'Gé (.90)b
subset 2: G} ( 14) < 64 (1.35)
subset 3: Gé ( 46) < 64 (l 35)
Note:
G1 = teacher education students who have not student taught

(D
II

2 teacher education students who have completed student
teaching

(D
II

3 first-year teachers

65
u

4 experienced teachers

 

3Based on B-A: A = presently associated (teachers) or antici-
pate association (students) with teaching job and B = should be
associated with teaching job.

b . . . . . . .
Dissatisfaction increases with rise in mean score.

188

Table D-5.--Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation in
Detennining Teaching Assignment Score, X5, with Teacher
Career Stages as Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 19.27 6.42 2.32 .076
Within Groups 266 736.59 2.77
Total 269 755.86
N = 270

There were no subsets in which the group means on the Participation in
Determining Teaching Assignment score,a X5, differ significantly at
the .05 level under the Scheffé procedure.

 

aBased on B-A: A = presently associated (teachers) or antici-
pate association (students) with teaching job and B = should be
associated with teaching job.

189

Table D-6.-—Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation in
Evaluating Own Work (C-A) Score, X6, with Teacher Career
Stages as Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 137.23 45.74 10.22 <.0005
Within Groups 271 1213.19 4.48
Total 274 1350.42
N = 275

Subsets in which the group means on the Participation in Evaluating
Own Work (C-A)a score, X6, differ significantly at the .05 level under
the Scheffé procedure:

(.57) < G )b

subset l: G 3

1

subset 2: G1 (.57) < G4

subset 3: Gé (l.23)<:Gé (2.35)

(2.35
(2.10)

Note:

C)
II

1 teacher education students who have not student taught

(D
II

teacher education students who have completed student

2 teaching
G3 = first-year teachers
G4 = experienced teachers

 

aThe discrepancy score between actual (teachers) or antici-
pated (students) participation states and projected time trade-off
of using school day “release time" once a week for participation.

b . . . . . . .
DlSSdtleaCthl‘l increases Wlth rise 1” mean score.

190

Table D-7.--Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation in
Evaluating Own Work (B-A) Score, X7, with Teacher Career
Stages as Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 15.50 5.17 1.46 .225
Within Groups 271 956.67 3.53
Total 274 972.17
N = 275

There were no subsets in which the group means on the Participation in
Evaluating Own Work (B-A)a score, X7, differ significantly at the .05
level under the Scheffé procedure.

 

aThe discrepancy score between actual (teachers) or antici-
pated (students) participation states and projected time trade-offs
of allocating an hour after school once a week for participation.

191

Table D-8.--Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation in
Disciplinary Policies (C-A) Score. X8, with Teacher Career
Stages as Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 104.93 34.98 8.57 <.0005
Within Groups 270 1101.64 4.08
Total 273 1206.57
N = 274

Subsets in which the group means on the Participation in Disciplinary
Policies (C-A)a, score, X8, differ significantly at the .05 level under
the Scheffé procedure:

subset l: E] (.26) < 63 (.92)b

subset 2: G} (.26) < G4 (1.30)
subset 3: Gé (.34) < GA (1.30)

Note:
G1 = teacher education students who have not student taught
G2 = teacher education students who have completed student teaching
G3 = first-year teachers
G4 = experienced teachers

 

aThe discrepancy score between actual (teachers) or antici-
pated (students) participation states and projected time trade-off of
using school day "release time" once a week for participation.

b . . . . . . .
Dissatisfaction increases with rise in mean score.

192

Table D-9.--Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation in
Disciplinary Policies (B-A) Score, X9, with Teacher Career
Stages as Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 2.87 .96 .32 .812
Within Groups 269 809.37 3.01
Total 272 812.24
N = 273

There were no subsets in which the group means on the Participation
in Disciplinary Policies (B-A)a Score, X9, differ significantly at the
.05 level under the Scheffé procedure.

 

aThe discrepancy score between actual (teachers) or antici-
pated (students) participation states and projected time trade-off
of allocating an hour after school once a week for participation.

193

Table 0-10 --Ana1ysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation on
Text Book Selection (C-A) Score, X10. with Teacher Career
Stages as Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 57.99 19.33 4.50 .004
Within Groups 270 1160.96 4.30
Total 273 1218.95
N = 274

Subsets in which the group means on the Participation on Text Book
Selection (C-A)a score, X10. differ significantly at the .05 level
under the Scheffé procedure:

subset l: E] (.74) < 63 (1.70)b

subset 2: G} (.74) < E4 (1.92)

Note:

53
ll

1 teacher education students who have not student taught

C)
II

3 first-year teachers

57
ll

4 experienced teachers

 

aThe discrepancy score between actual (teachers) or anticipated
(students) participation states and projected time trade-off of using
school day "release time" once a week for participation.

bDissatisfaction increases with rise in mean score.

194

Table D-ll.--Ana1ysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation in
Text Book Selection (B-A) Score, X1], with Teacher Career
Stages as Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 34.28 11.43 3.37 .019
Within Groups 271 918.10 3.39
Total 274 952.38
N = 275

Subset in which the group means on the Participation in Text Book
Selection (B-A)a score, X1], differ significantly at the .05 level
under the Scheffé procedure:

b

)

G4 (.54) < G (1.47

3

Note:

53
ll

3 first-year teachers

a)
II

4 experienced teachers

 

aThe discrepancy score between actual (teachers) or antici-
pated (students) participation states and projected time trade-off
of allocating an hour after school once a week for participation.

b . . . . . . .
Dissatisfaction increases with rise in mean score.

195

Table 0-12.--Ana1ysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation in
Standardized Test Selection (C-A) Score, X12, with Teacher
Career Stages as Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 198.40 66.13 13.26 <.0005
Within Groups 268 1336.98 4.99
Total 271 1535.38
N = 272

Subsets in which the group means on the Participation in Standardized
Test Selection (C- A)a score, X12, differ significantly at the .05 level
under the Scheffé procedure:

subset 1: 61 (i. 05) < G3 (2. 58)b
subset 2: G1 (1. 05 5) G4 (3. 07)
subset 3: 62 (1.50)<G3 (2. 68)
subset 4: 62 (l. 50)< G4 (3. 07)
Note:
G1 = teacher education students who have not student taught
62 = teacher education students who have completed student teaching
G3 = first-year teachers
G4 = experienced teachers

aThe discrepancy score between actual (teachers) or anticipated
(students) participation states and projected time trade- off of using
school day "release time" once a week for participation.

bDissatisfaction increases with rise in mean score.

196

Table D-l3.--Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation in
Standardized Test Selection (B-A) Score, X13, with Teacher
Career Stages as Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 53.60 17.87 4.47 .004
Within Groups 268 1071.57 4.00
Total 271 1125.17
N = 272

Subsets in which the group means on the Participation in Standardized
Test Selection (B-A)a score, X13, differ significantly at the .05 level
under the Scheffé procedure:

subset l: G3 (1.00) < G3 (2.05)b

subset 2:'G

1 (1.00) < GA (1.95)

Note:

G3
ll

1 teacher education students who have not student taught

(D
II

3 first-year teachers

CD
ll

4 experienced teachers

 

aThe discrepancy score between actual (teachers) or anticipated
(students) participation states and projected time trade-off of
allocating an hour after school once a week for participation.

b . . . . . . .
Dissatisfaction increases with rise in mean score.

 

197

Table D-l4.—-Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation in
Budget Determination (C-A) Score, X14, with Teacher Career
Stages as Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 184.03 61.34 12.22 <.0005
Within Groups 270 1354.83 5.02
Total 273 1538.86
N = 274

Subsets in which the group means on the Participation in Budget Deter-
mination (C-A)a score, X14, differ significantly at the .05 level under
the Scheffé procedure:

subset l: E} (1.27) < 64 (3.34)b
subset 2: Gé (1.76) < E4 (3.34)
Note:
G1 = teacher education students who have not student taught

C)
II

2 teacher education students who have completed student teaching

(D
II

4 experienced teachers

 

aThe discrepancy score between actual (teachers) or anticipated
(students) participation states and projected time trade-off of using
school day "release time" once a week for participation.

b . . . . . . .
Dissatisfaction increases with rise in mean score.

198

Table D-15.--Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation in
Budget Determination (B-A) Score, X15. with Teacher Career
Stages as Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 38.63 12.88 2.98 .032
Within Groups 270 1167.46 4.32
Total 273 1206.09
N = 274

Subset in which the group means on the Participation in Budget Deter-
mination (B-A)a score, X15, differ significantly at the .05 level
under the Scheffé procedure:

— — b
G1 (1.15) < G4 (2.13)

Note:

CD
I!

1 teacher education students who have not student taught

(D
II

4 experienced teachers

 

aThe discrepancy score between actual (teachers) or anticipated
(students) participation states and projected time trade-off of allo-
cating an hour after school once a week for participation.

b . . . . . . .
Dissatisfaction increases with rise in mean score.

199

Table D-l6.--Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation in
Hiring New Administrators (C-A) Score, X16’ with Teacher
Career Stages as Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 281.20 93.73 17.84 <.0005
Within Groups 270 1418.18 5.25
Total 273 1699.38
N = 274

Subsets in which the group means on the Participation in Hiring New
Administrators (C-A)a score, Xl6’ differ significantly at the .05 level
under the Scheffé procedure:

b

subset l: Gi (1.36) < G. (3.41)

3
subset 2: G5 1.36) < E4 (3.82)

(
2 (
(

subset 3: G' 2.14) < G4 (3.41)
subset 4: Gé 2.14) < 64 (3.82)
Note:
G1 = teacher education students who have not student taught
G2 = teacher education students who have completed student teaching
63 = first-year teachers
G4 = experienced teachers

 

aThe discrepancy score between actual (teachers) or anticipated
(students) participation states and projected time trade-off of using
school day "release time" once a week for participation.

b . . . . . . .
Dissatisfaction increases w1th rise in mean score.

 

ZOO

Table D-l7.--Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation in
Hiring New Administrators (B-A) Score, X17, with Teacher
Career Stages as Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Source d.f. ggflagzs sgfigfles F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 127.45 42.48 9.42 <.0005
Within Groups 270 1217.99 4.51
Total 273 1345.44 !
g
N = 274

 

Subsets in which the group means on the Participation in Hiring New
Administrators (B—A)a score, X17, differ significantly at the .05 level
under the Scheffé procedure:

subset l: E} (1.44) < 65 (2.83)b
subset 2: G5 (1.44) < G4 (3.10)
subset 3: Eé (1.98) < E; (3.10)
Note:
61 = teacher education students who have not student taught
G2 = teacher education students who have completed student teaching
G3 = first-year teachers
G4 = experienced teachers

 

aThe discrepancy score between actual (teachers) or anticipated
(students) participation states and projected time trade-off of allo-
cating an hour after school once a week for participation.

b . . . . . . .
Dissatisfaction increases with rise in mean score.

201

Table D-18.--Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation in
Curriculum Determination (C-A) Score. X18’ with Teacher
Career Stages as Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Source d.f. 3:33:25 5:32:65 F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 109.92 36.64 9.34 <.0005
Within Groups 270 1059.51 3.92 ;
Total 273 1169.43 5
:
N-274 Q
i

 

Subset in which the group means on the Participation in Curriculum
Determination (C-A)a score, X18, differ significantly at the .05 level
under the Scheffé procedure:

b

(.77) <‘G

4 (2.45)

C)
II

1 teacher education students who have not student taught

C)
II

4 experienced teachers

 

6The discrepancy score between actual (teachers) or anticipated
(students) participation states and projected time trade-off of using
school day "release time" once a week for participation.

bDissatisfaction increases with rise in mean score.

202

Table D—l9.--Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Participation in
Curriculum Determination (B-A) Score. X19. with Teacher
Career Stages as Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 12.75 4.25 1.37 .253
Within Groups 270 838.14 3.10
Total 273 250.89
N = 274

There were no subsets in which the group means on the Participation in
Curriculum Determination (B-A)a score, X19, differ significantly at the
.05 level under the Scheffé procedures.

 

aThe discrepancy score between actual (teachers) or anticipated
(students) participation states and projected time trade-off of allo-
cating an hour after school once a week of participation.

203

Table D-20.--Ana1ysis of Variance and Comparisons on Personally
Involved in Job Score, X20, with Teacher Career Stages
as Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 14.89 4.96 4.69 .003
Within Groups 271 286.65 1.06
Total 274 301.54
N = 275

Subsets in which the group means on the Personally Involved in Job
score, X20. differ significantly at the .05 level under the Scheffé
procedure:

subset 1: G1 (5.42) > G4 (5.87)6

subset 2: 62 (6.37) > G4 (5.87)

Note:

(D
II

1 teacher education students who have not student taught

("D
II

2 teacher education students who have completed student teaching

CD
II

4 experienced teachers

 

aJob involvement decreases with a decline in the mean score.

204

Table D-21.-—Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Important Involve-
ment in Job Score, X21, with Teacher Career Stages as
Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 52.78 17.59 9.54 <.0005
Within Groups 271 499.96 1.84
Total 274 552.74
N = 275

Subsets in which the group means on the Important Involvement in Job
Score, X2], differ significantly at the .05 level under the Scheffé
procedure:

(5.09) > 93
(5.09) > "9'4 (3.96)

subset l: G' (4.33)a

l

subset 2: G1
subset 3: Gé (4.64) > 64 (3.96)

Note:
G1 = teacher education students who have not student taught
G2 = teacher education students who have completed student teaching
G3 = first-year teachers
G4 = experienced teachers

 

a . . . .
Job involvement decreases with a decline in the mean score.

205

Table D-22.--Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Satisfaction
from Job Score, X2 , with Teacher Career Stages as
Independent VariabIes.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 51.48 17.16 8.16 <.0005
Within Groups 271 569.89 2.10
Total 274 621.37
N = 285

Subsets in which the group means on the Satisfaction from Job score,
X22, differ significantly at the .05 level under the Scheffé procedure:

subset l: ‘61 (4.99) > 93 (4.13)a

subset 2: G1 (4.99) > GA (3.94)
subset 3: Gé (4.67) > GA (3.94)
Note:
G1 = teacher education students who have not student taught
G2 = teacher education students who have completed student teaching
G3 = first-year teachers
G4 = experienced teachers

 

aJob involvement decreases with a decline in the mean score.

206

Table D-23.--Analysis of Variance and Comparisons on Live, Eat, and
Breathe Job Score, X23, with Teacher Career Stages as
Independent Variables.

 

 

 

Sum of Mean . . .
Source d.f. Squares Squares F-ratio F-probability
Between Groups 3 7.56 2.52 .88 .450
Within Groups 271 773.11 2.85
Total 274 780.67
N = 275

There were no subsets in which the group means on the Live, Eat, and
Breathe Job score, X23, differ significantly at the .05 level under
the Scheffé procedure.

 

APPENDIX E

MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS

 

Dependent Variables

 

KEY TO APPENDIX E

Lees;

Self-fulfillment (B-A)a

Independence (B-A)

Accomplishment (B-A)

Growth (B-A)

Participation in Determining Teaching
Assignment (B-A)

Participation
Participation
Participation
Participation
Participation
Participation

Participation
(C-A)

Participation
(B-A)

Participation
Participation

Participation
tors (C-A)

Participation
tors (B-A)

Participation
(C-A)

Participation
(B-A)

in
in
in
in
in
in

in

in

in
in

in

in

in

in

Evaluating Own Work (C-A)b

Evaluating Own Work (B-A)C
Disciplinary Policies (C-A)
Disciplinary Policies (B-A)
Text Book Selection (C-A)
Text Book Selection (B-A)

Standardized Test Selection
Standardized Test Selection

Budget Determination (C-A)
Budget Determination (B-A)

Hiring of New Administra-
Hiring of New Administra-
Curriculum Determination

Curriculum Determination

Personally Involved in Job

207

 

Dependent Variables

 

X21

X22

X23

X33

X34

X35

Independent Variables

 

X24

x25

X26

X27

X28

X29

X30

X31

X32

Dummy Variablesd

 

208

KEY TO APPENDIX E (continued)

£9991.
Important Involvement in Job
Satisfaction from Job
Live, Eat, and Breathe Job
Self-actualization Need Satisfaction
Participation Need Satisfaction

Job Involvement

Control and Final Say Over Job
Influence Within School Building
Job Appropriate for Abilities
Creativity in Job

Job Gives Chance to Do Things Teacher Does
Best

Parents Regard School as "Baby-sitting"
Agency

Parents Deeply Concerned about a Top Quality
Education

Parents Who Want Feedback on Their Children

Principal Provides Adequate Information on
Teacher's Performance

Teacher Education Students Who Have
Completed Student Teaching

First—Year Teachers

Experienced Teachers

209

Notes to Key

 

aB-A for x1.....x5 is a measure of dissatisfaction with A how
much of the factor mentioned in the item j§_associated with the
subject's present or prospective teaching job and 8 how much of the
factor they feel should be associated with their job.

bC- A for X5, X8, X10 , 14, X16 , and X18 is a measure of
dissatisfaction with C the amoungX of the factor that would be associ-
ated with the subject's job he or she were given ”release time"
during the school day once a week.

cB-A for X7, X9, X11, X13, X15, X17, and X19 is a measure of
dissatisfaction with B the amount of the factor that would be associ-
ated with the subject's job if he or she had to commit one hour once
a week after school.

dFor cases belonging to the excluded category of dummy vari-
ables (K groups - 1) = 3 dummy variables, Students who have Not Student
Taught: 32

y = a +2§1b1Xi

.‘-"!'i‘l'.—..~¢1‘
'-

 

’IA'IYa 'o~ "

-n.a-.

2‘lO

 

 

 

 

oV NV NV ON ON ON oV NV ON ON ON NV ON ON 2
No. oV. NV. ON. NV. VN. NV. No. No. NV. NNN. NON. NV. NV. NN
NV. NN. NN. Ne. oe. VN. NN. VN. NN. NN. NN. NN. ea. Ne. N
VON. V VNN.V VVN.V VNV. V VNN. V VNV.V VNN.V VNN.V VNN.V VON.V VNo.V VNo. V VNV. V VNV. V NN
No. NV.- NV.- co. NN. NN.- No. NN.- VN.- NV. NN.- oV.- oV.- :N x
VVN. V VNN. V VNN.V VNV. V VNN.V VNV.V VeN.V VNN.V VNN.V VVN.V VNo.V VNo. V VNV. V VNV. V VN
No. - NN. - NN.- VN. - NV.- NN. Ne. VN.- No. VN.- aVV. oV. NNN. :. x
VNN. V VNV. V VNN. V VNV. V VVN.V VNV.V VNV.V VNV.V VNN.V VVV.V VVo.V VNV.V VVV. V VoV. V ON
NV. - oV. - No. - VN.- NV.- Vo. VN.- No. No. NN.- NNN.- No. 7V NO. x
VNN V VNV. V VVN. V VNV. V VNV. V VNV.V VNV.V VNV.V VVN.V VNV.V VNN.V VNo. V VoV. V VNo. V NN
No. co. NN. VN.- oV. oV. NV. NV.- NN.- No. NNV.- NN- Vo. - NN.- x
VVN. V VNN. V VNN. V VNN.V VVN.V VNN.V VNN.V VVN.V VNN.V VNN V VVV.V VoV. V VWV. V VNV. V NN
oe. VV.- NN. NN.- VN. VN. aNN. NV.- VV. NV. No. aNN. V. To x
VNN.V VNN.V VNN V VNN.V VNN.V VNN.V VNN.V VVN.V VON.V VNN V VNV.V VNV. V VNN V VNV. V VN
NV.- NN.- N NN.- VN.- NV.- VN.- NN. VV. NN.- aVN.- NN.- :V me. x
VNN. V VNN.V VNN. V VNV.V VNN. V VNV.V VNN.V VON.V VNN. V VNN V VNo.V VNN V VNV.V VNN V NN
NN No. oN NV. NN NV. NV. NN.- NV- NV. Vo. oV. - 40. N x
VNN.V VNN. V VNN V VVV. V VeN. V VVV.V VNN.V VVN.V VNN. V VNV. V VNo.V VNo.V VNV.V VNV.V NN
oV.- NN. VV. NV. VN NV.- NN.- VN. VN. N NN.- oV.- NN.- NN.- x
VNN. V VVV.V VON.V VNN V VNV. V VNV.V VVV.V VNV.V VON. V VNV. V VNo.V VNN V VNN V VNo.V NN
NN VV.- NV.- VN. VN. No. No. oN. NV. VV. aeV. NNV. aNN. NV. x
VoN.NV VVN.NV VNN.NV VNV.VV VON.NV VNN.VV VNN.NV VNN.NV VNN.NV VON.VV VVN.V VoN.V VNN.VV VNV.VV NeNVNeou
NN. NV.N NN.N NN.N NN.- VN.V- NN.N- NN. NN.- VN.N aNNN NN. No. VN.N

eVV NVx NVx VVx on Nx Nx Vx Nx Nx Nx Nx Nx Vx

Ammmmcucmcca :VV mVoLLm ccmucmum chucoanVcou new mucmVqummou :onmmmem
it n 1 Flu r i 1 1 n 11.“ "Infirllu h Pu n ...Iu RN fluvialhh it?“ n Built. in. n.dialriilh.ibduhdhhiflfln a I!“ Hi IIIIIiI.:I “£5305:

acmvzum Voz m>mz oz: Nucmcaum :oVVoozcw Locummp Lo» NuVVNNVmuuocmcu oroaxgoz co mmgoom :oVumcoVV< mo NVNNVN:< cowmmwcmmm mpnwupzzii.Vim mpnch

2'11

coVuccmVVo mogcu

memm

o +

VNVVNN +

Omxomn

.NanNV anNVLN> VoV Voom .aV m vacoaa< Vo ochchmn Va aux mom

NN. Va VeNoVVVeNVN VNNV-V

omxmma mmxww

a +

a
xm

a +

Vo.

Nxow

a + VNN

n

+ NN

no acmuVchon ummuiuo

cm

V N V N a V

NV mex .....cwa NEmVV mun—axsoz chc «ca :0 uoNNmewV .V> .mex .vmx .mm VV «Vogue»

mgu new mex.....VxV chooN coVuocmVVo VmauV>VucV MN on» Low coVVuzcm :oVNNmsmoV mVQVVVze Vococmu wzh

 

 

III].

memch:.cha :VV NVoccw vccucoum ocVucoachcou uco NchVuVVVoou :oVNNmmem

....POO§.IrI.auVL

b

V

V

...-cu...»

NUVIioqndW<I.-.

u-VrthI'hLlflI-ir'V-ud

NV NV NV NV NV NV NV NV NV NV NV NV 2
VN. NN. NN. NN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NV. NV. VN. NN. VV. NN
NN. NN. VN. VN. VN. VN. NN. NV. NN. VN. VN. NN. N
VNV. V VNN.NV VNN. V VNN.V VNV. V VNV. V VNN.V VNV V VVN. V VNN.V VNN. V VNN. V NN
NN. - NN.V- GV VN.- NV NN NN.- NV. NV. NV.- N NV.- V
VVN V VVN.NV VNN. V VNN.V VNV. V VNV. V VNN.V VNN. V VNN.V VVN.V VNN. V VVN. V VN
NV. oV.V- NN. NN.- N N No. NN VV.- VN.- NN.- GN V
VNN V VON.NV VNN.V VNV.V VNV.V VNV. V VVV. V VNV.V VNN.V VNN.V VVN.V VNN.V NN
NN. VN. NV.- VN. NN. VV. NN- NN.- NN.- NN.- VN.- NV.- V
VNN.V VNN.VV VNN. V VNV.V VNV. V VVV. V VVN V VNV. V VVN. V VNN.V VNN. V VNN.V NN
NN.- VN.V NN. - NV.- V. NV NN- NG VN. NN. VN. NN.- V
VNN.V VNN NV VNN.V VNN.V VNN.V VNV.V VVV.V VNN.V VNN. V VNN.V VNV. V VNN.V NN
NN.- VN.N NN. NN. NV.- VN.- NN.- NN.- NN. VV.- NN NV. V
VVN.V VVN.NV VNN.V VNN.V VaN.V VNN.V VNV.V VNN.V VNN.V VNN.V VNV. V VVN.V VN
aNNV NV. NN.- NN. NNN. NNV. NN NN. NN.- NN.- NN NN.- V
VNV. V VNN.NV VNN.V VNV.V VVV.V VNV. V VNN V VNV. V VNN.V VNN.V VNN. V VNN.V NN
VN VN.V NV.- NN.- No. NN- NN NN No. VN. NN NV. V
VNN.V VNN.NV VNN.V VNV V VVV V VNV. V VNN. V VNV. V VNN.V VNN.V VVN. V VNN. V NN
aNNV NN.N NN.- VN. NN. aNN. V.NN. VN NV.- NN. GV N V
VNN.V VVV.VV VNN.V VNV V VNV. V VNV V VNN.V VNV.V VON.V VNV.V VMN. V VNV.V NN
VN. NN.- aNN. NV VN NN NN. NV. NV. NN.- NV No. V
VNN.NV VNN.NNV VNN.NV VNN.VV VNV.VV VVN.VV VNN.V VNN.VV VVN.NV VNN.NV VNN.NV VVV.NV VeNVNeoN
VN.N VN.NN NN.N NN.- NN.V NNN.N V.NNVV NN.N NN.V- VN.N NN.N NVN.N

NNV NNV NNV NNV NNV VNV NNV NVV NVV VVV NVV NVV

 

n Wilt. fin ll.‘I.I q’:'u."l.5".v'i’h.illu“.."i§gg

.vozeVVeoN--. V- N oVaNV

2122

 

co cm oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo om om om oo 2

 

 

  
  

 

NN. No. NV. No. No. VV. NN. No. NV. No. NV. NV. NN. NV. NV
NN. NN. VN. NN. NN. VN. NN. NN. NN. VN. NN. NN. NN. NN. N
VVN.V VNN. V VNN. V VVN.V VNN.V VNV V VNN.V VVN.V VNN. V VNN.V VNV. V VNV. V VNV.V VVV.V NN

NN. NN NN. No. NV. nNN. NON. NN.- NN. NN.- oN NN NV. CO. V
VVN. V VNN.V VNN.V VNN.V VVN.V VVV. V VNN.V VNN.V VNN. V VVN.V VON. V VVV. V VNN.V VNN.V VN

VN. VN.- VN.- NN. VV. N VN.- NN.- NV.- NV.- NV. NV NN.- NV. V
VNN.V VNN.V VNN.V VNN.V VNN.V VNV V VVN.V VVN.V VNN. V VNN.V VNV. V VNN V VVN.V VNN.V ON
V.02.. NN.- NN.- NV.- NN.- N NN.- NN.- NN- No. NN VN.- NN.- VN.- V
VNN. V VVN V VVN. V VNV.V VNN.V VNV. V VVV.V VNV.V VNN. V VNV.V VNV. V VNV. V VNV.V VNV.V NN

NN. NN NN NN.- No. NON VN. VV.- N co. oN NN oV.- Vo. V
VNN.V VNN.V VNN. V VNN.V VNN.V VNN V VVN.V VNN.V VNN.V VON.V VON V VVV.V VNN.V VNN.V NN
NN.- NV.- NN VN. NN.- NN NN.- NN.- NVV.- NV. NV. VV. No. No. V
VVN V VVN V VNN. V VNN.V VVN.V VNV.V VVN.V VNN.V VON V VNN.V VNN.V VNV. V VNN.V VNN.V VN

oV. NV. NN. NN.- No. VN.- NNN. NV.- VN. NN. VN.- NN VN. NV.- V
VON.V VVN.V VNN V VON.V VNN.V VNV.V VNV.V VON.V VNN. V VVN.V VNV. V VNV. V VNV.V VNV.V NN

NN. NN.- NV NN.- No. NN.- NV. NN. NN NV.- NNN.- NN No. NN.- V
VON. V VVN.V VVN.V VNN.V VNN.V VNN V VNN.V VNN.V VNN.V VNN.V VNV. V VNV. V VVV.V VNV.V NN

NN. VN.- NN. VN.- NN.- NN NV.- No. NV.- NN.- VN N No. VV. V
VNN.V VNN. V VNN.V VON.V VNN.V VVV V VNV.V VNV.V VNN.V VVN.V VNV. V VVV. V VNV. V VNV.V NN
NN.- NV- NN.- NN.- NN.- oN NV. No. VN. NV. VN N nNN. NV. V
VVN.NV VVN.NV VVN.NV VNN.NV VNN.NV VNN.VV VNN.NV VON.NV VNN.NV VVN.NV VON.VV VNN.VV VNV.VV VNN.VV VNNVNNNN
VN.N NV.V NN.N NV.N VN.N NN.- NN.N- NN.N NN.V NV.V No.V NN.- NN.- NV.V

29o- .VN>
NVV NVV NVV VVV oVV NV NV VV NV NV NV NV NV VV .VN>.NNc=V
VNmNmchmVNa cVV NVOVVV Ugmucmum chucoaNmVLou new NucmVuVVVoou :oVNNmmem .amo

 

cu.u "MI! u FIN“ ulu "Nun" .lvnfl. olhylflllnxdt "in a-" «hull. u ...lu NI ru M II" “II‘ILHIWIW Pgtltghfil IOLIPI ’0

 

.chsucop acmusum
cmeVanu m>cz 0:3 NucwuaVN :oVVNuzum Legumop VoV NUVVNVVmVumgmgu mumVaVVoz co ngoum :oVVocmVV< Vo NVNNVmc< coVNngmmm mVaVquzu-.~-m mVnNV

213

.mpmnm— m_ncmgu> Low Aoow .QV m xmncmaa< No u:_:cwmwn ac xmx mom
mo. um acoquV=on ammu-u

3 Fe. um accumuwcuVm ammu-um

memmn —m _m em on mN mm mm mN RN NN mm mm

+ x a + x a + x a + x a + x a + x a + mwxmma + vmxewn + a

u >

mm Ammx.....v~xV meou_ mum—axgoz wcwc use no vmmmmgmmg ._> . mmx .cmx .mme mgouuow
comuo:m_pc maggu one uca Amwx....._xV mmgoum cowuchVPm .m:v_>_vcw mm wgu so» co_u~:co commmwgoog m_a_u_=s pmgwcmo mzp

 

 

--I'VV!

 

 

ow om ow ow ow cm on oo oo oo oo so 2
one. o_. N_. NON. ~09 mmc. cmm. o_. m_. no. mo. m_. N“
No. NN. mm. cm. Ne. N9 mm. VN. am. NN. _N. am. a
AVN. V ANN.NV Amv. V Aw_.V “NV.V NN.. V A__. V A_N.V AmN.V AmN.V ANN.V ANN.V NN
to oe.N NV. 00. NC. 09 mp.. mo. NN. co.- mp. ON. x
ANm.V Acm.NV Ame. V VmN V Ao_.V VNV. V Ac..V ANN.V AmN.V AmN.V Nov.V ANN.V _m
NN. mo. NN. nNm. em. N9 No. No.- No.- No.- No. NN. x
Avm.V Am_.NV Vow. V ANN. V NN.. V AN_.V Am..V ANN.V .Nm.V ANN.V ANN. V AVN.V on
No. mm.c- om. 0o. o9 No. No. No.- NN.- NF. 9 nNo.- x
Amm. V Avo.NV ANN. V “99 V A__. V A__. V Vo_.V Am_.V A_N.V ANN. V .mN.V VON.V 0N
m9 - o_.V N9 m9 m9 N9 mo.- mo.- mo. N9- N_. e_. x
AmN.V “VN.NV ._9 V AmN V Aw9 V AN_.V Am_. V ANN.V ANN.V AmN.V Amm.V fl_m._V NN
NON.N ON.N- Ne. Q9 0.9 New. oNv co.- NN.- mo.- VN.- NO. x
AN0.V ANO.NV VON. V ANN.V AVN V Am_.V AN_. V ANN V Amm.V ANN.V Ave. V Aom.V NN
ON. oq.- «N M., 9 VV.. NN. N9 - 00.- om.- . S- _N.- x
Aoq.V ANN.NV ANQ.V AN_.V VNV.V VN9 V A__.V NON. V ANN.V AmN.V ANN.V ANN.V eN
oo. 90.. em.- N_.- NV. m9 N..- «9 NN. 0V. NN. No.- x
Am¢.V Voc.NV A09 V ACN V Am_. V AN_.V AN9 V AN9 V ANN.V ANN. V ANN.V NON.V mN
VN. cw. o9 .9- .9 N..- NN m9 N0. N9. No.- mm. x
ANN.V ANN.NV ANq.V AN_.V AN_.V VN9 V Ao_.V NON. V ANN.V ANN.V ANN.V ANN.V eN
omc V No. mm. cNN. NVN. DNN 0.. 09 NN. No. $0.- mo.- x
Amm.cV AQN.0NV V_V.mV Aco.NV ANN._V Nov._V ANN._V ANN.NV ANN.NV ANN.NV VNV.NV Amm.NV “cmgmcou
N_.N- NN.NN NN.. AV.9? Na..- NN. 50¢.N NV.N mm.m m_.m om.o VQ.N
mmx me NNN NNx NNx VNx ONx a_x N_x N_x 0.x m_x

O
I I I I ...II ...I --.ltxolfli131

 

-l :IIEOIIi"

 

 

‘O‘Ullll-ll)l'9 -9x’lll'-o“l,ln ID'II I‘l II.".'I.I|IIIV-|'

{Amomocucmgcic c.V mLOLNV cgcvcme ccpvcoamwggou vac mV:o_u_VVmou :o_mmwgmwm

_ s . u.,. .. - .u_ra_.“ .p.=m.u.ILul.rauPu. .n.»rn...huhlrue.ln<n..ul—..nhlf'....-nle-hhdinhlt"..flL..hl!L.H"l.lhfiL.A-L’~NA'*I

.uoacpucou--.N-m o_nup

  

2'l4

F -1: .. n1 E.

 

   

NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN z
NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NN. NN
NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. N9 NN. N9 N9 NN. N
NN9 V NN9 V NNN. V NN9 V NNN.V NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NN9 V NN9 V NN9 V NN9 V NN9 V NN9 V NN

N9 N9 N9 N NN.- NN. 9 NN. N9- 9 9 9 9 N9 - x
NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NN9 V NNN V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NN9 V NNN.V NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NN
NN.- NN.- N9 N9 NN. NN.- NN.- NN. N9 9 NN.- NN. 9 NN. N
NNN.V NN9 V NNN. V NNN. V NNN. V NNN.V NNN. V NNN.V NN9 V NNN. V NN9 V NNN. V NN9 V NNN.V NN
NN.- NN. - NN- N. N9 NN. N9- NN.- NN. - 9 NNN.- NNN. - N9 NN.- N
NNN. V NNN V NNN. V NNN. V NNN. V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN. V NNN. V NNN. V NNN.V NN9 V NN
NN9 N9 N9 NN. N9 NN.- NN.- NN.- N9 NN. N9 NN. NN.- N. x
NNN. V NNN. V NNN. V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN. V NNN. V NN9 V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN9 NN9 NN. NN.- NN.- NN. NN. NNN. N9 N9 NN.- NN. N- NN. NN.- N
NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN. V NNN. V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN. V NNN.V NNN. V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN.- NN.- N9 - NN. NN. NNN.- NNN.- NN.- N9 N9 - NN.- NN.- NNN.- NN.- x
NNN.V NNN. V NNN. V NNN. V NNN. V NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN. V NNN. V NNN. V NNN.V NN
NN.- NN NN. NN NN. NN. N9 NN.- NN.- NNN - NN.- 9 NN. NN.- x
NNN. V NNN. V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN.V NNN V NNN. V NN9 V NN9 V NNN. V NNN.V NN
N9- NNN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- TN NN.- N. 9 N9 N9 N9 NN. x
ANN. V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN V NNN.V NNN. V NNN.V NNN. V NNN. V NN9 V NNN. V NNN. V NNN.V NN

NN. NN.- NN.- NN. N9 NN. N9 NN. NN.- NN. 9 NN. NNN. NN.- x
NN9 NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NN_.NV NNN.NV ANN.NV ANN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.V NNN.V NNN.NV NNNNNNNN
NN NNN.N NNN.N NN. NN.- NNN.N N.NNN NN.N NN.N NNN.N NNN.N NN.N NNNN. NN.N

.NN>

3x 2x NNx NNx NNx Nx Nx Nx Nx Nx Nx Nx Nx Nx

 

N3 ngucmgma cNV Ngoggm ugaccmum chucoNNmNLou ncm NucmNuNNNmou coNNmmmex

”ah-3': .- n .“u.fl,.',““llh N. “hwp-WLI. “HAL-h kiln-Ir." nhly Huh.” ”tn... INIIIH-Iht' ... ch'r-Iukhlflutfl uh I... ."II EMU-E

.NNmzuNmN LNNN- NNNNN LoN NNNNNNNmNumgmxu muaNNxLoz co mmgoum coNuocmNN< No NNNNNNc< :oNNNmNmmm oNNNNN::--. m w wNaNN

 

2'15}

.NNNNNN aNaNNNN> LoN Noam .NV u xNucmNN< No ochcNawn an Nag mom

NN. N. NNNNNNNNNNN NNuN-N NN. N. NNNNNNNNNNN NNNN-N.

N
+ NNxNNN N NNNNNN + NNNNNN + NNNNNN N NNNNNN + NNNNNN + NNNNNN + NNxNNN + N . N

N + NN NN

x a

NN Nwmx.....¢~xV msauN mun—axsox ach ecu co uummogamg .N> .Nmmx .cmx .mme mgouuoN
:oNuocoNNo mmgcu use uco .nmx.....NxV NoLouN :oNuacmNNN NuavN>NucN mu 0;» LON coNuuaao :oNNwoLoms oNnNuNas Nagucom ugh

 

 

  
  

 

NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN z
NN. NN. NNN. NN. NN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN
NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. N
NNN.V NNN.NV NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. NN
NN. NN.N- NN. NN.- NN. NN.- NN. NN.- NN. NN.- NN.- NN. x
NNN. NNN.NV NNN. NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN.- NN.- NN.- N
NNN.V NNN.NV NNN.V NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN. NN.- NNN.- NN.- NN.- NN. NN. NN. NN. NN.- NN.- NN. x
NNN.V NNN.NV NNN. NNN. NNN.V NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN.- NN.N NN. NN. NN.- NN.- NN.- NN. NN. NN.- NN.- NNN. x
NNN.V NNN.NV NNN.V NNN.V NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. NN
NN. NNN.N NN.- NN.- NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. .NN. x
NNN.V NNN.NV NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN. NN.N- NNN.- NN. NN.- NN.- NN. NN.- NN. NN. NN. NN.- x
NNN.V NNN.NV NNN.V NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN. NN.N- NN.- NN. NN. NN. NNN. NN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- N
NNN. NNN.NV NNN.V NNN. NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN. NN.N- NN. NN. NN. NN.- NN.- NN. NN. NN. NN. NN.- x
NNN. NNN.NV NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN. NN.N NNN. NN. NN. NN. NN.- NN. NN. NN. NN.- NN” N
NNN.NV NNN.NNV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNNNNNNN
NN.N NN.NN NNN.N NN.N- NN.N NN.N NNN.N NN. NN.N- NN. NN.N NN.
N N NN N N NN NN NN .NNN
Nx NNN NNN NNx NNN N x x Nx Nx x x x .NNNNN
.Lo>
NNmegucmgNN cNV NNoLLw cgoncoum chvcoammggou new NucmNuNNNoou coNNmumem .Noo

 

'..'..—III. P I II

.NNNNNNNoN-.N-N NNNNN

2'16

 

cu cm em em cm «N «N an en ex on es ex es 2

 

NNN. NN. NNN. NN. NN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NN
NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. N
NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NN
NN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- N9 NN.- NN. NN.- NN.- fiN NN.- NN. NN.- NN. N
NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NN9 V NNN.V NNN. V NNN. V NN
NN.- NN. NN.- NN. NN.- NN.- NN.- NN. NN.- NN. NN. NN. NN. NNN. x
NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN.V NNN. V NNN. V NN
NN. NN.- NN. NN.- NN.- NN. NN. NN.- NN. NN.- NN. NN. NN. ?N x
NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN. V NNN.V NN9 V NNN. V NN
NN.- NN. NN.- NN. iN NN. NN.- NN.- NN.- NN. NN. NNN. NN. NNN. x
NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN. V NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NN
NN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- NN. NN. NN.- NN.- NN. - NNN.- NNN.- to NN.- N
NNN V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN. V NNN.V NNN. V NNN.V NN
NN. NN. NNN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. 9 NN. N9 NN. x
NNN.V NNN.V ANN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN.- NN. NN.- NN. NN.- NN. NN.- NN. NN.- NN.- NN.- NN. NN.- NNN.- x
NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NNN.- NN.- NNN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- NNN.- NN.- NN.- :N NN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- N
NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NNN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NN. NN. NNN. NN. x
NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV ANN.NV NNNNNNNN
NN.N NN.N NN.N NN. NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NNN.N NN.- NN. NN.
3x 2x NNx NNx NNx NN Nx Nx Nx Nx Nx Nx Nx Nx

 

Ammmmcucogma :NV Ngoggm cgovcmum ochcoammNLou can mucmNuNNNmou coNwamem

LJHH- “11.4.61" Aw I. I“ P.“ ”ztnbr-IUP-fl.” Eng“ I.N...Iuilnflhfluu qua-“E i I P: I Ia-.E“HU.§I

.NNNNUNNN nmuchLmew LoN NuNNNNLmNumgczu ouapaxgoz co ngoum coNuochN< No NNNNNNN< :oNNNmmem mNNNuNaz--.N-m mNNNN

 

 

 

221 7

 

.NNNNNN mNNNNLN> NoN Awow .NV m xNucwanq No ochcNmoN NN aux mom

NN. NN NNNNNNNNNNN NNNN-N NN. NN NNNNNNNNNNN NNoN-NN

a

umxsw ow

m + mm Nm a + name +

x a + me—mn + omxomn + owxmwn + wmxmwa + mwxmwa + «Nxvmn + a n >

NN Nwmx.....¢~xV NsoNN vuopaxgoz chc us» ca ummmogmmg .N> .Nmnx .onx .mme «scuuoN
:oNuocmNNc muggy mzu uco Amwx.....NxV museum coNuochNo NaavN>chN m~ on» LON :oNuonco :onmonwL m—aNu—ae Nogmcmo ugh

 

 

NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN z
NNN. NNN. NNN. NN. NNN. NN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NN. NNN. NN
NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. N
NNN.V NNN.NV NNN. NNN.V NNN. NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN. NN.N- NN. NN. NN. NN. NN.- NN.- NN.- NNN.- NN.- NN.- N
NNN.V ANN.NV NNN. NNN.V NNN. NNN. NNN.V NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN.- NN.N- NN. NN. NN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- N
NNN.V NNN.NV NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN. NN.- NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN.- NN.- NN. NN. NN.- x
NNN.V NNN.NV NNN.V NNN.V NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN. NN.- NNN. NN. NNN. NN. NN.- NN. NN.- NN. NN.- NN.- x
NNN.V NNN.NV NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN. NN.- NNN.- NN.- NN. NNN. NN. NN. NN. NN.- NN.- NN. N
NNN.V NNN.NV NNN. NN_.V NNN. NNN. NNN.V NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN. NNN.V NN
NN. NN.N NN. NN. NN.- NN.- NNN. NN.- NN.- NN. NN. NN. x
NNN.V NNN.NV NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. NNN.V NNN. NNN. NNN.V NN
NN. NN. NNN.N- NNN. NNN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN.- x
NNN.V NNN.NV NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN.- NNN.N- NN.- NN.- NN. NN.- NN.- NN.- NNN.- NNN.- NNN.- NN.- N
NNN.V NNN.NV NNN.V ANN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN. NNN.N NN. NNN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NNN. NNN.- NN. NN. x
NNN.NNV NNN.NNV NNN.NV NNN._V NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.V NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNNNNNNN
NN.N NNN.NN NN.N NN.N- NN. NN.N NNN.N NN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N
NNx NNx NNN NNx NNx NNx NNx NNN NNx NNx NNx NNx

 

NNmechoNNa :NV Ngoggu vgoucmum chvconNoNLou vcm NuchuNNNon :onNoLuez

“It—...... I II. E EN'.'£I '.'g.'gibl.£-illblt FE- -

 

 

.NNNNNNNNN--.N-N NNNNN

218

F: . .u N:

 

NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN z
N.N9 NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NN
NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. N
NNN.V NNN. V NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN. V NN9 V NNN.V NNN. V N
NNN.N NN. NNN.N NNN - NN. NN. NNN.N NN.- NNN.N NN- NNN. NNN. NN.- NN. N
NNN. V NNN. V NNN.V NNN. V NNN.V NNN. V NNN. V NNN. V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V N
UNN. UNN. NNN.N NN. N.NN.N NN. - NNN. NN. NNN.N NN. NN. NNN. NN.- NN. N
NNN. V NNN.V NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V No9 V NNN.V NN9 V NNN. V NNN. V NNN. V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V N
NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. 9 NN. NN NN. NN. - NN NN. NN. NN. N
NN9 V NNN. V NNN. V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NNN. V NN
NN.- NN- N9 NN.- NN. NN.- NN. NN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- NN. NN.- N9 N
NN9 V NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN9 V NN9 V NN9 V NNN. V NNN.V NNN. V NNN.V NNN. V NN
NN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- N9 9 NN.- N9- N3 NN. NN. NN. N
NNN.V NNN. V NNN. V NNN.V NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NN9 V NN9 V NN9 V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NN
NN.- 9 3N NN.- NN.- NN. NN. NNN. - 3N 9 NNN.- NN.- NN.- N9 x
NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NN9 V NNN. V No9 V NN9 V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN. V NN
NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN NN- NN.- 9 NN. NNN. NN. NN9 x
NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NNN.V NN9 V NNN. V NN
NN. NN. NN. NN.- NN. 9 NN. NN. NN. N9 NNN.- NNN.- NN. 3N x
NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN.V NNN.V NN9 V NNN. V NNN. V NNN.V NNN V NNN.V NNN V NNN. V NN
NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN.- NN. NN.- NN. NN.- NN.- NN. NN 3N N
NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NNN.V No9 V NNN. V NNN.V NNN. V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN. V NN
NN.- NN. NN.- NN. NN.- NN. NN- NN. NN.- 9 NNN.- NN.- 3N NNN.- x
NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NN9 V NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NN9 V NNN. V NNN.V NNN. V NN
NN.- NN. - NNN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- NNN. - NN.- 3N NN.- N9 3N NN.- NN. N
NNN.V NN9 V NNN.V NNN V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. V NNN V NN9 V NNN. V NN9 V NNN. V NNN. V NNN. V NN
UNN. NN- NN. NN. NNN. NNNN. NNN. NNN. NNN NNN. NN. NNN. N.NN. NN. x

NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.V NN9 NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNNNNNNN
NN.N N.NNN NN.N NN.N NN. NN.N NN. NNN.N NN.N NNN.N NNN.N NN. NN.N NNN.N

 

m. NNx oNx ox mx Nx ox mx vx mx «x —x

 

NNwNmzucoLNN :NV NLoLgm ugcucoum ocNucoaNaggou vco mucmNuNNNuou :onmmNama

nziifl‘lliflnni.‘x'l".CNO‘I'--lll“l WI "3.|33I.NNIII-IC II 'II'I III

.Nmomum Nomgcu uco NUNNNNLNNNNLecu ouupnxgoz :o ngoum :oNuNcoNN< No NNNmec< :oNNNwmem oNaNuNzx topooau-.m-m mNooN

 

 

2'19)

 

..-,u 1:). . . . $1.! ... an...

.NNooa— upaoNNu> No» Room .NV m xNucoaa< No newccwmon «a aux wow

NN. NN NNNNNNNNNNN NNNN-NN NN. NN NNNNNNNNNNN NNNN-N

a

NN. NN NNNNNNNNNNN NNN»-NN

N N NNNNNN + NNNNNN + NNNNNN + NNNNNN N NNNNNN + NNNNNN + NNNNNN + NNNNNN + NNNNNN + N u N

N. “NNN.....v~xV Name. woo—qxgo: oc_= ugu co cNNNuNmoN ._> .Ame .vmx .mme NLouucu
:oNNNNoNNN muggy on“ new NNNN.....NxV NoNouN :oNuacoNNo NoavN>NucN NN man so» :oNuoaco goNNNonug oNnNNNas Nagmcam och

 

 

NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN z
NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NN
NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. N
NNN.V NNN.NV NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V N
NNN.N- NNN.N NN.N NN.- NNN.- NNN.- NN.- NN.- NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N NN. N
NNN.V NNN.NV NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V N
NN.- NNN.N NN. NN. NN.- NNN.- NN. NN.- NN. NNN.N NNN.N NN. N
NNN.V NNN.NV NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. NNN.V NNN. NNN.V NNN. NNN.V N
NN.- NN.N NN. NN.- NN.- NN.- NN. NN. NNN. NN. NN. NN. N
NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN. NN.N- NN.- NN. NN. NN. NN. NN.- NN. NNN.- NN.- NN.- N
NNN.V NNN.NV NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN. NN.N- NN. NN. NN. NN.- NN. NN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- N
NNN.V NNN.NV NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN. NN.- NNN.- NN. NN. NNN. NN. NN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- NN.- N
NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN V NN
NN. NN. NNN. NN. NN. NN. NN.- NN. NN. NN.- NN. NN. N
NNN. NNN.NV NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NNN. NN. NN.- NN. NNN. NN. NN. NN. NN. .- NN.- NNN. N
NNN.V NNN.NV NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN. NN. NN.- NN. NN. NN.- NNN. NN.- NN.- NN. NN. NN.- N
NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NNN. NN. NNN.- NN. NNN. UN9 NNN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NN.- N
NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN. NNN. NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NN. NNN.N- NN.- NN. NN. NN. NN. NN.- nNNN; NN.. NN.- NN.- N
NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NN
NNN. NNN.N NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NN. NNN. NNN. NN.- NN.- NN. N
NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.V NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNN.NV NNNNNNNN
NNN.N NNN.NN NNN.N NN.- NN.N NNN.N NNN.N NNN.N NN.N NN.N NNN.N NNN.N

NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN NNN

 

ANmezucmNoa :NV NLoNLw uvaceum ocNucoanggou ucm NucmNuNwwwou :oNNNwmem

II «1:11 I..- 'I!‘h....i"‘..fl E"‘“.‘r”l

 

 

.NNNNNNNNN--.N-N NNN-N

220

Table E-6.--Means and Standard Deviations of Dependent Regression Variables.

 

Mean (Standard Deviation)

 

 

 

Dependent
Variable G1 G2 G3 64 Pooled

X1 .23 ( 96) .57 (1.34) 1.00 (1.04) 1.08 (1.70) .71 (1.36)
x2 .54 (1 02) .87 (1.34) .63 (.87) .85 (1.38) .72 (1.19)
X3 .30 (.71) .47 (1.00) .98 (1.05) 1.11 (1.29) .71 (1.09)
X4 14 (.75) .43 (1.18) .94 (1.19) 1.40 (1.77) .73 (1.38)
X5 1.06 (1.52) 1.17 (1.74) 1.61 (1.80) 1.67 (1.80) 1.37 (1.67)
X6 .57 (2.01) 1.18 (2.13) 2.41 (1.72) 2.09 (2.45) 1.52 (2.23)
X7 .97 (1.60) 1.28 (1.64) 1.65 (1.72) 1.04 (2.37) 1.20 (1.89)
X8 -.13 (1.76) .23 (1.76) .98 (1.57) 1.34 (2.54) .60 (2.07)
X9 .38 (1.30) .48 (1.00) .45 (1.90) .70 (2.36) .51 (1.73)
X10 .74 (1.94) 1.10 (2.06) 2.05 (2.02) 1.73 (2.20) 1.38 (2.11)
X1] 1.08 (1.42) 1.27 (1.64) 1.50 (2.02) .61 (2.30) 1.07 (1.90)
x12 .98 (2.00) 1.45 (2.02) 2.78 (2.22) 3.12 (2.58) 2.07 (2.40)
X13 .98 (1.72) 1.25 (1.91) 2.12 (1.89) 2.01 (2.45) 1.57 (2.08)
X14 1.24 (2.16) 1.75 (2.33) 2.41 (1.98) 3.31 (2.39) 2.20 (2.37)
X15 1.11 (1.94) 1.58 (1.92) 1.80 (2.21) 2.13 (2.24) 1.66 (2.11)
X16 1.47 (2.31) 2.15 (2.30) 3.43 (2.16) 3.81 (2.29) 2.70 (2.46)
X17 1.47 (1.94) 2.02 (1.99) 2.84 (2.11) 3.04 (2.43) 2.33 (2.22)
X18 .84 (2.05) 1.62 (2.07) 1.69 (1.49) 2.55 (2.16) 1.69 (2.08)
x19 1.20 (1.52) 1.68 (1.68) 1.25 (1.32) 1.65 (2.29) 1.45 (1.78)
X20 6.42 (.78) 6.36 (1.05) 6.16 (1.06) 5.85 (1.18) 6.21 (1.02)
X2] 5.10 (1.20) 4.69 (1.33) 4.29 (1.49) 3.95 (1.42) 4.50 (1.42)
X22 5.00 (1.47) 4.70 (1.65) 4.14 (1.56) 3.97 (1.48) 4.46 (1.51)
X23 3.54 (1.59) 3.33 (1.65) 3.12 (1.84) 3.05 (1.59) 3.27 (1.66)
X33 1.18 (2.59) 2.29 (3.67) 3.48 (2.99) 4.27 (4.93) 2.80 (3.92)
X34 12.78 (17.85) 18.90 (19:10) 27.25 (14.69) 28.58 (22.48) 21.79 (20.15)
X35 20.01 (3.99) 19.05 (4.27) 17.79 (4.96) 16.76 (4.57) 18.37 (4.59)
Note:

C)
u

1 teacher education students who have not student taught

C)
I

2 9 teacher education students who have completed student teaching

G3 - first-year teachers

G4 - experienced teachers

Pooled = pooled samp1e

See Key at beginning of Appendix E (p. 206) for variable labels.

mgmcommu mexuumgwy

II
(D

.mpmnmp mFQmem> com

Acom .QV m xwucaaa< co newecwmmn “a xax mam mcwgaamu “cauzom

cmumPasou m>mg oz: mpcmuzum comumoaum gmgummp Ne

m_asmm umpooa u umpooa
usmzmu ucmnaum

 

221

 

 

mcmcummu emucmvcmaxm u cw uo: m>mz 0:3 mucmuzum cowumuauw gmgummu n Fm
“muoz
Amk._v No.4 Amm._v om.m Aeo.Nv No.3 A_m.Fv m~.m Aom.Fv m~.m me
A_~..V mm.¢ Amm..v 35.4 Ac¢.Fv m¢.¢ Amm.v m_.m ANO.FV p_.m _mx
Aom.pv m~.¢ Amo._v NN.¢ Aqm._v m¢.¢ AMN.FV No.m A_m._v mm.m omx
Aum._v VN.N Awm._v N¢.m Aem.Fv mo.~ AN4._V mm.~ Amm._v ON.N mmx
A¢¢._v 00.4 ANQ._V mp.q Amm._v o~.¢ ANN.PV No.m Am~._v m_.m wa
Amm.Pv Pm.m Apm._v om.m Amm.Pv o~.m AmP.PV mo.m Aoo._v om.m nmx
ANP..V mm.m Amm._v m¢.m A¢N._V o~.m Afim.v mN.m Ama.v 04.8 me
A_o._v ma.m Amm.cv ©_.m Amm._v em.q Rpm.Fv No.m A_N.PV mo.c mmx
Ame..v oq.m A_o._v mm.m A¢¢._V Km.m Amm.Fv mP.~ Amm.Fv mF.N emx
umFOOQ cu mm mm Po mpnmwgm>
ucmucmamccu

cowwmw>mo ccmucmpmv cam:

 

 

.mmpnmmgm> :o_mmmcmmm “cwucmamccm mo mcowumw>ma acmucmum new mcmmz--.~am mpam»

222

Table E-8.--Statistica1 Comparison of Four Individual Regressions to
Pooled Regression.

1. Equation for comparing the four individual regressions to the
pooled regression

01 = pooled sum of squared residuals
02 = sum of the sum of squared residuals over N(=4) equations
Q3 = Q] ' 02

T = pooled sample size

p = number of regression coefficients (including constant)

Tabled F has degrees of freedom of (N-l)p. T-Np which equal 1.46
at the .05 level.

Computed F = Q3/(N-1)p
QZ/T-Np

If computed F > tabled F, then pooling is not legitimate.

223

II. Computed F values (Table E-8--continued).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

02:009.:3223925 Cgmggfgg 0305;300:230: cgmggfig
variable) variable)

X] 1.049 X14 1.219
X2 .935 X]5 .936
X3 1.503* X16 .532
X4 1.566* X17 1.020
X5 .595 X18 1.022
X6 1.054 X19 1.155
X7 .950 X20 -.155
X8 1.450 X2] .083
X9 1.087 X22 1.002
X10 .752 x23 1.000
X“ .790 x33 1.260
X12 1.226 X34 .902
X13 .917 x35 .925

 

 

 

*Greater than tabled F.

See Key at beginning of Appendix E (p.206) f0r variable
labels.