|II|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

3 1293 10383 14

*LIC‘Q’S

0-7639

WEI "‘
”Edi-371.3 :2;
U22; [

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THREE TYPES OF
FIELD EXPERIENCE PROGRAMS TO STUDENT
TEACHER OPEN-MINDEDNESS, ATTITUDES TOWARD
EDUCATION, AND RECEPTIVITY TO INNOVATIONS

presented by

Royston Kelleher

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Student Teaching and

degree in

 

 

Professional Development

 

 

Major r ~essor

OVERDUE FINES:
25¢ per day per item

. RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS:
I "n, " Place in book return to remove

.‘\

V’ 4 charge from circulation records

 

 

 

 

 

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THREE TYPES OF FIELD EXPERIENCE
PROGRAMS TO STUDENT TEACHER OPEN-MINDEDNESS,
ATTITUDES TOWARD EDUCATION, AND RECEPTIVITY
T0 INNOVATION

By

Royston Kelleher

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

1981

@ Copyright by
ROYSTON RUSSELL KELLEHER

I981

ABSTRACT

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THREE TYPES OF FIELD EXPERIENCE
PROGRAMS T0 STUDENT TEACHER OPEN-MINDEDNESsg
ATTITUDES TOWARD EDUCATION, AND RECEPTIVITY
T0 INNOVATION

By
Royston Kelleher

This study investigated the outcomes of three types of field

experiences for preservice teachers. Specifically, three questions

were posed.
l. Do differences initially exist among three groups of students

(those who participate in (a) a combined course-work, field
experience program, (b) an overseas cross-cultural practicum,
and (c) a normal student teaching term) with regard to the
following; open-mindedness, progressive/traditional attitudes
toward education, and receptivity to educational innovation?
Do differences exist among the three groups with regard to
changes in (a) degree of open-mindedness, (b) extent of
progressive/traditional attitudes toward education, and (c)

level of receptivity to educational innovation experienced

during the programs?

Royston Kelleher

What are the relationships among certain biographic variables
and Open-mindedness, progressive/traditional attitudes toward
education and receptivity to educational innovations?

Pre—tests were administered to one—half of the subjects in

each practicum group at the beginning of the term and all students were

post-tested at the end of the term.

Instruments used were the short-

fbrm Dogmatism Scale, the Education Scale VII, and an author—designed

Receptivity to Educational Innovation Scale.

Significant findings were:
Those who enrolled in the overseas student teaching program

were initially more open-minded than were students in the other

two programs.
After completion of the student teaching term, students in the

overseas program were even more open-minded than at the

beginning and were significantly more open-minded than the

other students.
Females were significantly more open-minded and more receptive

to educational innovation than were males. Prospective ele-

mentary teachers were significantly less traditional and more

receptive to innovation than were prospective secondary

teachers.
A significant difference existed between the post-test scores
of those who completed the pre-test and those who had not com-

pleted the pre-test. Those who completed the pre-test had

significantly higher progressivism scores on the post-test.

Dedicated to

Michael and Susan

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Nothing arises 35 nihilio; particularly so with a piece of

writing. It is the product of numerous formative experiences some of

which leave indelible impressions while others become critical incidents
in unconscious history. 0f the multiplicity of interactions I have

experienced in the recent past, some stand out. Those contacts with
Dr. Henry Kennedy, my committee chairman and thesis director, and with
the members of my committee, Dr. Stanley Wronski, Dr. Kenneth Harding,

and Dr. John Cragun are particularly indelible. To them I owe much.

To my parents who fostered a love of learning I owe more than

I am capable of expressing.

To my wife, Grace, my debt is inestimable. A listing of the

contributions she has made would fill many pages.

Finally, to the administrators of Memorial University of New-
fbundland who granted permission for the study and helped in other

tangible ways, I express my gratitude.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .
LIST OF FIGURES.
Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . .

Introduction. .

The Context--Research on Teacher Education.
The Research Site--Student Teaching.
Background to the Problem

The Mixed (Course- Work and Field- -WOrk)

Program . . .
The Home- Based Student Teaching Program .
The Overseas Student Teaching Program.

Rationale for the Study.
Statement of the Problem.

Hypotheses.

Assumptions and Delimitations of the Study.
Need for and Importance of the Study.
Definition of Terms . .

Dogmatism (Dpen-lClosed- Mindedness) .

Educational Attitudes (Progressivism/Traditionalism).

Receptivity to Educational Innovation.
Conclusion . . . .
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction. . .
0pen-/Closed- Mindedness--Conceptual Analysis .

Page

xii

 

Chapter page

Dpen-lClosed-Mindedness and Rigidity . . . . . . 27
Open-[Closed-Mindedness and Authoritarianism . . . 27
Open-lClosed-Mindedness and Neutrality . . . . . 28
0pen-/Closed-Mindedness and Change. . . . . . . 28

Research Regarding Dpen-/Closed- -Mindedness. . . 29
Research Regarding the Validity 0f the Theoretical
Tenets of Dogmatism. . . . . . . . . . 30
Research Regarding 0pen-/Closed-Mindedness and
Teaching. . . . . 32
Research Regarding Dpen- -/Closed- Mindedness and.
Teacher Education. . . . 37
Research Regarding Dpen- -/Closed- Mindedness and
Cross- Cultural Experiences. . . . . . . . . 46
Summary of the Review of Dogmatism. . . . . . . 47
Progressivism/Traditionalism--Conceptual Analysis . . 49
Progressive/Traditionalism Attitudes and Open
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Research Regarding Progressive/Traditional Attitudes
Toward Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Research Validating the Theoretical Basis of
Traditional/Progressive Attitudes Toward Education. 56
Research Regarding Progressive/Traditional Attitudes
and Teacher Traits and Behaviors. . . 58
Research Concerning the Educational Attitudes of
Teachers. . . . . 61
Summary of Review of Progressivism/Traditionalism
Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Receptivity to Educational Innovation-~Conceptual
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Research Regarding Receptivity to Educational
Innovation . . - 75
The Role of the Teacher in Educational Innovation. . 76

Research Regarding Personality Correlates of Recept1vity
to Innovation . 79
Research Regarding the Relationships Among 0pen- -/Closed-
Mindedness, Attitudes Toward Education, and Receptivity
to Educational Innovation. . . . 81
Research Regarding the Relationship Between Open-/
Closed- Mindedness and Receptivity to Educational

Innovation. . . . 82

vi

Chapter

Research Regarding the Relationship Between Open-l
Closed-Mindedness and Attitudes Toward Education .

Research Regarding Interrelationships Among All
Three Variables . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Theoretical Perspective--Cognitive Dissonance and
Attitude Change During Student Teaching . .

Cognitive Dissonance--A Theory of Attitude Change.

Cognitive Dissonance and Student Teaching .

Cognitive Dissonance and Cross-Cultural Student
Teaching. . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . .
III. RESEARCH DESIGN, INSTRUMENTATION, AND PROCEDURES

Introduction. . . . . . .
Research Design. . . . . . . . . . .' .
The Three Conditions--Student Teaching Pract1ca .

The Home-Based Student Teaching Program .
The Overseas Student Teaching Program. . .
The Mixed Program (Course-Work/Field-work) .

The Population and Sample Selection .
The Instruments. . . . . . . . .

0pen-/Closed-Mindedness (The Dogmatism Scale) .-
Progressive/Traditional Attitudes Toward Education
(Education Scale VII) . . . . . . . . .
The Receptivity to Educational Innovation Measure.
The Biographic Data Questionnaire . . . .

Data Collection. . . . . - - 3 ,° -
Threats to Internal and External Va11d1ty .
Data Analyses . . . . . . . . .

IV. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

Introduction. . . . . . . .. . . . .
Comparison of Practicum Groups on B1ograph1c Data

Sex . . . . . . . . . . .

Size of Hometown. . . . . . . .

Father‘s Occupation. . . . .

Teaching Level . . . . . .

Major Subject Area . . . . . . . .

Previous Classroom Experience . . . . .

Academic Grade Averages . . . .. . .. . . .

Summary and Discussion of Demograph1c D1fferences
Among Students in the Three Programs .

vii

Page

87
90
94

94
96

97
98
99
99
101
101
103
107

108
109

109
112
118
119
122
124

124
124

125
125
126
127
128
128
131

131

 

Chapter

Intercorrelations Among the Four Dependent Variables .

Hypothesis One.

Program Contrast 1.
Program Contrast 2.
Discussion

Hypothesis Two. . . . . .

Hypothesis Test--Method One. . .
Program Contrast l. . . .
Program Contrast 2.. . .
DiscusSion .

Hypothesis Test--Method Two.
Program Contrast 1.. .

Program Contrast 2.

Discussion

Hypothesis Three . . . . . . . .

Type of Practicum and Level of Previous Experience .

Experience Contrast l.
Experience Contrast 2.
Major Area of Study . .
Size of Hometown . .
Hometown Contrast 1
Hometown Contrast 2
Father's Occupation
Teaching Level . .

Sex. . . .
Discussion

Other Findings.

Pre-Test Effect.
Discussion

Summary . .

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . .
Review of the Problem and Procedures
Findings and Conclusions .
Recommendations for Further Study

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

viii

Page

132
134

134
135
136

138

138
138
139
141
142
142
142
143

144
144
145
145
147
147
147
147
147
150
151
152

152
154

155
157
157
163
166

Chapter

APPENDICES
Appendix
A. Items From the Short Form Dogmatism Scale .
B. Items From the Education Scale VII
C. Items From the Receptivity to Educational Innovation
Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D. Items Dropped From Original Pool of Receptivity to
Eductional Innovation Questions. .
E. Combined Scales as Presented to Research Subjects

ix

Page

182
184

187

189
190

Table

2-2.

2-3.

LIST OF TABLES

Comparison of Characteristics of Open- and Closed-System
Individuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Paradigm of Kerlinger's Theory of Attitudes Toward
Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Relationship Between Time and Place and an Innovation,
a Practice, or a Common Practice for One Idea.

Mean Adoption Rate by High and Low Dogmatic Groups Living
in Social Systems High and Low in "Value for
Innovativeness". . . . . . . .

Sex of Sample by Type of Practicum .

Size of Hometown of Sample by Type of Practicum.

Fathers' Occupations of Sample by Type of Practicum

Teaching Level of Subjects by Type of Practicum.

Major Subject Area of Subjects by Type of Practicum

Amount of Previous Experience by Type of Practicum.

Intercorrelations Among the Dependent Variables.

Descriptive Statistics for Pre-Test Data .

Program Contrast 2: MANOVA Nith Pre-Test Scores as the
Dependent Set . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Program Contrast 2: MANCOVA With Post-Test Scores as
the Dependent Set and Pre-Test Scores as Covar1ate .

Pre-Test, Post-Test and Adjusted Post-Test Means by
Group for Those Subjects Nho Completed Both Pre— and
Post-Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

26

52

76

91
125
126
127
128
129
130
133
135

136

139

140

Table page

4-12. Program Contrast 2. MANOVA With All .Post- Test Scores as
the Dependent Set. . . . . . 143

4-13. Discipline Contrasts: MANOVA With Post-Test Scores as
the Dependent Set . . . . . . . . . . . 146

4-14. Fathers' Occupation Contrasts: MANOVA With Post-Test
Scores as the Dependent Set. . . . . . . . . 148

4-15. Teaching Level MANOVA With Post-Test Scores as the
Dependent Set . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

4-16. Post-Test Means by Teaching Level . . . . . . . . 149

4-17. Sex Contrast: MANOVA With Post-Test Scores as the
Dependent Set . . . . . . . . . . . 150

4-18. Post-Test Means by Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

4-19. Pre-Test/Post- Test MANOVA With the Post- Test Scores
as the Dependent Set. . . . . . . . . 153

4-20. Post-Test Scores by Pre-Test/No Pre-Test . . . . . . 154

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1-1. Types of variables and their relationships involved in

the evaluation of teacher effectiveness and teacher

education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2-1. Correlations among progressive, traditional, and open

education attitudes. . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2-2. Adopter categorization on the basis of innovativeness . . 79
3-1. Distribution of post-test receptivity scores . . . . . 117

xii

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

 

Proverbially all roads lead to Rome, albeit not all equally
swiftly and not all equally safely. Neither do they all provide identical
vistas upon entry to that eternal city. In fact some routes may be so
poorly signposted as to leave one confused regarding the exact point at
which the city limits were actually crossed. And once inside the city,
specialized maps may be required to facilitate choices among the bewilder-
ingly tangled webs of routes available.

This analogy is particularly appropriate in illuminating any
attempt to choose a way into doing or describing research on teacher
education. There is not just one way but rather any number of them, and
before deciding upon any one particular pathway or upon whether to blaze
a new trail, it is necessary to consider the variety already available.

This chapter represents an attempt to delineate the extent of
that variety in order to provide a context within which to situate the
problem under study. That problem is an assessment of the differential
outcomes of three types of student teaching practica upon the students
involved. The three programs are a cross-cultural student teaching
Program, a normal home-based student teaching program and, a combined

course-work, field—work program. The specific outcomes to be studied

are the level of openmindedness, the extent of progressive/traditional

attitudes toward education, and the degree of receptivity to educational

innovation of the prospective teachers in each of the three programs.
This particular problem must be viewed within the more general

context of research on teacher education.

The Context--Research on Teacher Education

Until quite recently, research on teaching had produced a volumi-
nous void. The essence of that enigmatic paradox lay in a profusion of
published studies and research reports on one hand compared with a paucity
of conclusive findings and definitive results on the other. While there
was much to be read there was little on which to rely.

Of particular chagrin to those involved in the education of
teachers, there existed a dearth of dependable, substantive evidence
regarding the relationships between teacher characteristics and teaching
behaviors on one side of the equation and measures of teaching effective-
ness on the other side. After examining nine earlier reviews of research
on teaching Doyle (1978) observed that, "Reviewers have concluded, with
remarkable regularity, that few consistent relationships between teacher
variables and effectiveness criteria can be established" (p. 164). In a
similar conclusion Shavelson and Dempsey (1976) noted that pedagogical
research had not ". . . identified consistent replicable features of
human teaching that lead directly--or even indirectly--to valued student
outcomes" (p. 553). Gage (1963), AERA (1952), and Berliner (l976) have
all echoed corresponding conclusions.

Given this apparent void the task of validating various curricula

and components of teacher education programs may be an insurmountable

problem. Presumably it is the purpose of pre-service preparation to
develop within teacher candidates those attitudes, bodies of knowledge,
and behaviors that have been demonstrated to promote pupil outcomes in
terms of achievement along desired lines. If, however, connections
between the set of teacher characteristics and behaviors and the set of
desired pupil outcomes are indeterminate and possibly indeterminable,
then teacher education lacks at least one important source of validation.
Gage (1977) put this particular problem in focus when he asserted that
"What is needed is work that unites the effort to show that a certain
kind of teacher behavior is desirable with the effort to show that such
behavior can be brought about through teacher education" (p. 60).

Figure 1.1 graphically illustrates these relationships.

 

 

Evaluation Of Evaluation of
Teacher Teacher

Education Effectiveness

f

Teacher-Education Teacher Behaviors Student Behaviors
Procedures and . and . and
Programs Characteristics Characteristics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1.1 Types of variables and their relationships involved in the
evaluation of teacher effectiveness and teacher education
(Gage, 1974, p. 8).
The position taken by Cage is indicative of a particular school
of thought regarding the manner in which teacher education is to proceed.
Variations on the theme that teacher education program effectiveness

can or should be measured by pupil outcomes are evident in the work of

Medley and Soar (1975), Turner (1975), and Dunkin and Biddle (1974).

4

This position is reflective of theoretical perspectives of evaluation pro-
posed by Popham (1971), Scriven (1967), and Stufflebeam et a1. (1971).

Although the reviews of research on teaching cited earlier have
tended to cast doubt upon the possibility of validating teacher education
programs ultimately in terms of effect upon pupil outcomes,recent
trends, particularly within the last half-decade, seem more promising.
The work of Good, Biddle, and Brophy (1975), Soar (1975), Brophy and
Evertson (1976), Bennett (1976), and Rosenshine (1976) all highlight
significant findings which have the potential for impact upon how
teachers are educated. However, these results need replication and veri-
fication and must be supplemented by much additional work if the con-
nections alluded to in the foregoing conceptualization of teacher edu-
cation research can become reality.

The underlying assumption of positions such as that taken by
Gage is that teacher skills, abilities and behaviors along with various
types of pupil learnings have at least the potential for categorization,
measurement and prediction. This predominantly positivistic psychometric
research paradigm with its emphasis on ". . . objectivism, scientism
and technicism . . .“ (Heelan, 1977, p. 10) has recently been attacked
by an influential segment of the sociological community which advocates
alternative approaches variously labeled phenomenology, symbolic inter-
actionism, and ethnomethodology. Adherents of these 'humanistic,‘
‘ethnographic' approaches reject the assumption that objectivated
knowledge adequately represents the world. Instead focus of concern is
with the issue of subjective meaning as the basic element of an under-
standing of the social world. The emphasis is on the consciousness of

individuals, that consciousness being ". . . the particular way in which

reality 'out there' is constituted in the mind" (Sharpe and Green,
1975, p. 19). Research in this tradition begins with assumptions that
deny the existence of universal laws of human behavior. In contrast
with the psychometric paradigm, there are no assumptions of a monolithic,
unchanging, objective reality that can be discerned through the senses.
While these qualitative approaches have resulted in several insightful
studies they do not seem to have been widely adopted for use in the
assessment of program effectiveness.

The inevitable conclusion to be reached at this point in time
is that "In spite of recent improvements in research in the field, the
amount of dependable information available compared to the amount
needed to formulate more effective policies and practices in teacher
education is miniscule” (Turner, 1975, p. 107). Proverbially, all roads
may lead to Rome, however we are a long way yet from the Piazza Venezia.

The wait for reliable, valid answers to the multiplicity of
questions posed by pedagogical research will probably be a long one.
In the meantime program evaluation must proceed in spite of its many
inherent imperfections. In the light of obvious difficulties associated
with program assessment, Medley (1972) has suggested, ". . . that a
Program be evaluated on its effectiveness in producing the change in
teachers it is supposed to produce, and that the relationship of the
changes to effects on pupils be tested independently of this evaluation"
(p. 7).

That practical alternative to the theoretic ideal suggests the
approach to be utilized in the present study.

In addition to the criterial problem, there is a dilemma to be

resolved regarding the approach to be taken in research on teacher

6

education. Essentially one is faced with a choice between studying one
particular variable and the effects of its manipulation, such as is under-
taken in typical experimental studies, or attempting evaluations based on
the combined effects of the multiplicity of factors which constitute a
total program or program segment. In the first approach, the researcher
attempts to ascertain the contribution of a single discrete factor to

the desired outcome while the second focuses on total program effects.

The second is the method adopted in this study. The advantages and dis-
advantages of such an approach have been outlined by Lanier and Floden
(1978):

Program evaluations can be used to assess the combined effects
of a complex combination of components, although the individual
contributions of these components cannot be determined. . . .

Program evaluations also provide information on the components
as actually implemented, rather than as experimental manipulations
1n a research setting. . . .

The disadvantage of program evaluations is that they yield
results which often have extremely limited generalizability. The
evaluation might indicate how well an entire program worked in its
particular setting but it has little power to predict how parts
of the program would work when adapted to other settings. (p. 16)

They conclude, however, that even given this drawback;

Still program evaluations are essential to the improvement of
teacher education, since every program of professional education
is composed of many components within an administrative structure;
1t is unreasonable to believe that the interactions, which are
likely)to be large, will have been assessed by previous research.

p. 7
The Research Site--Student Teaching
With the exception of a few detractors there has been a general
consensus of opinion amongst educators, lay people, and students alike
that the student teaching practicum is one of the most efficacious of
those experiences traditionally offered in teacher preparation programs.

In the English speaking world two major national reports have served to

7

reinforce this point of view. In the United States, the influential
Conant Report (1963) cited student teaching as the one indisputable
essential element in professional education. Likewise in Britain The
James Report (1972) stressed the paramount importance of practical
experiences for pre-service teachers. More recently a report commissioned
by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (Howsam

et al., 1976) buttressed this general acceptance of student teaching by
stressing the need fbr involvement with teaching as soon as students

enter a teacher preparation program.

The inmediate clients of teacher education, the student teachers,
tend to overwhelmingly endorse practical experiences as being more
valuable than other aspects of their training programs. This favorable
view of student teaching tends to be retained after graduation (Bennie
1964; Hermanowicz, 1966; Jay, 1968; Hopkins, 1970; and Wright, 1976).

In their review of research in the Second Handbook of Research on Teach-
jag, Peck and Tucker (1973) concluded that ". . . there is ample and
impressive testimony that student teaching tends to be the most practical
and useful part of pre-service education in the minds of prospective
teachers" (p. 967).

This majority view is not surprising when one considers the fact
that student teaching is often the only practical experience provided
throughout many teacher education programs. However, as indicated
earlier, there have been some detractors from this overwhelming endorse-
ment of student teaching.

Some writers have pointed out that student teaching lacks both
the theoretical undergirding and the empirical evidence needed to validate

its impact. For example, Yee (1968) states

.n. r1}... . 1! .p...

. . . to.

8

Little attention has been given to the identification of
factors that significantly determine the nature of outcomes
in student teaching experiences. Not knowing for sure what
really matters in student teaching, very little empirical
research has been conducted to explain how it affects the
candidate in his professional development. Until much greater
knowledge is sought and found concerning what variables really
matter and how they affect behavior, systematic improvements
in student teaching programs will be unlikely. (p. 97)

In a similar vein Peck and Tucker (1973) suggest that although
prospective teachers accord preeminence to student teaching ". . . it
must nevertheless be recognized that there is a substantial body of
evidence suggesting that undefined or ill-defined student teaching is
by no means beneficial in its effects" (p. 967).

At the turn of the century, Dewey (1904) highlighted some of
the potentially deleterious outcomes of student teaching. He stated:

Now the teacher who is plunged prematurely into the pressing
and practical problem of keeping order in the schoolroom has almost
of necessity to make supreme the matter of external attention. The
teacher has not yet had the training which affords psychological
insight--which enables him to judge promptly (and therefore almost
automatically) the kind and mode of subject matter which the pupil
needs at a given moment to keep his attention moving forward
effectively and healthfully. He does know, however, that he must
maintain order; that he must keep the attention of the pupils fixed
upon his own questions, suggestions, instructions, and remarks, and
upon their "lessons." . . . The student (teacher) adjusts his actual
methods of teaching, not to the principles which he is acquiring,
but to what he sees other teachers doing who are more experienced
and successful in keeping order than he is; and to instructions and
directions given him by others. In this way the controlling habits
of the teacher finally get fixed with comparatively little reference
E0 prggciples in the psychology, logic, and history of education.

p.

Dewey feared that practice teaching could degenerate into a
forum for honing managerial skills designed to maintain classroom order
rather than serving as an enlightening experience aimed at fostering
those attitudes toward children which would promote learning.

Much criticism of traditional student teaching programs has

centered on the theme that student teaching as presently constituted

serves only to socialize preservice teachers into that which already
exists rather to highlight the way to what ought to be (Iannaconne and
Button, 1964; Kaltsounis and Nelson, 1968; Sorenson, 1974; Katz, 1974;
Friedenberg, 1973; and Silberman, 1963). The following quotation fran
Salzillo and Van Fleet (1977) is indicative of the arguments of these
critics.

The largest unvalidated segment of professional education
programs is the student teaching area. The only function of
student teaching which has been identified by research studies
is one of socialization into the profession and into the existing
arrangements of the schooling bureaucracy. To our knowledge, no
study has shown conclusively that student teaching has any unique
educational component other than assimilation. Teacher education
1nstitutions are, at least partially, defeating their own purposes,
when student teaching is allowed to become simply an exercise in
adapting new personnel into old patterns. (p. 27)

The main body of empirical support for such criticisms emanates
from studies of attitudinal changes experienced by student teachers during
the period of their school practice. Those investigations have tended
to cast doubt upon the positive effects of traditional practices and
procedures (Day, 1959; Dutton, 1962; Hoy, 1967; Jacobs, 1968).

After a review of the findings of a number of those studies,
Gage (1968) concluded that particularly following the student teaching
experience teachers became less concerned with pupil freedom and more
concerned with establishing a stable orderly classroom. This change
was accompanied by a decline in the tendency to attribute pupil mis-
behavior to the teacher or the school. The pupils were more often seen
as the source of problems.

In their review of research findings a half a decade later Peck

and Tucker (1973) were led to conclude that

10

. . . at least by the end of student teaching there are some
almost universally reported decrements in attitude and in
teaching behavior, as compared with the startin position of
the students prior to their field experience. (p. 967)

Not all studies, however, have found such a downturn of atti-
tudes. For example Perrodin (1961) found that student teachers made
significant improvements in professional attitudes after having been
involved in a highly-supervised teaching practice.

These differential effects upon attitudes can probably be attri-
buted to the differences among the particular programs and the environ-
ments in which student teaching takes place.

The present study explored three distinctive programs in an
attempt to ascertain whether, in fact, differences in attitudinal shifts

might be associated with variations in programs characteristics and

contexts.

Background to the Problem

Memorial University of Newfoundland, the only teacher education
institution in Canada's most easterly province has an average annual
student population of approximately 8,000 full- and part-time students.
Of that total, approximately 1,800 are in various stages of completion
of preservice teacher education programs. For prospective elementary
(K-6) teachers the training program is four years in length, culminating
with the granting by the university of the B-A.(Ed-) degree. At the
secondary level, the training program is of five years duration satisfying
the requirements for conjoint degrees: B.A.; B.Ed.; B.Sc.; B.Ed.; and
B.Pe, B.Ed. in the cases of arts, science and physical education majors.
respectively. One component of those programs is a student teaching

experience which is normally completed in the fourth or fifth year of

11

study. Presently the Student Teaching Division of Memorial University
offers three different types of practical experiences. They are; (l) a
mixed program consisting of on-campus course work and off-campus field
work, (2) a thirteen-week student teaching term, and (3) a cross-cultural

student teaching program in England.

The Mixed (Course-Work and Field-
Work) Program

This program consists of one half day per week of observation
and teaching in a public school classroom throughout either the fall or
winter university semester and a concentrated two-week period of teaching
occurring after the end of the winter semester. The half-day experi-
ences are supplemented by on-campus seminars and combined micro—teaching
and peer teaching. Video taping of micro teaching lessons is used
extensively to provide feedback to students.

In the meantime, students are concurrently enrolled in other
courses offered either by the education faculty or by other departments
within the university.

This program is the minimum teaching practice needed to meet the
requirements for degree programs in teacher education at Memorial Uni-
versity.

It should be noted that although this program includes a two-
week post-semester teaching block, this study investigated only the in-

semester portion. The reason for this will be explained in Chapter III.

The Home-Based Student TeachinggPrggram
In 1972 Memorial University established an extended student
teaching practicum in an effort to improve its teacher education pro-

gram. This is a thirteen-week optional program during which students

12

spend four days per week in public school classrooms; the fifth day
being reserved either for seminars with various members of the depart-
ments of the Faculty of Education or for field trips to various agencies
which are considered instrumental in the professional development of
students.

Early in the term emphasis is on observation of school and
classroom activities. The proportion of time spent in observation is
gradually reduced as the student assumes increasing responsibility for
classroom teaching until he/she is accepting major responsibility for
activities of the class for at least 50 percent of the school day.

This 50 percent guideline is flexible to accommodate individual students.

In this program, students work in public schools within a ten

mile radius of the university campus in St. John's, Newfoundland.

The Overseas Student Teaching Program

In 1970, Memorial University of Newfoundland established a
"branch campus" in Harlow, a new town approximately twenty miles north
of London in Essex County, England. The "campus" consisting of a student
residence designed to accommodate approximately thirty students as well
as nearby accommodation for two professors was established to provide
opportunities which were either not available in Newfoundland or to
supplement the activities of the main campus. Since September 1973,
this facility has been utilized to offer an overseas student teaching
program to twelve students per term for each of three terms during each
academic year. To date a total of approximately 300 students have com- '

pleted a student teaching practicum in England.

13

The overseas program is advertised in the university calendar
as well as in the student newspaper and on various bulletin boards
around the main campus. In theory, all students should be aware of the
existence of and the requirements for admission to and completion of
the program.

Those seeking an overseas assignment must in the first instance
apply for the student teaching program 221.52 and if accepted are placed
in schools in Harlow if they indicate such an overseas preference.

In all respects, entrance requirements for this program are
identical with those of the home-based program. Students must be in
clear academic standing (i.e., not on academic probation), must have
completed a set of prerequisite courses, and must have had an interview
with a member of the faculty of the Division of Student Teaching of the
Faculty of Education.

The student teaching coordinator in Harlow is a member of the
faculty of the Student Teaching Division and is stationed in England
for either one, two, or three semesters. This assignment is of a
voluntary nature and is rotated among the various members of the Division
of Student Teaching. The role of the overseas student teaching coordina-
tor is similar to that in Newfoundland. The main functions of that role
include arranging for student teaching placements, briefing of the
cooperating teachers regarding various elements of the program, observing
the student teacher at work, sharing in the final evaluation of the
student, and generally promoting the professional development of the
student teacher wherever possible.

After an orientation period of approximately one week on the

main campus in Newfoundland, students travel to England. Following

14

their arrival they are given time for familiarization and then assigned
to their cooperating schools. Thereafter they spend four days per week
in a public school classroom, the fifth day usually being spent on
field trips to various institutions or agencies which are considered to
be instrumental in the professional development of the student and which
are either unavailable or are inaccessible to students in Newfoundland.

As with the student teaching program in Newfoundland, early in
the term emphasis is on observation of school and classroom activities.
Orientation to the school usually takes longer than in the Newfoundland
setting. The proportion of time spent in observation is gradually
reduced as the student assumes more responsibility for classroom teaching.
Usually at about mid-term, students are teaching approximately two and
one-half hours each day.

In all cases, the students representing the various teaching
levels from primary through secondary as well as all subject areas are
assigned to schools in Harlow operated by the West Essex Area Education

Office of the Essex County Council.

Rationale for the Study

The rationale for this study rests on both theoretical and
empirical grounds.

Reference has already been made to the fact that the diversity
of contexts and the variations of approaches to the conduct of student
teaching programs seem to result in differential outcomes. In Chapter II
that notion will be expanded in a review of research evidence concerning

the variables under study. Given that the three programs to be studied

15

here are quite dissimilar (the extent of those differences will be
explicated in detail in Chapter III) it seems reasonable to expect
dissimilar outcomes.

In addition, in Chapter II a theoretical formulation of attitude
change will be presented. That fbrmulation which is helpful in explaining
and interpreting attitude changes observed in empirical studies will
also serve as a basis for prediction of the direction and extent of
attitudinal shifts of students in each of the three programs under study.

Essentially, it is expected that those students who are exposed
to a cross-cultural program will experience changes in attitudes of a
degree and kind not experienced by students in the home-based program.
Similarly, it is expected that those who are involved in a course-work/
field-work program will experience attitude changes different from those

experienced by students in the other two programs.

Statement of the Problem
It is the general purpose of this study to investigate three
general questions:

1. Do significant differences initially exist among three groups
of practicum students (those who participate in a combined
course-work/field—work program, those who participate in an
overseas practicum, and those who participate in a normal student
teaching term) on the following four dimensions: open-mindedness,
progressive attitudes toward education, traditional attitude
toward education, and receptivity to educational innovation?

2. Do significant differences exist among the three groups of

practicum students with regard to changes in (a) degree of

16

open-mindedness, (b) extent of progressive/traditional attitudes
toward education, and (c) level of receptivity to educational
innovation experienced during the programs?

What are the relationships among the following biographic and
programmatic variables: (a) area of academic study (major),

(b) level of teaching preference (elementary or secondary),

(c) size of hometown, (d) father's occupation, (e) level of
previous teaching experience, and (f) sex and level of open-
mindedness, extent of progressive/traditional attitudes toward
education, and degree of receptivity toward educational innova-

tion of the prospective teachers involved?

Hypotheses

In light of the theroetic framework to be outlined in detail in
Chapter II and as a result of a review of the conclusions of previous

research efforts in this area, the following hypotheses were developed

for and explored in this study. These hypotheses, stated in null form

emanate from the general statement of the research problems presented

earlier. It should be noted that each of these hypotheses is a composite

of a number of more specific subhypotheses. This approach was taken to

avoid the undesirable situation of having to list a huge number of
specific hypotheses many of which would have been duplicates of each
other except with regard to the particular dependent variable or programs
named.

H, No significant differences exist initially among the three

groups of students with regard to openmindedness, progressive/

traditional attitudes toward education, and receptivity to edu-

cational innovation.

17

H2 No significant differences exist among the three groups of
students with regard to changes in openmindedness, progressive/
traditional attitudes toward education, and receptivity t0 edu-
cational innovation during the programs under study.

No significant relationships exist among (a) size of hometown,
(b) fathers' occupation, (c) extent of previous experience,

(d) major discipline, (e) sex, and (f) level of teaching prefer-
ence and levels of openmindedness, progressive/traditional

attitudes toward education, and receptivity to educational

innovation.

The variables utilized in these hypotheses will be defined and
operationalized in Chapter III.

Assumptions and Delimitations of the Study

Two basic assumptions underlie this study. The first is that

attitudes are the products of past experiences and are capable of being

modified through exposure to new experiences. Second, implicit in this

study is the assumption that attitudes influence behavior. If attitudes

are not in any way reflected in behavior, then studies such as this one

are probably meaningless and certainly inconsequential.

This study focuses on the students of one teacher education
institution during one academic year (three semesters). As indicated
earlier, caution should be exercised in generalizing the conclusions

reached here to situations outside that particular context.
Furthermore, the study is of a quasi-experimental rather than
experimental nature because random sampling was impossible given the

Program structure, hence it was impossible to control all extraneous
variables.

18

A final limitation to be noted here is that determined by the
method of data collection.

The shortcomings of questionnaire methodology
have been well documented (Sellitz, 1976).

The main difficulty revolves
around whether one can be at all certain that expressed attitudes really
reflect actual feelings and beliefs.

Other more specific limitations will be discussed in context at

apprOpriate points throughout the remainder of this report.

Need for and Importance of the Study

A review of research in this field leaves one with a great
feeling of urgency to expediate the study of student teaching;

given its ascribed importance in teacher education, it is alarming
to find so little systematic research related to it. Discussion
and descriptive reports are plentiful, but comprehensive basic
study of the rocesses involved is lacking. (Davies and Amershek,
1969, p. 1384

This sentiment is a familiar one. It has been echoed by many

who have attempted to assess the state of the art in research on student

teaching (Michaelis, 1960; Denemark and MacDonald, 1967; Peck and Tucker,
1973; Turner, 1975; Fuller and Brown, 1975; and Howey, 1977).

While research on student teaching is scanty, especially in

terms of consistent substantive results, that dealing with cross-cultural

programs is practically non-existent. Although numerous North American

institutions now operate international programs of student teaching
(Association of Teacher Educators, 1980) seldom have these programs
been assessed in an attempt to ascertain their impacts.

The need for research in this area is apparent. Additionally,
the results of this study should be of inmediate benefit to Memorial

University in its attempts to modify and recast programs in response to

evaluative investigations of the type undertaken here.

19

Definition of Terms

The following are definitions recurring in this study.

Dogmatism (Open-/C1osed-Mindedness)

 

Dogmatism throughout this report refers to the extent to which
an individual can ". . . receive, evaluate, and act on relevant informa-
tion received from the outside on its own intrinsic merits . . .”
(Rokeach, 1960, p. 57).

A low dogmatic person does not cling to preconceived beliefs,
values and commitments. Rather, he is one who can perceive new ideas
without distortion and talk about them objectively even though they may
be at variance with his own (Owen, 1970). Such a person may be referred
to as being open-minded. Indeed the terms "open-minded" and "low dogma—
tic" are used synonymously herein.

A high dogmatic or closed-minded individual ". . . tends to
distort his perceptions to conform to his previously internalized
beliefs, values and commitments . . ." (Owen, 1970, p. 212). He is less
willing to examine points of view different from his own and fails to
discriminate between substantive information and information about the
source.

Educational Attitudes (Progressivism/
Iradtionalism)

For purposes of this study, traditionalism and progressivism are
educational attitudes as delineated by Kerlinger (1958). Kerlinger's
conceptualization is a reflection of earlier work by John Dewey (1902).
The scale utilized in this study to measure educational attitudes, the

Educational Scale VII, is based on three criterial referents for the

20

traditional dimension (discipline, subject matter, and moral standards)
and three criterial referents for the progressive dimensions (child
needs, individual differences, and social learning).

Those who hold progressive educational attitudes stress a pro-
cess of education characterized by emphasis on problem-solving, focus
on children's needs and interests, equality and warmth in interpersonal
relationships, internal discipline, individual responsibility, and a
relative de-emphasis of subject matter as knowledge.

Those who espouse traditional viewpoints emphasize the value
of subject matter, the need for subordinate-superordinate relationships
between teacher and pupil, the necessity of externally imposed discipline,
and they envision a morality that is based on an external higher

authority.

Receptivity to Educational Innovation

Receptivity is the degree to which a number of proposed changes
in education are considered desirable or undesirable. An innovation in
this study is an idea that has at some point been recommended by edu-
cators for adoption within school systems but which has not yet been
widely accepted within the schools of the province of Newfoundland. One
would not normally encounter examples of such practices or procedures

within those schools.

Conclusion
In this chapter a rationale for the present study has been
presented and research questions have been delineated. The remainder

of this report is organized in the following manner.

21

Chapter II presents a review of theory and research related to
the variables involved.

Chapter III outlines in detail the design and methodological
approach of the study.

Chapter IV describes the data analysis and findings of the
study.

Chapter V presents the conclusions to be drawn from the findings

and recommendations for future research and practice.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the 'logical geography'
of the three dependent variables of the study and to present an analysis
of previous research findings in those areas. The variables will be
discussed in the following order: (1) open-lclosed-mindedness, (2) pro-
gressive/traditional attitudes toward education, and (3) receptivity to
educational innovation. Those somewhat discrete treatments of the
variables and related research are followed by a presentation of that
synthesis of findings from earlier studies which formed the basis of the
present study. This is done within the context of a theory of attitude
change.
Open</Closed-Mindedness--
Conceptual Analysis

The work of Milton Rokeach (1960) regarding the open and closed
mind serves as the theoretical underpinning for the manner in which the
concept ‘open-/closed-mindedness' is utilized throughout this paper.
The antecedents of that work are instructive in develOping a clear
understanding of the concepts involved.

Rokeach has acknowledged that his work was greatly influenced

by that of Fromm (1947), Maslow (1943) and particularly by the efforts

22

23

of Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, and Sanford (1950). The investi-
gations of Adorno and associates regarding the authoritarian personality
were initiated in an effort to analyze and measure anti-semitism. That
initial work was later expanded to encompass a broader study of authori-
tarianism resulting in the publication of the well-known "F Scale." The
F Scale was originally designed to ". . . be used as an indirect measure
of prejudice without mentioning the names of any specific minority group;
and it was designed to measure underlying personality predispositions
toward a fascistic outlook on life" (Rokeach, 1960, p. 12). Because
validational studies indicated that those who scored high on the F Scale
also scored high on ethnocentrism and anti-negro sentiments, and were
more politically conservative, the F Scale became accepted as a measure
not only of fascist authoritarianism but also of general authoritarian-
ism. However as Rokeach and his associates have pointed out, the F Scale
remained a measure of authoritarianism of the political right and did
not measure leftist authoritarianism or authoritarianism of any other
point along the political spectrum or in other fields of human endeavors.

Using this as a point of departure Rokeach (1960) embarked upon
his effort to develop a scale to measure authoritarianism in all its
forms regardless of ". . . specific ideological, theological, philosophic,
or scientific content" (p. 14)-

Basic to Rokeach's conceptualization is the suggestion that each
person's cognitive system is organized into two interdependent sections:

the belief system and the disbelief system. He explained the distinction

in the following manner:

I u. I O. 1

l

24

The belief system is conceived to represent all the beliefs,
sets, expectancies, or hypotheses, conscious and unconscious, that a
person at a given time accepts as true of the world he lives in.

The disbelief system is composed of a series of subsystems rather
than merely a single one, and contains all the disbeliefs, sets,
expectancies, conscious and unconscious, that, to one degree or
another, a person at a given time rejects as false. (Rokeach,

1960, p. 33)
A second defining characteristic of cognitive systems is their
organization along a central-peripheral dimension. The three layers,
'central, intermediate, and peripheral are defined by Rokeach (1960)

.thusly:

(l) A central region represents . . . the person's "primitive"
beliefs. These refer to all the beliefs a person has acquired
about the nature of the physical world he lives in, the nature
of the “self" and of the "generalized other" (G. H. Mead, 1952).
(2) An intermediate region represents the beliefs a person has
in and about the nature of authority and the people who line

up with authority, on whom he depends to help him form a p1cture
of the world he lives in. (3) A peripheral region represents
the beliefs derived from authority, such beliefs fill1ng 1n the

details of his world-map. (p. 40)

The third dimension of belief-disbelief systems is what Rokeach
refers to as time perspective. Time perspectives are conceived as
varying from broad to narrow--"A broad time perspective is one in which
the person's past, present, and future are all represented within the
belief-disbelief system, and the person sees them as related to each

other" (Rokeach, 1960. p. 51)-

On the other hand a narrow time perspective is ". . . one in

which the person overemphasizes or fixates on the past, or the present,

or the future without appreciating the continuity and the connections

that exist among them" (Rokeach, 1960, p. 51)-

With these three distinctions in mind Rokeach's formal definition
0f oPen-lclosed-mindedness (dogmatism) takes on increased significance.

That definition is as follows:

25

Dogmatism is (a) relatively closed cognitive organization
of beliefs and disbeliefs about reality, (b) organized around
a central set of bel1efs about absolute authority which, in
turn, (c) provide a framework for patterns of intolerance and
qualified tolerance toward others. (Rokeach, 1956, p. 20)

That definition of dogmatism has been recast by Rokeach (1960)

in less formal terms.

This leads us to suggest a basic characteristic that defines
the extent to which a person's system is open or closed, namely,
the extent to which the person can receive, evaluate and act on
relevant information received from the outside on its own
intrinsic merits, unencumbered by irrelevant factors in the
situation arising from within the person or from the outside.

02- 57)

Rokeach cites irrational ego motives, power needs, and the need
to allay anxiety as examples of irrelevant factors arising from within
the individual. Examples of irrelevant external pressures are perceived
sanctions from authority figures, parents, reference groups, and social
and cultural institutions.

Restated in another way, "The more open one‘s belief system,
the more should evaluating and acting upon information proceed inde-
pendently on its own merits . . . and conversely, the more closed
the belief system, the more difficult should it be to distinguish
between information received about the world and infonnation received
about the source" (p. 58).

To the closed system the source and the message become indis-
tinguishable, to the open system they can be evaluated separately.

The more salient characteristics of Rokeach's conceptualization
of open- and closed-system individuals have been summarized in table
form by Weston (1973) (Table 2.1).

It should be recalled fran Chapter I that throughout this report

low dogmatic is equated with open-mindedness and high dogmatic with

26

Table 2.1.--Comparison of Characteristics of 0pen- and Closed¢System

Individuals.

Open System Characteristics

Closed System Characteristics

 

Individual accepts or rejects
a belief on the basis of
objective structural require-
ments without regard to
arbitrary reinforcements from
external authority.

Individual sees the world as
a friendly place.

Individual does not rely on
authority in accepting or
rejecting beliefs.

Individual does not evaluate
others according to beliefs
held in common.

Individual values others
positively regardless of
their beliefs.

Individual has a balanced
conception of past, present,
and future in relation to
each other.

1.

Individual accepts or rejects

a belief based on irrelevant,
internal drives and/or arbitrary
reinfbrcements from external
authority.

Individual sees the world as
a threatening place.

Individual has an over-
reliance on authority in
accepting or rejecting beliefs.

Individual evaluates others
according to their agreements
or disagreements with his own
belief system.

Individual has difficulty dis-
criminating between and
separately evaluating a belief
and the person holding the
belief.

Individual has a narrow
future-oriented time perSpec-
tive.

 

27

closed-mindedness. In order to further clarify these concepts the
following sections indicate how they may be compared and contrasted
with allied notions. Differences between open-/closed-mindedness and
its cousins, 'rigidity,‘ 'authoritarianism,‘ 'neutrality,‘ and 'change'

will be illucidated.

Open-/Closed-Mindedness and Rigidity

On the surface rigid and dogmatic thinking would seem to be
similar phenomena. However, Rokeach (1960) makes an excellent case for
considering rigidity to be resistance to change of single beliefs whereas
dogmatism refers to resistance to change of total systems of beliefs.
The referent of rigid thinking is a single concept, idea, or set con-
trasted to the referent of dogmatic thinking which is the total cognitive
configuration of beliefs held by an individual at any point in time.
Hence, dogmatism is a much more overarching and comprehensive phenomenon
than is rigidity. This distinction will take on increased significance

later in this chapter.

Qpen-jClosed-Mindedness and Authoritarianism

As stated earlier, the Dogmatism Scale developed by Rokeach is
a measure of general authoritarianism regardless of any specific ideologi-
cal or philosophical stance. Persons who score high have different
ideas about the nature of authority than do those who score low (those
who are more open-minded). Open-minded individuals tend to have a
rational, tentative reliance on authority whereas closed-minded (high
dogmatic or highly authoritarian) individuals tend toward absolute

reliance or authority (Rokeach, 1960, p. 44).

 

28

Openg/Closed-Mindedness and Neutrality
It is common to encounter the terms open-mindedness and neutra-

lity used in an interchangeable fashion in everyday discourse. As
utilized throughout this report, the two are quite distinct. 0pen-
mindedness refers to a disposition to change a belief system in the
light of additional evidence. It does not reflect a desire to refrain
from taking a position as does one who remains neutral. A person's
belief may be quite firm yet open to change; hence, lack of neutrality

but nevertheless openness.

Qpen-[Closed-Mindedness and Change
One of the three major variables to be examined in this research
has been labeled "Receptivity to Educational Innovation" and although
it will be defined at length later in this chapter it is referred to at
this juncture in an endeavour to forestall possible conceptual confusion.
Central to the definition of dogmatism is the proposition that
the closed-minded, highly dogmatic individual is extremely resistant to
change. Indeed in a review of research findings Ehrlick and Lee (1969)
indicate a general confirmation of the proposition that closed-minded
persons are less able than open-minded persons to either learn new beliefs
or to change old ones. However, they identify five intervening variables
which may account for a less than perfect correspondence between open-
mindedness and change. Those variables are; "The authority-sources of
the new beliefs, the syndrome relevance of their mode of communication,
the belief congruence and novelty of the new beliefs, and their centrality
to the individual" (Ehrlich and Lee, 1969, p. 257). Hence, it is quite

conceivable that an individual who adopts an innovation may be doing so

29

not because of openness to new ideas but rather as acquiescence to some
authority figure who is viewed as having the right answer. In this
instance the adopter of an innovation may, in fact, be very closed-
minded.

This belief example should be suffice to illustrate the fact
that although there is a general relationship between dogmatism and
change there is not necessarily a perfect correlation between dogmatism
and receptivity to innovation. For this reason and for other reasons
to be explained later in the discussion of 'receptivity' the argument is
advanced that the Dogmatism Scale and the Receptivity to Innovation
Scale as utilized here do not necessarily measure the same aspects of

personality.

Research Regarding;Qpen:/Closed-Mindedness

The Dogmatism Scale developed by Rokeach has been utilized in
hundreds of studies conducted over the past two decades. Much of that
work is either unenlightening or irrelevant to the present purpose.
Hence the literature review which follows is a selective one focusing
only on areas germane to the central thrust of this study. Research
falling into four categories will be reviewed. Those categories are:
(1) Research Regarding the Validity of the Theoretical Tenets of Dogma-
tism, (2) Research Regarding Dogmatism and Teaching, (3) Dogmatism and
Teacher Education Including Student Teaching, and (4) Dogmatism and

Cross-Cultural Experiences.

30

Research Regarding the Validity Tenets
of Dogmatism

 

In The Open and Closed Mind Rokeach (1960) and his associates

 

reported a number of studies designed to test the validity of various
aspects of his theoretical formulation. Many of these studies engaged
subjects in problem-solving situations utilizing rules and parameters
at variance with everyday experience. In order to accomplish this,
Rokeach used the "Denny Doodlebug Problem“ which consisted of an imaginary
miniature cosmology in which the principal actor, Joe Doodlebug, was
capable of only certain actions. For example Joe could jump in four
directions, north, east, south, and west but not diagonally. Joe could
not switch directions until he had completed a series of four jumps in
the same directions. In addition he could not turn around, crawl, walk
or fly but could vary the length of his jumps.

' Subjects in the various experiments were required to explain
how Joe was to reach food or how in fact he had managed to do so. In
order to arrive at possible solutions, subjects were required to over-
come three previously held beliefs and replace them with three new
beliefs. Those beliefs were: (1) the facing belief--Joe did not have to
face food to eat it. He could alight atop it, (2) the direction belief--
Joe was forever facing north but could change directions by jumping
sideways and backwards, and (3) the movement belief--Joe was required
to Jump four times in one direction before altering course, however,
Joe may have stopped in the middle of a sequence.

This problem and its many variations provided experimental

evidence to support Rokeach's hypothesis that high.dogmatics would be

more resistant to changes in beliefs and would have more difficulty in

1'3; pg§u1.>§..,ail¢ AER“
. . . . .. .. . Va
n...

31

integrating new beliefs into their previously held belief-disbelief
systems. These and other studies provided evidence in support of the
existence of a belief-disbelief system and of the Open and closed mind
as conceptualized.

In addition to the studies conducted by the major authors of the
Dogmatism Scale, other researchers have produced confirmation of the
existence of "general authoritarianism" (dogmatism) as proposed by
Rokeach. Work by DiRenzo (1967), Hanson (1968), Kerlinger and Rokeach
(1966), and Plant (1960) all support the proposition that the Dogmatism
Scale measures general authoritarianism whereas the Adorno F Scale
measures only right authoritarianism.

After an exhaustive review of studies of dogmatism, Vacchiano,
Strauss, and Hochman (1969) were led to conclude that ”. . . the findings
support the validity of Rokeach's concept, particularly as a generalized
theory of authoritarianism independent of ideological content" and that
" . a dogmatic personality style exists and may be readily identified"
(pp. 272-273).

Similarly in a review of more than 100 studies, Ehrlich and Lee
(1969) concluded that ". . . these studies considered together provide
a consistent set of findings most of which are in accord with theoretical
expectations" (p. 253).

As stated earlier, Rokeach has suggested that his formal defini-
tion of dogmatism may be distilled down to one fundamental distinction
between open and closed minds: closed minds have difficulty distinguish-
ing the source of a message from the substantive content of that message
whereas open minds do not. In a well-formulated study conducted to test

this hypothesis, Powell (1962) found that indeed

32

. . . open and closed individuals do differ in their relative
ability to differentiate between sources and messages and to
evaluate them independently in a more or less realistic com-
munication situation. Open individuals were found to be
better able to do this than were closed individuals. (p. 64)

This conclusion was supported by Vidulich and Kaiman (1961) who
found that closed—minded individuals among their sample (thirty psycho-
logy students) agreed to a significant degree more with high status
sources (professors) than with low status sources (secondary school
students). In keeping with the theoretical prediction, open-minded
subjects agreed significantly more than did closed-minded persons with
low status than with high status sources.

Studies by Kemp (1962) and McCarthy and Johnson (1962) further
buttress this central pr0position of the dogmatic personality construct.
Research Regarding Open-Closed-Mindedness
and Teaching

It has been suggested that highly dogmatic individuals tend
toward vocations in the ministry, the armed forces, the police, and in
public school teaching. In fact some writers have insinuated that the
teaching profession is characterized by a high level of dogmatism.
Soderberg (1964), for example, in an article in The Journal of Teacher
Education has stated that ". . . some veteran public school teachers
are excessively, and fOr the most part unwittingly, dogmatic" (p. 245).
Projected concomitant characteristics of such teachers were an unwilling-
ness to admit that reasonable alternatives to fixed opinions exist, an
unwillingness to change, and an intolerance for ambiguity. Likewise
Friedenberg (1959) has intimated that teachers tend to enter the pro-

fession in order to attain a sense of security in an occupation that

offers opportunities to exercise control and authority and that school

33

staffs are ". . . composed chiefly of individuals who have achieved
their own basis of security by cautious attention to external norms"
(p. 148).

These opinionated claims have been at least partially refuted
by Rabkin's (1966) finding that teachers with more than ten year's
teaching experience had a significantly lower mean dogmatism score when
compared with other teachers and with samples used by Rokeach in his
initial studies. He concluded that:

x . . the tendency toward excessive dogmatism or closed-
mindedness is not a general characteristic of this group
(teachers enrolled in summer courses at the University of
Washington) of present-day educators. Indeed, the results
indicate a considerably lower degree of this rigid type of
thinking as com ared with various other college and noncollege
groups. (p. 49

This corroborates earlier evidence presented in The Open and

 

Closed Mind that:
. . on the whole open subjects move toward professions
requiring more advanced professional training in vocations
that involve dealings with pe0p1e in need of help: occupa-
tional therapy, medicine, the ministry, ps chology, social
work and teaching. (Rokeach, 1960, p. 344
Further substantiation of this point is forthcoming in a study
conducted by Platow (1968) at The University of Southern California.
He found that while regular classroom teachers and teachers of excep-
tional children did not differ significantly with regard to level of
dogmatism both groups seemed to be less dogmatic, more open-minded,
than the public at large.
Underlying the present research is the belief that teachers as

mentors of the world's youth should generally be more 0pen- than closed-

minded. In fact writers such as Robert Bills (1967) have accorded the

34

development of open-mindedness the highest priority in the education
of teachers. He states:

. . if we could agree at all about what we would like students
to gain from teacher education programs including student
teaching it would probably be an openness to the experience of
teaching, an openness to its problems and opportunities, an
openness to oneself so that he can bring his eXperiences to

bear on becoming a teacher, and an openness to one's lack of
experience so that he is moved to accept new eXperiences.

(p. 9)

This advocacy stance is supported by the results of several
research projects. In a study conducted at the University of Alabama,
Finch (1973) found that an instructor's ability to form relationships
characterized by qualities of positive and unconditional regard for
students, and empathic understanding of his/her students was dependent
upon the extent of openness of the instructor. Significant relation-
ships were shown to exist between student ratings of instructor be-
havior, the relationship qualities of the instructor and the openness
of the instructor.

Similarly Emmerling (1963) found that pupils of more open
teachers saw their teachers as being more understanding, empathic, and
pupil-centered.

In keeping with this finding, Kremer and Ben-Peretz (1980)
report a study conducted in the Haifa school district which indicated
that the variable "Dogmatism" as measured by the Rokeach D-Scale
accounted for the largest amount of variance (when compared to locus of
control, knowledge, and attitudes toward teaching behavior) in the
following six teaching behaviors: (1) relates to students' talk,

(2) encourages students' initiative, (3) places responsibility for

learning upon students, (4) is aware and alert to students' talk,

35

(5) elicits divergent thought processes, and (6) demonstrates tolerance
to differing views of students. The researchers conclude that "The
conmon characteristics of these six behaviors is their relation to per-
sonality traits rather than to teaching skills. They concern teacher
and student roles, and pertain to student vs. teacher-centered teaching
situations" (pp. 77-78).

Almost identical conclusions were reached by Chalker (1972) who
compared the Dogmatism levels of suburban social studies teachers with
matrices developed from the Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories and
The University of Pennsylvania Interaction Analysis System. The follow-
ing is an exerpt from the abstract of that study.

Analyses of these data revealed statistically significant
differences supporting the theory that teachers low in dogmatism
surpass those high in dogmatism in the following teacher
behaviors: (l) establishing an intellectually permissive class-
room atmosphere, (2) encouraging student initiation and parti-
cipation in class discussions, (3) clarifying and expanding
class discussion, (4) respecting student opinions, (5) avoiding
the use of ridicule and sarcasm against students, and (6)
ensuring students an opportunity to express themselves.

(Abstract)

Taking a slightly different tack, Barry (1974) conducted a
research project in Sacramento, California in which he compared the
development of creativity of primary-aged children taught by high-
dogmatic teachers with children's creative development in classrooms
conducted by low-dogmatic teachers. Results indicated a significant
difference with students of low dogmatic teachers scoring higher on
“The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking" and the "Fun With Dots Test"
than did children with high dogmatic teachers.

In a similar study Ager (1970) found that although relationships

were not statistically significant the general direction of his findings

supported those of Kremer and Ben-Peretz (1980) and Chalker (1972).

36

There would seem to be a relationship between degree of open-
mindedness and level of use of indirect teaching behavior.

Several studies have examined the relationship between dogmatism
and other attitudinal and behavioral traits of teachers. For example,
Willower, Edell, and Hoy (1967) hypothesized that closed-minded teachers
would tend to be more custodial in their pupil control ideology. Their
hypothesis was confirmed beyond the .001 level.

In a closely allied study Stevenson (1970) investigated the
relationship between dogmatism scores and scores on the Minnesota Teacher
Attitude Inventory which he suggests "Predicts teacher-student rapport
that can be expected in the social-emotional climate" (p. 1156). He
concluded that the Rokeach scale could be utilized as a predictor of
authoritarian-equalitarian attitudes and teacher-student rapport in the
personnel selection process.

The findings of Johnson (1967) who studied a sample of seventy-
six female elementary teachers employed by the Douglas School system,
Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota substantiated Stevenson's con-
clusion that high dogmatics score significantly lower on the Minnesota
Teacher Attitude Inventory.

The final study to be reviewed in this section is that conducted
by Cohen (1969). He explored the relationship of varying levels of
dogmatism to the effects of different forms of response set on the
decision-making behavior of teachers. High- and low-dogmatic teachers
were randomly assigned to three situations: (1) the child was labelled
as psychotic, (2) the child was labelled as well-adjusted, and (3) the
child was not labelled at all. Prior information (labelling) was found

to influence the decision-making behavior of high-dogmatic teachers to

37

a greater degree than it did the decision-making behavior of low-
dogmatics.

Taken together these studies indicate the relevance of the
study of dogmatism in relation to the study of teachers and teaching.

The section which follows highlights research bearing directly
on one of the central fOci of this study, namely open-lclosed—mindedness
and teacher education (including student teaching).

Research RegardingpOpenelClosed-Mindedness
and Teacher Education

Studies of interest to this review of research regarding dog-
matism and teacher education fall into three categories: (1) investi-
gations of personality and demographic correlates of dogmatism among
prospective teachers, (2) examinations of the relationship between
dogmatic thinking and such variables as attitudes toward teaching and
preferences with regard to teaching style, and (3) studies of the effect
of various teacher education programs upon levels of dogmatism.

In the first category studies by Shaver and Richards (1968),
Cappelluzzo and Brine (1969), Borgers and Ward (1974), Bremer (1970),
Brumbaugh, Holdt, and Beisel (1966), and Febinger (1965) represent the
most significant findings.

Shaver and Richards (1968) found that among undergraduate teacher
education students at Ohio State University, the University of California
at Santa Barbara, The University of Oklahoma and Boston University and
graduate education students at Harvard University, The University of
Washington, The University of Michigan, and Utah State University those

studying languages, business education, music and mathematics were more

38

highly dogmatic than those in social studies, English, and special
education.

In addition they concluded that teacher education students in
their large sample were no more dogmatic than university students in
general.

Cappelluzzo and Brine (1969) in a study at the University of
Massachusetts, found that undergraduate prospective teachers tended to
be less dogmatic when compared with experienced teachers in the State
of Washington but similar to students at Ohio State tested by Rokeach.
An additional finding related the area of academic discipline and degree
of dogmatism. Those in mathematics had higher mean dogmatism scores
while those in the natural sciences tended to score lower.

In a similar study of forty secondary level student teachers at
the University of Akron, Brumbaugh, Hoedt, and Beisel (1966) investigated
the relationship between level of dogmatism and academic discipline.
They found that student teachers in mathematics, science and social
studies were significantly more closed-minded than were students in
foreign languages, English or the fine arts.

These results are in keeping with those of Cappelluzzo and Brine
(1969) in that mathematics student teachers were among the most dogmatic.
However in contrast to the Cappelluzzo and Brine conclusion, those in
the sciences tended to be in the high dogmatic rather than the low
dogmatic group.

With regard to the significance of their findings, Brumbaugh,
Holdt, and Beisel state:

If the pilot study findings are valid, questions concerning

the functionality or dysfunctionality of the personality traits
of open- or closed—mindedness with regard to various criteria

39

of teacher effectiveness within each of these subject areas
might well be asked. For example, if, as Rokeach suggests,
the dogmatism scale is, in effect, a measure of creativity,
what impact does a closed-minded science teacher have upon
the development of creative student thinking in science.
(p. 335)

At the University of Northern Colorado, Bremer (1970) found
that female student teachers were less dogmatic than males as were
elementary and special education students when compared with those at
the secondary level.

Borgers and Ward (1974) administered the Rokeach Dogmatism
Scale (Form E) and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule to eighty-
three teacher education students in a competency-based teacher education
program. The twenty-two highest scoring (high-dogmatic) and the twenty-
two lowest scoring (low-dogmatic) students were compared with regard to
sex, age, and grade point average. No significant differences were
f0und between the two groups on these three variables. However, scores
on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule indicated that the high
dogmatic group had significantly greater need for order, abasement and

aggression. The researchers concluded:

Since the needs of prospective teachers do vary, each individual
should be aware of his needs and should consider how these relate
to teaching. The low dogmatic group had greater need for autonomy;
it may be that they view teaching as a situation where they will
have the opportunity to make independent decisions. The high
dogmatic group had greater need for order, abasement, and aggres-
sion, they may view teaching as an organized system where they
will be supervised and at the same time be allowed to criticize
points of view which disagree with their own. (p. 699)

The final study in this category, that conducted by Febinger at
the University of Colorado, is quite similar to the Borgers, Ward study
described earlier. Febinger's report indicated that his sample of 192

Prospective teachers were significantly more open than other college

40

samples and within his sample those in the disciplines of English,
mathematics, and the physical and biological sciences were among the
least dogmatic whereas those in the foreign languages and physical edu-
cation tended to be more dogmatic.

Correlations of scores on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale with those
on the sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire led Febinger to con-
clude that the more open-minded students tended to be bright, emotionally
mature, dominant, adventurous, trustful, bohemian, confident, self-
sufficient, relaxed and high-achieving. Closed-minded student teachers
tended to be dull, emotionally immature, submissive, timid, withdrawn,
suspecting, conventional, insecure, tense, and low-achieving.

The results of these studies have been presented to provide an
indication of the types of research conducted into and conclusions
reached concerning the relationships between dogmatism and its person-
ality and programmatic correlates among teacher education students. As
already evident, the findings tend to be piecemeal, haphazard, contra-
dictory and generally unenlightening. Together they do not provide
stable generalizations which might be valuable in predicting outcomes
of additional studies.

Falling into the second category are a number of studies of the
relationship between student teacher dogmatism and such variables as
attitudes toward teaching, teaching style preferences, and perceptual
accuracy.

Three of those studies have explored the relationship between
dogmatism and attitude toward teaching children as measured by the
Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. The findings in all three pieces

of research are consistent. Hester (1976), in a study of eighty-seven

41

student teachers enrolled at Mississippi College, Berg (1977) in a study
of 130 students enrolled in an elementary education program at a small
Catholic liberal arts college, and Johnson (1977) who conducted a study
of 118 student teachers at an unidentified college all concluded that

a negative correlation existed between dogmatism scores and scores on
the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. Student teachers who scored
lower on the Dogmatism Scale (more open—minded) tended to score higher
on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (more positive attitudes
toward teaching children).

Berg's finding viewed in the context of her total study is
particularly instructive. She concluded that increasing levels of
exposure to field experiences resulted in not only a decrement in terms
of positive attitudes toward teaching children but also to an increase
in closed-mindedness. This leads to speculation concerning the relation-
ship between these two sets of scores. Johnson, in his analysis of this
phenomenon has theorized ". . . that there might be a congruent dimension
present within the two inventories. The two instruments may measure
essentially the same thing, some aspect of a dogmatic personality
structure" (p. 216).

Several investigators have eXplored the relationship between
student teacher dogmatism and their perceptual accuracy. Trout (1972)
found that open—minded student teachers tended to be superior to their
closed-minded counterparts in ability to accurately perceive problems
in a complex teaching situation.

In a similar vein Hart (1976) in a study of seventy-five home
economics student teachers from The University of Minnesota, concluded

that low dogmatic students were consistently more accurate in their

42

judgments compared with those who were highly dogmatic. In a refinement
on that general conclusion Hart stated that:
. . . it was found that teachers low in dogmatism were able to
judge more students who were non-similar to the teacher in value
profile than teachers high in dogmatism. On the other hand, the
teachers high in dogmatism judged accurately more students who
were similar to themselves in value profile than the teachers
low in dogmatism. (p. 2243)

The findings in this area are inconsistent however. Brumbaugh,
Holdt, and Beisel (1966) in their study cited earlier found that dogma-
tism and perceptual accuracy were unrelated. They concluded that 0pen-
minded student teachers were no more accurate in assessing the inter-
personal needs of their supervising teachers than were closed-minded
students.

Exploring the relationship between student teacher dogmatism and
preference for teaching styles has been the concern of a number of
researchers. Bremer (1970), for example, found that female student
teachers were less dogmatic and in greater agreement with ”experiment-
alist classroom practices" than were males. Additionally, elementary
and special education student teachers were less dogmatic and in greater
agreement with experimental practices than were secondary student
teachers.

Fish (1962) concluded that more open-minded teachers were better
able to describe developmental sequences after reading scientific
generalizations and were better able to direct pupil discovery of
relationships than closed-minded teachers.

In a closely allied study Strawitz (1975) found that there was

a significant negative correlation between dogmatism and responses to a

thirty-item questionnaire developed by Good to assess teacher beliefs

43

about the nature of science for the elementary school, the role of the
elementary science teacher, and the nature of children. A low score on
the Good Scale purportedly reflects a non-directive, discovery-oriented
approach to teaching science.

Finally, Ager (1970) found that on the basis of the Flanders
Verbal Interaction Analysis System, open-minded persons used indirect
teaching behaviors moreso than did closed-minded individuals. These
results, although consistent, did not reach the .05 level of signifi-
cance.

These findings all seem to converge on one central theme, namely
that open-minded student teachers are more likely to engage in teaching
practices which may be labelled informal, indirect, or experimentalist.
It will be argued later in this paper that such approaches are reflective
of a basic philos0phy of progressivism in education. It is perhaps not
surprising that the findings presented here regarding student teachers
tend to corroborate evidence cited earlier with regard to practicing
teachers.

The third category of studies to be reviewed in this section
focuses on the effect of various teacher education programs upon the
levels of dogmatism of the participants. The findings in this area are
equivocal.

Berg (1977) and Bremer (1970) both reported increases in dogma-
tism as a result of student teaching experiences. Berg's study cited
earlier related level of exposure (measured by the number of clock-hours)
to field experiences with levels of dogmatism and she was led to conclude
that "Increasing levels of exposure to field experiences is generally a
negative experience for students in that it is related to more closed

mindedness“ (p. 2710-A)-

44

Similarly Bremer (1970) reported that open-minded student
teachers became more closed—minded during the student teaching experi-
ence.

Two studies report no significant results. Hughes (1969)
attempted to determine whether differential changes in dogmatic thinking
would be effected by two programs. One program was traditional student
teaching, the second a combined micro-teaching, student teaching
practicum. No significant differences were found at the .05 level.

In a study of fifty-nine student teachers at North Texas State
University, Sughrue (1976) found that those who volunteered for inner-
city school placement did not differ from other student teachers with
respect to degree of dogmatism. In addition when the pre- and post-
test scores of the two groups were compared, no significant differences
existed in the extent of change of dogmatism levels.

The weight of findings, however, suggest that Specially designed
programs can have the desired effect of lowering dogmatism. The follow-
ing studies support that general conclusion.

Garrison (1973), found that experiences in methods courses
resulted in reducing the dogmatism of closed-minded students at The
University of Wisconsin. However, those who were open-minded at the
outset did not become more so.

Kingsley (1968) suggested that by providing instructor models
who were open-minded dogmatism could be reduced among student teachers.

Scarr (1970) reported decrements in student authoritarianism
after exposure to a human development course. Paschal and Treloar
(1979) report a similar effect as a result of having students enroll

in an Educational Psychology course. The student teaching experience

45

did not seem to affect student dogmatism. However, with regard to pupil
control ideology, subjects moved from a custodial to a more humanistic
orientation during the Educational Psychology course but this change was
practically reversed during student teaching.

The findings of Scarr, Paschal, and Treloar were buttressed by
the study conducted by Borgers (1979) at a large state university.
Utilizing an experimental/control group design, she concluded that the
addition of a human relations component to the teacher education progran
resulted in lowering the dogmatism of participants. N

The following is a review of studies dealing specifically with
the student teaching component of teacher education programs.

Austin-Martin (1979) recorded a decrease in dogmatism as a result
of student teaching. He nevertheless cautioned that pre-testing (in
pre-, post-test designs) studies may result in a solidification of
attitudes and hence may forestall any potential change. The manner in
which that particular concern was handled in the present study will be
discussed in Chapter III.

Krall and Holt (1980) explored the effect of placement in alter-
native open classrooms upon student teachers' dogmatism and attitudes
toward open education. When compared with a control group of students
assigned to regular secondary classrooms, those students changed signi-
ficantly on both dimensions.

The authors conclude: “This study lends support to what is
perhaps common lore in teacher education: student teaching placement is
a critical factor in determining what is learned" (p. 16).

Similarly, Chase (1971) conducted a study of the degree of

change of Openness of student teachers as a result of participation in

46

an experimental student teaching program at Michigan State University.
The students in the experimental program showed a greater positive
change in openness than did students in the conventional student
teaching program.

The tentative conclusions and implications to be drawn from
these studies will be summarized at the end of this review of research
related to dognati 5111.

Research Regarding Open-/Closed-Mindedness
and Cross-Cultural Experiences

Under this heading only three studies have been found.

Marion (1956) found that among students from the University of
Colorado who participated in study-abroad programs in Western Eur0pe,
those who visited the greater number of countries tended to become more
open-minded. The researcher concluded that this finding supported the
claim that foreign travel leads to a more open-minded, liberalized
viewpoint.

Weston (1973) investigated the openness of student teachers
involved in the Intercultural Student Teaching Program at Michigan
State University. A group of twenty students who had student taught in
an American overseas school in the Hague were compared with a group who
had volunteered but were not accepted for the overseas program and sub-
sequently student taught in Michigan as well as with a group who had
not volunteered but who did their student teaching in Michigan schools.
All groups were tested to measure their degree of openness prior to and
after the student teaching term. The instrument used was the Dogmatism
§§gle (Form E) developed by Rokeach. This study found that the overseas

student teaching experience did not significantly affect the degree of

47

openness of the students involved when compared with students in the
other two groups. None of the groups showed any significant pattern of
gain or loss on the Dogmatism Scale.

A second study which attempted to answer the same type of
question regarding cross-cultural student teaching was carried out by
Self (1975) at the University of Alabama. A group of teachers who had
student taught in Latin America were compared with a group of teachers
who had completed their student teaching exprience in Alabama. Signi-
ficant differences between the two groups were found but because there
was no pre-test we can only speculate as to whether this was the result

of change or of preexisting attitudes.

Summary of the Review of Dogmatism
To carry out a review of this body of literature can be a
daunting task. This is the case because dogmatism has been studied as
a major variable in hundreds of research efforts in a variety of settings
for a multitude of reasons. The review thus far has focused on studies
in four categories. Research relating dogmatism to the two other major
variables in this study (traditionalism/progressivism, and receptivity
to innovation) has been temporarily ignored. That review will be
presented at the end of this chapter after separate analyses of those
two remaining concepts and research related to them has been discussed.
The salient aspects of the studies examined to this point can
be summarized as follows:
1. Dogmatism as measured by the Rokeach instrument taps general

authoritarianism.

10.

11.

12.

13.

48

High dogmatic individuals have more difficulty integrating

new beliefs into their belief-disbelief system.

Open-minded individuals have less difficulty differentiating
the substantive content of a message from infbrmation about the
source of that message.

The weight of evidence seems to refute the claim that teachers
and student teachers as a group tend to be highly dogmatic.
Open-minded teachers tend to be able to more easily establish
empathic, mutually respectful relationships with pupils.
Open-minded teachers and student teachers seem to lean toward
"experimentalist" and "indirect" approaches to teaching.
Teachers high in dogmatism tend to be more custodial in their
pupil control ideology.

Dogmatism levels may be related to area of academic study.
Teachers who score high on dogmatism tend to have lower scores
on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory, a scale which
purportedly measured attitudes toward teaching children.
Results of research are equivocal regarding the relationship
between dogmatism and perceptual accuracy.

Exposure to field experiences may have the effect of increasing
students' closed-mindedness.

Especially designed courses may have the desired effect of
reducing dogmatism.

The effect of cross-cultural programs upon the open-/closed-
mindedness of students has been almost totally ignored. The

evidence that does exist is contradictory.

, 49

The foregoing statements are not offered as immutable truths,
they are meant only as a digest of the research evidence to date. They

reflect the weight of evidence concerning various questions rather than

consistently confirmatory conclusions.

Progressivism/Traditionalism--Conceptual Analysis

With the publication of The Child and the Curriculum, John
Dewey (1902) called attention to two fundamental points of view regarding
the educational process. Those viewpoints later labeled "progressivism"
and "traditionalism" have since echoed down the corridors of pedagogic
history often misrepresented, bastardized, and counterfeited depending
upon the purposes of the user and the context of the times and society
in which the ideas were pr0pounded. In an essay published more than
three decades later Dewey (1938) summarized the essential differences
between the two notions. The underlying ideas of traditionalism were:
(1) the subject-matter of education consisted of bodies of information
that have been worked out in the past and are transmitted by the school,
(2) moral training consisted of instilling conformity to standards and
rules of conduct developed in the past, and (3) schooling is conducted
utilizing a pattern of organization (time schedules, examinations,
promotion, and rules of order) at variance with other social institu-
tions.

Dewey (1938) indicates the interconnections among those three

characteristics in the following paragraph.

The main purpose or objective is to prepare the young for
future responsibilities and for success in life, by means of
acquisition of the organized bodies of information and prepared
forms of skill which comprehend the material of instruction.
Since the subject-matter as well as standards of proper conduct

50

are handed down from the past, the attitude of pupils must.

upon the whole, be one of docility, receptivity, and obedience.
p. 3

Reference will be made later to the three key ideas contained
in the foregoing quotation, namely; subject-matter, moral standards, and
discipline.

In contrast to traditionalism Dewey proposed a progressivism
which emphasized individual differences, pupil needs, learning through
experience, and informality of discipline. Dewey suggested the follow-
ing principles of progressive schooling and indicated how they were at

variance with traditional schooling.

To imposition from above is opposed expression and cultivation
of individuality; to external discipline is opposed free activity;
to learning from texts and teachers, learning through experience;
to acquisition of isolated skills and techniques by drill, is
opposed acquisition of them as means of attaining ends which
make direct vital appeal; to preparation for a more or less remote
future is opposed making the most of the Opportunities of present

life; to static aims and materials is opposed acquaintance with a
changing world. (p. 5)

Dewey cautioned against drawing sharp dichotomies which resulted
in "either-or" schisms. Rather he suggested that traditionalism and
progressivism were extremes between which many intermediate possibilities
existed.

Building on the key concepts of Dewey, Frederick Kerlinger
(1967) focused attention on the factor structure and content of atti-
tudes toward education. Specifically he explored the popularly held
assumption that progressivism and traditionalism were extremes of a
single unidimensional continuum. He challenged this inherent bipolarity
and proposed a dualism of educational attitudes with two relatively

independent dimensions corresponding to Dewey's "progressivism" and

"traditionalism."

51

Kerlinger defined an attitude as ". . . an enduring structure
of descriptive, evaluative and exhortative beliefs that predispose the
individual to behave selectively toward the referents of the attitude"
(p. 192). A referent is a thing or set of things (objects, ideas, or
behaviors) toward which an attitude may be directed. A criterial
referent of an attitude is defined as ". . . a construct that is the
focus of an attitude that is significant and relevant for the individual"
(p. 193). What is criterial for one individual may however not be
criterial for another.

Kerlinger and his colleagues suggested that the universe of
attitudinal referents in the sphere of education fall into two subsets,
"progressive" and "traditional."

Kerlinger states:

For the traditionalist, for example, discipline, subject matter,
moral standards, and certain other referents are criterial; his
educational attitudes cluster around them. Such referents as child
needs, individual differences, and social learning, criterial to
the progressive, are not usually criterial to the traditionalist.
(Kerlinger and Pedhazur, 1966, p. 11)

The degree of correspondence between the Kerlinger notions of
"progressivism" and "traditionalism" and the way in which Dewey defined
those terms is quite apparent. The criterial referents alluded to by
Kerlinger are essentially the key concepts in Dewey's definitions.

In a subsequent program of research Kerlinger and his associates
explored the dualistic aspect of attitudes toward education. The
schematic paradigm in Table 2-2 represents their theoretic model.

The results of that research will be discussed in detail in the

next section. It is suffice to state here that the general conclusion

reached substantiated the hypothesis that educational attitudes are

52

Table 2.2.--Paradigm of Kerlinger's Theory of Attitudes Toward Education
(Kerlinger, 1956, p. 296).

 

(A) Attitudes

l. Restrictive-Traditional 2. Permissive-Progressive

(Dependence-Heteronomy) (Independence-Autonomy)
(B) Areas

a. Teaching--subject matter- b. Interpersonal Relations
curriculum

k. Normative-Social m. Authority-Discipline
(conventionalism-non-
conventionalism)

dualistic rather than bipolar. That dualism was reflected in two
relatively independent dimensions which can legitimately be labeled
traditionalism and progressivism.

Traditional/progressive attitudes toward education in this
Study were operationally defined as scores attained on Kerlinger's
Education Scale VII, a questionnaire emanating from his research in this
area.

ProgressiveZTraditional Attitudes

end Open Education

It is the contention of the writer that progressive/traditional
attitudes toward education reflect basic philosophies of education which
may be manifested in many ways when implemented within the context of
the real world. Support for this claim is forthcoming from students of
Progressive education and from that little research which is available.

Writing in the British context Roger Dale (1979) has asserted

that:

53

. what progressive education is at any given moment is the
result of a complex of factors, depending as much on the climate
into which it is launched as on the aspirations of those claiming
the label for their own theories. (p. 206)

Similarly Bowers (1967) has asserted that:

If one must formulate a thesis that applies to the entire

history of progressive education, it would be that the inter-
preters and leading theoreticians of progressive education
mirrored the different stages in the development of liberal
social and political thought. (p. 453)

The present day variant of progressivism is commonly termed
open education. That it is a variation on the progressive theme is the
conclusion reached by several researchers who have explored similarities
and differences in the two ideas.

In a recent study O'Leary (1976) examined the works of Dewey and
compared the major tenets of his philosophy with characteristics of open
education as defined in the literature and as expressed by teachers and
administrators in open schools. He concluded that although there were
some critical differences, many of the premises which characterize
present day open education are identical to aspects of Dewey's philosophy.

In a study designed to explore parallels between Dewey's views
of progressive education and Goodlad's views of open education (those
authors were considered the leading pr0ponents of the two viewpoints).

Mulloy (1977) indicated that the following conclusions seemed justified.

1. There exists a positive correlation between Progressive Edu-
cation and Open Education in the following areas: The concept of
the learner, the curriculum of the school, and the role of the
teacher. 2. Progressive Education was found to be a forerunner
of Open Education and influenced the development of Open Education.
3. Progressive Education and Open Education were found to contrast
only in areas of historical development. Areas in which differ-
ences were found included scientifically advanced audio-visual
equipment, data processing and computer science, and new concepts
in school design. (p. 182-A)

54

Reschly and Sabers (1974) explored the same issue in a different
manner. They compared the results of Kerlinger's Attitudes Toward Edu-
cation Scale with scores on a 40-item scale measuring attitudes toward

open education. They reported a close correspondence between open and

progressive education.

Figure 2-1 is a graphic representation of their main finding.

Progressive

-.82

Open

 

 

Traditional

Figure 2-l.--Correlations among progressive, traditional, and open
education attitudes.

The foregoing conclusions of both historical and empirical
research suggest that progressive and open education share many common
elements; so much so that some writers refer to open education as neo-
progressivism (Rogers and Church, 1975).

Of particular importance to the present study is the historical
development of open education. Although its philosophical roots can be
traced to Dewey, Rousseau, Froebel and others, the open education move-
ment as a distinct variation of the progressive theme emerged first in
the primary schools of England. The practices which evolved in that

setting have variously been labelled, “the integrated day,"

_ 55

"child-centered education,“ "informal teaching" and the "Leicestershire
Plan." Those developments spurred on by a nationally commissioned
report (Plowden, 1966) attracted the attention of many North American
educators resulting in a virtual pilgrimage to Britain to observe class-
rooms first hand. Barth (1972) documents ". . . a substantial literature
of 'journals' of these visitors" (p. 9). He further states that although
British primary education and open education are not synonymous, evidence,
suggests that in the mid 1960s one-third of the primary schools in that
nation could be characterized as open. The evidence he cites is the
Plowden Report which suggests that an additional one-third of British
primary schools had been influenced to some extent.

In the present study an attempt was made to assess the impact
of a student teaching practice in British schools upon progressive/
traditional attitudes toward education. A description of those schools,
to be presented later, will focus on the extent to which they could be
characterized as being "open."

In conclusion, for purposes of this study, progressive attitudes
toward education as measured by Kerlinger's Education Scale VII are
reflective of a basic philosophical position which at present is mani-

fested to a considerable extent in the implementation of open education

classrooms.

Research Regarding,Progressive/Traditional
Attitudes Toward Education

The following review of research regarding progressive/
traditional attitudes toward education has been subdivided into four

sections: (1) research validating the theoretical basis, (2) research

56

relating progressive/traditional attitudes to teacher traits and be-
haviors, (3) research concerning the attitudes of teachers, and (4)

research concerning educational attitudes and teacher education.

Research_!alidating the Theoretical
Basis of Traditional/Progressive
Attitudes Toward Education

In two studies reported in 1958, Kerlinger utilized 0 methodology
to measure attitudes toward education. The studies were based on four
propositions:

A. Individuals having the same or similar occupational or pro-
fessional roles will hold similar attitudes toward a cognitive
object which is significantly related to the occupational or
professional role. Individuals having dissimilar roles will
hold dissimilar attitudes.

8. There exists a basic dichotomy in the educational values and
attitudes of people corresponding generally to "restrictive"
and "permissive,“ or "traditional" and “progressive" modes of
looking at education.

C. Individuals will differ in degree or strength of dichotomiza-
tion, this being a function of occupational role. The extent
of knowledge of the cognitive object (education) the importance
of the cognitive object to the subjects and their experience
with it.

D. The basic dichotomy will pervade all areas of education, but
individuals will tend to attach differential weights to differ-
ent areas, Specifically to the areas of (a) teaching-subject
matter-curriculum, (b) interpersonal relations, (c) normative
(roughly social issues connected with education), and (d)
authority-discipline. (Kerlinger, 1958A, pp. 81-92)

As explained earlier Kerlinger defined restrictive-traditional
attitudes as those which place emphasis on the importance of subject
matter, external discipline, and on preserving the status quo. By
contrast, permissive-progressive attitudes emphasize problem solving,
self-discipline, and education as an instrument of social change.

The two samples, one from the mid-western and the other from the

eastern United States, each consisted of three sub-groups; professors

57

of education, liberal arts professors and laymen. The results of the

two studies indicated that:

Propositions l, 2, and 3--on roles and attitudes; on the basic
dichotomy in educational attitudes; and on the degrees of dichoto-
mization varying with role, knowledge, and importance of the cogni-
tive object (education) to a person and with his experience with
the object—-seem to have been substantiated. Proposition 4--that
individuals would attach differential weights to different areas
of education (teaching--subject-matter--curriculum, authority-
discipline, etc.)--was not substantiated. In addition, the two

studies seemed to identify two independent factors behind edu-
cational attitudes, "Progressivism" and "Traditionalism." It was
also found that the professors of the two samples, eSpecially the
education professors, were mostly ”progressive" and that the laymen
were mostly “traditional." Further, the education professors were
very consistent; they clearly differentiated between the restrictive-
permissive dimensions of the studies, and they leaned rather strongly
toward permissiveness. The liberal-arts professors, too, tended to
differentiate these two dimensions in the permissive direction, if
not so strongly as the education professors. The laymen chosen for
the studies did not make this differentiation at all clearly; they

tended to be inconsistent and mixed up in their educational atti-
tudes. (Kerlinger, 19588, p. 91)

In subsequent studies using Likert—type scales and factor analy-

sis, Kerlinger and his associates eXpanded upon and refined those earlier

efforts. The results confirmed earlier indications of two relatively

uncorrelated factors that closely resembled Dewey's description of

educational progressivism and traditionalism. The two factors were

shown to be dualistic rather than bipolar. In other words, it is entirely

possible for one person to be traditional in certain areas and permissive
in others.

In a later study Sontag and Pedhazur (1972) tested the validity
of Kerlinger's interpretation of the duality of progressivism and tra-
ditionalism and were led to conclude that "The results as far as Ker-

linger's scales are concerned, corroborate his earlier findings“
in. 198).

5.8

The last study to be discussed here was conducted in Australia

by McAtee and Punch (1977). Their research confirmed that the edu-

cational attitudes of Australian teachers conformed to the two dimen-

sional structure proposed by Kerlinger. In addition the ES VII was

shown to be an effective measure having desirable psychometric properties

and with a "clean“ and stable dimensional structure.

There is much evidence both a priori and empirical to support

the reality of traditional and progressive attitudes toward education.
Kerlinger (19588) states:

They are also probably real in the practical sense that they
influence our behavior as educators and as laymen.

More accurately,
they are action dispositions of philosophies of education. The
educational decisions we make, what we teach, what we learn, and

how we interact with other persons on educational matters are, of

course, influenced by our educational attitudes and values.
(pp. 90-91)

This particular point however needs corroboration. The elusive

connection between attitudes and behavior is one that is difficult to

prove. The following section deals with that particular issue.

Research Regarding Progressive/
Traditional Attitudes and Teacher
Traits and Behaviors

One of the assumptions underlying this study is that beliefs,

attitudes, and values influence behavior; that they represent predisposi-

tions to respond in certain ways. This, of course, does not assume a

one-to-one correspondence or a perfect correlation between attitudes

and behaviors. The exigencies of the everyday world influence our

actions and serve to dilute the relationships between attitudes and

behavior, hence the difficulty in tracing behaviors to attitudinal

stimuli. There is, however, some evidence to substantiate a relationship

59

between progressive/traditional attitudes toward education on the one
hand and teaching behavior on the other.

For example, Kerlinger and Pedhazer (1967) found a significant
relationship between traditional/progressive attitudes toward education
and perceptions of desirable teacher characteristics.

Similarly, Sontag (1967) examined the relationships between
attitudes and perceptions of teacher behavior. A significant correlation
was established between "progressivism" and “concern for pupils" for
elementary school teachers but not for their high school counterparts.
In the case of the high school teachers, "traditionalism" correlated
with "structure and subject matter."

The evidence from these two studies is, however, weak in that
it only establishes a connection between attitudes and "perceptions" of
behavior. The step from general attitudes to perceptions of teacher
traits and behaviors may be considered only as a small increment in
establishing an attitude-~behavior connection.

The strongest evidence of a connection between teacher attitudes
and teaching styles is forthcoming from a recent study conducted by
Bennett (1976) in Britain. In that landmark study, Bennett attempted
to examine the relationship between teaching styles and pupil progress.
One aspect of his work was the analysis and description of teaching
styles ranging from the extremely informal (which he equates with pro-
gressive) to very formal (traditional). He identified a typology of
twelve styles which for many of his analyses he collapsed into three
categories; informal, mixed, and formal. Type one was described in

this manner.

60

These teachers favour integration of subject matter, and,
unlike most other groups, allow pupil choice of work, whether
undertaken individually or in groups. Most allow pupil choice
of seating. Less than half curb movement and talk-assessment
in all its forms-~tests, grading, and homework-~appears to be
discouraged. Intrinsic motivation is favoured. (p. 45)

Type twelve at the other extreme was described thus:

This is an extreme group in a number of respects. None
favour an integrated approach. Subjects are taught separately
by class teaching and individual work. None allow pupil choice
of seating and every teacher curbs movement and talk. These
teachers are above average on all assessment procedures and
extrinsic motivation predominates. (p. 47)

Bennett states that the types have been subjectively ordered in
distance from the most informal (type 1). However, he cautions against
placing the twelve types along a formal-informal continum. He states
the extreme types could be adequately described in these terms but the
remaining types contain both informal and formal elements. It is inter-
esting to note that this is congruent with Kerlinger's finding that it
is possible for an individual to be progressive in one area (for example
subject matter) and traditional in another (for example, discipline).

A second aspect of Bennett's study was an attempt to assess the
congruence of the educational aims, opinions about educational issues,
and opinions about teaching methods of the teachers in each of the
twelve teaching types with their actual teaching behaviors.

The author concluded:

Asking teachers to pass judgements on aspects of both formal
and informal methods has proved to be a fruitful mode of inquiry.
Both informal and formal teachers were effective counsels for the
defense of their own methods and probing prosecuting counsels
against each other's methods. Mixed teachers were more akin to
interested fairly unconvinced observers.

These analyses . . . confirm that opinions about teaching

methods are firmly held and that in general, opinions relate
strongly to classroom practice. (p. 78)

61

Similar relationships existed with regard to attitudes toward
educational aims and educational issues as well as with regard to
opinions about teaching methods.

In commenting on this finding, Hunt (1976-77) stated:

. . it would seem that such clear-cut relations between beliefs
of teachers and their actual classroom teaching has considerable
implication for the introduction of educational innovation.

These results suggest that teacher beliefs must receive much
more attention than previousl acknowledged if change in teaching
behavior is expected. (p. 39

This seems to be the strongest evidence available that attitudes
toward education are reflected in teaching styles and teaching behavior.
Research Concerningpthe Educational
Attitudes of Teachers

In this section a summary of research findings regarding the
educational attitudes of teachers will be presented. Included in this
summary is that information which is available regarding cross-cultural
comparisons.

In a recent study conducted in Westchester County, New York,
Orsini-Romano (1978) compared the attitudes of pre—service, in-service,
and re-entry teachers. Using the Kerlinger Education Scale VII, she
determined that more teachers held mixed attitudes toward education
than held either progressive or traditional beliefs and of the three
groups pre-service teachers had the highest percentage of individuals
with mixed belief systems.

In North Carolina, Berghoff (1979) found that there were no
significant differences in attitudes toward education (as measured by

the Es-VII) between working teachers and pre-service teachers in the

fields of elementary education and mental retardation.

. 62

In a study conducted in Western Australia, McAtee and Punch
(1977) reported that traditionalism/progressivism did not relate to sex
or size of school. However, more highly qualified teachers were more
progressive than less qualified teachers, and teachers of English and
music were more progressive than those in foreign languages, typing and
commerce. Teachers of social studies, mathematics, science, manual arts,
and home economics were somewhere between the two extremes.

In an earlier study conducted in Australia, Wheeler (1960)
utilized Kerlinger's Education Scale I and II (forerunners of the ES
VII) to assess the educational attitudes of various groups involved in
Australian education. On the basis of analysis of variance, those
groups were collapsed into three categories. Category one included
lecturers at teachers colleges, school supervisors and specialist;
category two encompassed secondary and primary head teachers as well as
primary teachers and the third category consisted of secondary teachers.

These three categories are arranged in descending order of pro-
gressivism. This led the author to generalize that “. . . the occupa-
tional role within this educational system was the major determinant of
educational attitude as shown by scores on these tests" (p. 161).

Although one may question the inferred causality in the fore-
going quotation, it is nevertheless interesting to note that lecturers
were more progressive than school principals and primary and elementary
(in North American terminology) teachers and in turn they were more
progressive than were teachers at the secondary level. The finding
regarding the relationships between teaching level (elementary and

secondary) and progressivism confirms the conclusion reached by Sontag

(1968).

. 63

That particular conclusion received additional support from Brown
(1973) who conducted a study at The University of New Mexico. He found
that elementary teachers were significantly less traditional than were
secondary teachers.

With regard to subject area, Brown found that science teachers
were more traditional than were English teachers. This he postulated
was a result of the fact that English teachers have greater contact
with the study of philosophy than do science teachers. Whatever the
explanation, his finding in this area is in close agreement with that
reported by McAtee and Punch in Australia.

This review of research has failed to turn up any study which
has utilized the Kerlinger scales to assess attitudes toward education
in cross-cultural settings. Nevertheless the results of several studies
using other measures seem to be pertinent if only as indications of what
one might expect.

For example, Dickson (1966) and his associates used the Teacher
Characteristics Index developed by Ryan and the Minnesota Teacher Atti-
tudes Inventory (MTAI) to compare British college of education students
with teacher education students in the United States. Although the MTAI
scores showed no significant cross-cultural differences, scores attained
on the Ryan Teacher Characteristics Index revealed that prospective
teachers preparing to teach at the primary level in Britain were more
child centered than were students in the United States. Furthermore the
prospective primary teachers in England were more child centered than
were those preparing to work in secondary schools in that country but
both British primary and secondary student teachers scored above their

American counterparts in child-centeredness.

64

McLeish (1969) used a variety of questionnaires to assess the
attitudes of a large sample of British, Commonwealth, and American
student teachers, teachers college lecturers, and graduate students.
Education lecturers were the most progressive and Commonwealth teachers
the least so. In addition, American teachers were found to be less
child-centered when compared with English and Antipodean teachers.
McLeish states that this confirms earlier research indicating that
". . . American teachers are much more 'method-conscious' and subject-
oriented in their educational attitudes than are English teachers"

(p. 10).

One aspect of the present study was the assessment of attitudinal
changes of student teachers from the University of Newfoundland after
having completed student teaching in schools in Harlow, England. No
information is available concerning differences of attitudes of teachers
in training in Newfoundland and teachers in Britain. However, one
subject of the attitudinal referents under discussion, namely discipline
and control, has been studied.

Using the Pupil Control Ideology Form, Walker (1973) assessed
the extent of custodial/humanistic orientations of student teachers at
Memorial University of Newfoundland. Similarly, Regular (1973) used the
same instrument in a study of secondary school teachers in Harlow,
England. The Pupil Control Ideology Form is a 20-item Likert-type
instrument which purports to measure the extent to which subjects are
humanistic or custodial in their pupil control ideology.

Custodial and humanistic schools are characterized by the

authors of the scale in the following manner.

65

The rigidly traditional school serves as a model for the custodial
orientation. This kind of organization provides a highly controlled
setting concerned primarily with the maintenance of order. Students
are stereotyped in terms of their appearance, behavior, and parents'
social status. They are perceived as irresponsible and undisciplined
persons who must be controlled through punitive sanctions. Teachers
do not attempt to understand student behavior, but, instead, view it
in moralistic terms. Misbehavior is taken as a personal affront.
Relationships with students are maintained on as impersonal a basis
as possible. Pessimism and watchful mistrust imbue the custodial
viewpoint. Teachers holding a custodial orientation conceive of
the school as an autocratic organization with rigidly maintained
distinctions between the status of teachers and that of pupils:

Both power and corrmunication flow downward, and students are expected
to accept the decisions of teachers without question. Teachers and
students alike feel responsible for their actions only to the extent
that orders are carried out to the letter.

The model of the humanistic orientation is the school conceived
of as an educational community in which members learn through inter-
action and experience. Students' learning and behavior is viewed
in psychological and sociological terms rather than moralistic terms.
Learning is looked upon as an engagement in worthwhile activity
rather than the passive absorption of facts. The withdrawn student
is seen as a problem equal to that of the overactive, troublesome
one. The humanistic teacher is optimistic that, through close per-
sonal relationships with pupils and the positive aspects of friend-
ship and respect, students will be self-disciplining rather than
disciplined. A humanistic orientation leads teachers to desire a
democratic classroom climate with its attendant flexibility in status
and rules, open channels of two-way communication, and increased
student self-determination. Teachers and pupils alike are willing
to act upon their own volition and to accept responsibility for their
actions. (Willower, Eidell, and Hoy, 1967, pp. 5-6).

Although no correlations between Kerlinger's ES-VII and The
Pupil Control Ideology Form are available, it seems reasonable to con-
clude from the descriptions that the PUpil Control Ideology Form may
measure one aSpect of the domain of attitudes tapped by the Kerlinger
scale.

The Walker and Regular studies found that the mean Pupil Control
Ideology scores of student teachers in teacher education programs at
Memorial University were higher (more humanistic) than were secondary

school teachers in Harlow, England.

66

This finding is particularly difficult to interpret. First, all
three levels of students in the Newfoundland sample (primary, elementary,
and secondary) were compared to the British secondary school teachers
only (the British sample did not include primary or elementary teachers).
As already indicated research to date suggests a differentation by
teaching levels.

A A second confounding variable is the effect of utilizing a scale
developed within The North American context in another setting. For
example, it has been shown that the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory
(a similar instrument) which has been developed in the United States,
is unsatisfactory within the British context. It has been found that
some rewording of items may be necessary (Lomax, 1973). The same might
be true of the Pupil Control Ideology Form. Nevertheless, even with the
problems of interpretation, these findings may be indicative of actual
differences between the two groups with regard to the particular set of
attitudes assessed.

Research Regarging Progressivellraditional
Attitudes and Teacher Education

In Chapter I reference was made to the many studies which have
suggested that during their educational studies, prospective teachers
experience upturns in attitudes toward teaching children. They become
more liberal, humanistic, and progressive. Many of these studies also
report a downturn of attitudes during the student teaching phase of
teacher preparation. The instruments used in those studies varied from
The Pupil Control Ideology Form, The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inven-
tory, Kerlinger's Education Scales, and other p0pular or especially’

designed instruments.

67

The review in this section will focus on two studies which used
the Education Scale VII (the one used in this study) to measure attitudes
toward education. Both studies report consistent findings.

Wiley (1972) found that at Missouri State College:

Data indicated that the education faculty tended strongly

toward progressivism, the cooperating teachers toward conservatism,
and student teachers were about midway between the two. As a
result of on-campus "block" courses, student teachers moved
strongly toward progressivism, but regressed toward conservatism
during student teaching. (p. 1)

At Kansas State College of Pittsburg, Harrison's (1967) findings
substantiated Wiley's conclusions. Harrison found that the progressive
attitudes of students shifted toward the more traditional scores of
c00perating teachers during the student teaching experience. Primary
level students held significantly more progressive attitudes than did
either intermediate or secondary level student teachers. At the
secondary level those in the social sciences and in art were more
progressive than students in the other disciplines.

These studies confirm the results of many studies conducted
over the past two decades using the MTAI as a measure of attitudes.
This is probably to be expected since studies have shown a strong corre-
lation between scores on the MTAI and the ES VII (Padgett, 1969).

No studies utilizing the ES VII to assess attitude changes as
a result of cross-cultural eXperiences have surfaced in the writer's
review of research.

Summary of Review of Progressivism/
Traditionalism Research

Even a cursory examination of the literature regarding pro-

gressivism and traditionalism leads one to the inevitable conclusion

68

that those terms are seldom used in a value-free manner. In practically

all of the studies regarding attitudional changes experienced by student

teachers the move toward progressivism is seen as a "good" and tra-

ditionalism as somewhat less desirable. The pejorative manner in which

the terms have been used has tended to cloud interpretations with

researcher bias and corrmitment.

Nevertheless the foregoing review suggests the following tenta-

tive conclusions.

1.

Progressive/traditional attitudes to education as measured by
the Kerlinger Education Scale VII CIOSEIY resemble DEWEY'S
definition of those terms.

Attitudes toward education are essentially dualistic rather
than bipolar hence an individual may be progressive in one
area and traditional in another.

There is some evidence to suggest that attitudes of teachers
are reflected in their teaching styles and behaviors.

Research regarding the relationship between various demographic
and programmatic factors and progressivism/traditionalism is
inconclusive. However it seems that elementary and primary
teachers as a group tend to be more progressive than secondary
teachers.

During on-campus studies prospective teachers tend to move
toward a greater degree of progressivism and during teaching
practice move toward traditionalism.

The study of changes of educational attitudes as a result of
cross-cultural student teaching would seem to be a completely

unresearched area.

69
Receptivity to Educational Innovation--
Conceptual Analysis

The vast literature concerning innovation and change is fraught
with conceptual and semantic confusion. There are few commonly accepted
definitions which can serve as stable guideposts to exploration of that
enormous body of writing. Unfortunately those guideposts which do exist
are all too often rooted in the shifting sands of personal preference,
research expediency, and philosophic bias. There does not even seem to
be a consensus regarding how the term 'innovation' is to be defined
and boundaries of terms such as 'receptivity', 'innovativeness', and
'change—orientation' are even more nebulously specified. Since one of
the variables under study has been labelled ”Receptivity to Educational
Innovation" it is requisite at this point, particularly in light of the
absence of a well-established terminology, to denote the territory
encompassed by the concepts involved and to analyze their most important
connotations.

In The Second Handbook of Research on Teachipg, Chin and Downey

 

(1973) attempted to discriminate among the various ways in which the term
'innovation' is used. Their analysis is presented in the following
paragraph.

The first and common approach to defining innovation is
objective. The objective innovation is defined as "new" or
something changed in a significant and substantial respect.

A second approach is quantitative-innovations which are ideas

and practices or materials not yet adopted by a specified per-
centage, e.g., 10 percent or less. A third approach is to label

a new total package as an innovation. For example, in education,
a different technology of teaching, as computer aided instruction,
team teaching, or modular scheduling is an innovation. Here the
idea or practice is labeled an innovation by the innovator. A
fourth approach is in terms of defining an innovation by the
critical factor of the effects on behavior. A fifth approach
defines innovation as perceived as new . . . it does not matter

70

if the idea is objectively new; as lon as the idea seems new
and different to the individual . . . (pp. 522-523)

Some of the distinctions drawn by Chin and Downey are subtle
but nevertheless real. In much of the research regarding innovation
the precise manner in which that variable is being used is not explicitly
stated.

The foregoing comment applies equally well to research regarding
'receptivity.‘ That term is often imprecisely defined. As Kazlow
(1977) has pointed out it is sometimes equated with resistance, although
some authors use resistance to refer to overt acts. She discusses two
explanations of receptivity in some detail. One is a psychologically
based perceptive and posits that receptivity is symptomatic of or the
result of such personality characteristics as motives, values, attitudes,
and beliefs.

The second explanation coming from a sociological perspective
suggests that receptivity is a function of perceived role demands and
expectations. From this viewpoint the degree of receptivity depends
on whether the innovation (receptivity within this framework is seen
as being innovation-specific) is seen as enhancing one's prestige,
money, influence, or organizational status.

Regardless of the reasons or motives (whether they be psycho-
logical or rooted in a social context) Kazlow defines receptivity as
". . . how people are oriented internally toward proposed innovations
and not how they behaye in relation to those innovations" (p. 87).

The "internal orientation" aspect of Kazlow's definition is
akin to the "willingness to change" component of many definitions of

"innovativeness." However there is an inherent ambiguity in the use

71

of "innovativeness" stemming from the double meaning associated with

the use of the term in everyday discourse. On one hand innovativeness
can be viewed as an internal orientation or favorable attitude toward
change regardless of whether one has in fact accepted or adopted innova-
tive practices or behavior. On the other hand, innovativeness when
associated with behavior can only be assessed by examining the number of
innovations adopted, or the rate at which they are adopted, or by using
some such similar yardstick of adoption behavior. It is not surprising
therefore that this duality of interpretation is reflected in the litera-
ture. Only by examining the instruments used to measure innovativeness
can one have any idea or to what actually is being measured. As
Giacquinta (1975) points outs, measures of behavior (for example
adoption of innovations) are taken as indicative of attitudes or states
of mind and vice versa, attitudinal reports are posited as indicators
of actual behavior. He concludes that “. . . research investigators
have often obscured the differences between members feeling and thought
and actions, and some have assumed their one-to-one correspondence in
reality without adequate justification" (p. 1975).

Before deciding on a definition of receptivity it is helpful to
review what is known about the adoption process. Most work in this
area has focused on what is commonly referred to as the stage concept.
The assunption is that an individual goes through a series of stages
before actually adapting an innovation.

For example in his early work, Rogers (1962) used a five stage

model.

72

l. The awareness stage--at this stage an individual is exposed
to the innovation but lacks complete information about it.
2. The interest stage indicates the period when the individual

Becomes interested in the new idea and seeks further informa-
tion.

3. The evaluation stage is the stage at which the individual

mentally applies the new idea to his situation and decides
whether or not to try it out.

4. The trial stage is as the name suggests a period of time when
the innovation is tried on a small scale.

5. The adoption stage is the point at which the individual decides
to continue full use of the idea or innovation. (pp. 81-86)

Miles (1964) has suggested that the ad0ption of an innovation

procedes in four stages:

1. design--the innovation is invented, discovered, made up out

of whole cloth, produced by research and development operations,
etc.;

2. awareness-interest--the potential consumers of the innovation,
that is, members of the target system, come to be aware of
existence of the designed innovation, become interested in it,
and seek information about its characteristics;

3. evaluation--the consumers perform a kind of mental trial of
the innovation, and form pro/con opinions about its efficacy
in accomplishing system goals, its feasibility, and its cost;

4. trials--the target system engages in a usually small scale
trial of the innovation, in order to assess its consequences.
(pp. 19-20)

Many variations of these two basic adoption schedules have been
proposed. However, comnon to all of them is the notion that after one
has garnered basic information (or misinformation) attitudes (either
positive or negative) toward the innovation are formed or changed.

Rogers, for example, is quite explicit about this point in a book pub-

lished in 1971. In that presentation he expressed reservations about

the chronological sequence implied in the stage concept and suggested

a four “function“ process involving (1) knowledge, (2) persuasion,

(3) decision, and (4) confirmation. Persuasion was specifically defined
as the formation of favorable or unfavorable attitudes toward the

innovation (Rogers, 1971, p. 103).

73

Earlier in this report attitude was defined as an enduring
structure of evaluative beliefs which predispose an individual to

respond to selective ways to an attitude referent.

With attitudes defined as predispositions to behavior, it seems
reasonable to argue that the formation of positive attitudes is an

important requisite in whether an individual eventually decides to

adopt an innovation.

It follows that those who have basic information about and have

positive attitudes toward an innovation are receptive to that particular

innovation. This, of course, does not assume that adoption automatically

follows. Such a simplistic connection would ignore the many contextual

variables which exert influence upon, and determine the behavior of

individuals. Likewise adoption decisions may be rooted in reasons other

than sets of favorable attitudes. However, favorable attitudes would

seem to be requisite to an unencumbered adoption decision.

Receptivity then is a predisposition to adopt which in turn
may be defined as the holding of positive attitudes toward an innovation.
In terms of the formalistic definitions of attitude presented earlier,

the particular innovation is the attitude referent.

An extension of this reasoning would suggest that one method

of measuring the extent to which an individual might generally be
receptive to innovations in a particular field such as education, would

be to solicit that person‘s attitudes toward a sampling of Specific

innovations. Thus receptivity can be seen as an embracing concept

composed of units of behavior (reactions to specific innovations) which
are indicators of the more general attribute (receptivity). Support
for the validity of such a contention is forthcoming from a study by

74

Haven (1973). She found that teachers who were in favor of accepting a

particular educational innovation tended to be in favor of accepting
other innovations.

Such an approach differs from assessing change orientation in

that it elicits attitudes toward a set of representative innovations
within a specified area of human endeavor whereas change orientation

refers to a more global conception of attitudes toward change generally

(in the many fields of human activity) rather than toward specific

innovations in one field. It will be recalled that in the conceptual

analysis of the term 'dogmatism' a somewhat parallel distinction was

made between 'dogmatism' and 'rigidity.‘ It is probably now clearer

that although a relationship may exist between dogmatism and change
orientation, it does not hold that a close correspondence would exist

between dogmatism and receptivity to educational innovation. In that

area a person may be quite rigid while being generally quite open-minded
otherwise.

In addition to the foregoing, receptivity to educational innova-

tion as defined here is situational and time-specific whereas change-
orientation is viewed as applicable across times and situations.

The foregoing distinction is more easily understood when viewed

in light of the definition of 'innovation' adopted for this study. The

basis of that definition emanates from the work of Presser (1969).
suggests the following:

He

1

An innovation is something new and novel in human knowledge
and experience. It has a point of origin in place and time. At
its point of origin it must be an innovation, but is more commonly
called an invention. . . . In time, as knowledge and use of the
innovation diffuse to other people in the surrounding area, the
idea ceases to be an innovation in that area. It becomes a

practice, then a common practice. While it is a common practice

75

An idea is an

in one area it may be an innovation in another.
(pp. 510-511)

innovation at different places at different times.

Table 2-3 schematically presented Presser's ideas.

Table 2-3.--Relationsh1p Between Time and Place and an Innovation, a
Practice, or a Common Practice for One Idea (Presser, 1969,

 

 

 

 

 

p. 511).
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
Title Innovation Practice Common
Practice
Place 1 Behavior Deductive Thinking Adoption Adoption
Experimentation
and Testing
Alternatives
Title -- Innovation Practice Common
Practice
Place 2 Behavior No Local Adoption Adoption
Knowledge Testing
Title -- -- Innovation Practice
Place 3
Behavior No No Local Adoption
Knowledge Testing Testing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This suggests that the term innovation can only be precisely
defined if both time and place are Specified.

With this in mind an educational innovation is herein defined
as an idea, practice or thing which represents a departure from tra—
ditional or normal educational practice in a given area at a specific
point in time.

The foregoing suggests the principles upon which the construction
of the receptivity scale for this study has been based. Detailed dis-

cussion of the construction of that scale will be presented in

Chapter III.

76

Research Regarding Receptivity to
Educationalllnnovation

While the research literature concerning innovation is extensive,
very little of that work has focused on receptivity. The present review
has failed to unearth any investigations of receptivity of student
teachers and only a few studies dealing with receptivity among practicing
educators.

In fact, in a recent paper McGeown (1979) concluded that:

Research has stopped short of a searching examination of the

teachers perspective both in terms of his role in the total process
of innovation and in relation to those aSpects of "the phenomeno-
logical world of the teacher" which may influence the implementa-
tion of changes. (p. 1)

While many researchers have focused on innovativeness (usually
operationally defined in terms of the number of adopted innovations),
few have examined attitudes toward or receptivity to innovation.

Although little evidence central to the thrust of this study
has been found, some peripheral work is instructive. That work has
been grouped under two headings: (l) the role of the teacher in edu-
cational innovation, and (2) personality correlates of receptivity to
innovation.

The Role of the Teacher in
Educational Innovation

It is one of the assumptions of this work that the study of
teacher (or student teacher) attitudes toward innovation is a potenti-
ally worthwhile approach to studying educational change. Not all
writers, however, have accepted this assumption. For example, Wayland
(1964) has characterized teachers as powerless functionaries working

within bureaucratic structures which circumscribe their role and

dictate their actions.

77

Given such a conceptualization, innovation is seen as being
instituted in a top-down manner with the teacher essentially obeying
directives.

The writer rejects this deterministic view of the teacher for
two reasons. First, although it may account for one aspect of reality
within structural organizations such as public schools, it is too
myopic to provide a comprehensive picture. Simply put, the attitudes,
beliefs and values of teachers cannot be ignored in any encompassing
portrayal of what happens within schools. To overlook that fact is to
overlook one obvious feature of the decision-making process in those
organizations. Thus, this view is rejected on logical grounds.

The second reason for rejecting the notion that teachers are
powerless functionaries rests upon empirical grounds. There is much
evidence suggesting that attitudes of teachers are vital to successful
innovation even in tightly organized hierarchical systems.

For example, Gross (1971) and his associates examined an un-
successful attempt to change teacher roles in an inner-city elementary
school from a traditional orientation to a more open, progressive one
labelled "the catalytic role model.” They attributed lack of success
to the fact that little attention had been paid to the problems of
resocialization of teachers. The need to attend to such resocialization
was evident not only among those who might have been resistant to the
innovation but also among those who were sympathetic to the change but
needed help in its implementation.

Similarly, Michelson and Armstrong (1973) stress the need for
congruency between the attitudes of those who originate innovative

Projects and those who are expected to implement the innovation. If

78

there is lack of congruence the authors conclude that attempts at
institutionalizing the innovations are doomed to failure. They found
that team teaching failed to take hold in British Columbia because the
locus of support was not based with classroom teachers but rather with
others particularly principals and superintendents.

These findings regarding the relationship between attitude
toward innovation and adeption behavior are supported by the results
of Stahl's (1972) study of teachers in Florida. He found that teachers
who held positive attitudes toward behavioral objectives were more
prone to adopt that particular innovation.

A study of open schools conducted by Bettas (1974) has sub-
stantiated the foregoing conclusions. In that research it was found
that the extent of successful implementation of new instructional
practices was influenced by the attitudes of the teachers involved.

The implication drawn was that there is a greater chance for innovative
behavior if the proposed innovation is consistent with teacher attitudes.

After reviewing innovation studies which focused on the role

of the user, Fullan (1972) asserted that:

The modal process of change has been characterized by a
pattern whereby innovations are developed external to schools
and then transmitted to them on a relatively universalistic
basis. . . . The values and goals of users as articulated by
them have no direct influence in the process. The results
are that downward innovations do not take hold . . . (p. 15)

He concluded that ". . . educational change requires at least
three ingredients: (1) Organizational structures and attitudes among
authorities that create the opportunity and expectation to innovate;
(2) Attitudinal receptivity to change on the part of users; (3) Skills

and competencies of users to perform the new roles" (p. 12).

79

Taken together, the results of the studies reviewed in this
section support Fullan's contention. Although teachers may not often
lead change, they can exert considerable influence on the change process
by either resistance toward or acceptance of new ideas and practices.

Research Regarding Personality Correlates
of Receptivity to Innovation

As iterated earlier, few studies have focused on the personality
correlates of receptivity; however numerous studies have examined the
relationship of background variables to innovativeness (defined on the
basis of earliness or lateness of adoption of an innovation). Extra-
polations from those findings provide some insights regarding the types

of individuals who tend to adopt changes earlier than others.

The framework for many studies of innovators has been provided by

Rogers and Shoemaker (1971). Their research regarding rates of adoption

has resulted in the following topology.

\

Early Early Late
Adopters M33 OY‘l' ty Majority
l3. 5% 34% 34%

 
   
 

Innovators Laggards
16%

2.5%

  
  

 

 

 

 

Figure 2-2.--Adopter categorization on the basis of innovativeness.

In a review of numerous studies utilizing the foregoing model,
Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) ". . . gleaned over 3,000 findings relating

various independent variables to innovativeness" (p. 185). The

80

following represent the generalizations which are germane to the field
of education and to this particular study.

Early adopters, when compared to late adopters, tend to (1)
be more highly educated, (2) have greater empathy, (3) be less dognatic,
(4) have a greater ability to deal with abstractions, (5) have a more
favorable attitude toward change, (6) have a more favorable attitude
toward risk, (7) have a higher level of achievement motivation, (8)
have more social participation, (9) be more cosmopolite, (10) have more
change agent contact, (11) have greater exposure to interpersonal con-
tact, and (12) seek information about and have greater knowledge of
innovations (pp. 185-191).

It is to be noted that the foregoing are generalizations based
on a large number of findings. It should not be construed that no
evidence exists to contradict any of the above; rather, the weight of
evidence seem to substantiate these conclusions.

One of the relationships (that existing between dogmatism and
receptivity) will be explored later in this chapter. Of the other
conclusions reached by Rogers and Shoemaker, those dealing with cosmo-
politanism, risk, exposure to interpersonal contacts, contact with
change agent sources, and seeking information regarding innovations are
particularly relevant to this study. One of the populations under
study consists of individuals who apply to participate in a student
teaching program in a foreign country in a school system quite differ-
ent in many respects from the one with which they are familiar. It
seems reasonable to hypothesize that such individuals would be more
venturesome, more risk-oriented, more cosmopolite in outlook, more

amenable to interpersonal contacts and more receptive to new and

81

different practices than would be those who opt to remain in a familiar
setting to complete their student teaching practicum. In a later publi-
cation, Rogers presented two additional pieces of evidence which support
the hypothesis presented here. The first of those pieces of evidence
relates to the extent of travel of innovators. It has been found that
innovators travel widely and participate in affairs beyond the boundaries
of their immediate social systems. Secondly, Rogers (1973) reports that
teachers who attend out-of-town educational meetings are more innovative.
This evidence, he suggests, highlights the desirability of sending
teachers to workshops and conferences where they may gain exposure to
new ideas.

To reiterate an earlier caution, it should be understood that
the findings of Rogers and Shoemaker are one step removed from the
particular relationship under study here. Their findings dealt with
personality variables and actual adoption behavior (innovativeness)
whereas the variable here is receptivity to or attitude toward innovation
which it is argued is a requisite to innovativeness. The Rogers and
Shoemaker conclusions are presented as indirect evidence (in the
absence of directly applicable evidence) of the relationship posited in
this study. No studies of the effect of teacher education programs,
student teaching practica, or cross-cultural study upon receptivity to

educational innovations have been found.
Research Regarding the Relationship Among_0pen-/Closed-
Mindedness, Attitudes Toward Education, and
Receptivity_to Educational Innovation

Although there are potentially three pair-wise relationships

to be explored in this study, the research literature is instructive

82

with regard to only two of those. Relationships between (1) receptivity
to educational innovation and dogmatism and (2) dogmatism and progressive/
traditional attitudes toward education will be examined. That meager
information which deals with the relationship of receptivity to pro-
gressivism will be presented at appropriate points in a separate section

dealing with research findings illuminating relationships among all

three variables.

Researgh Regarding the Relatignships Between Openej
Clbsed-Mindedness and Receptivity_to
Educational Innovation

Earlier in this chapter a distinction was drawn between open-
mindedness and change. Evidence was presented to suggest that gen-
erally closed-minded individuals are less able than open-minded indi-
viduals to either change old beliefs or learn new beliefs. However,
it was suggested that the exact nature of that relationship is not as
simple as the foregoing suggests. Ehilich and Lee (1969) for example,
have presented evidence supporting the hypothesis that at least five
variables intervene to complicate the relationships. Those variables
were (1) the authority source of the new beliefs (high-dogmatics may
readily adopt a change proposed by a significant authority figure);
(2) the syndrome relevance of the mode of communication (open-minded
individuals may react against ideas presented in a dogmatic fashion);
(3) the belief congruence (closed—minded persons tend to more favorably
evaluate belief-congruent ideas and materials); (4) the novelty of the
new belief (open-minded individuals have a greater capacity to deal
with novel ideas); and (5) the centrality of new belief (central beliefs

are more resistant to change than are peripherial beliefs).

83

In this study, receptivity to educational innovation has been
measured by requesting subjects to respond to a Likert-type scale
regarding a number of specific innovations. It is quite conceivable
that an open-minded individual may respond negatiVely toward a change or
a closed-minded individual positively because of any one or a combina-
tion of the foregoing five variables. To present an extreme example,

a highly dogmatic teacher may readily accept a new program (such as a
new social studies course) if it is presented in a dogmatic fashion,

by the school principal, and if the new program is congruent with his
or her particular views regarding the teaching of social studies and if
he/she dogmatically holds that on the basis of previous experience the
program to be replaced is inadequate.

Given this formulation of the dogmatism/change relationship,
it is not surprising to find that although research in the area tends
to be in the direction expected (high-dogmatics more resistant to
change) there are many contradictory findings. The studies will be
summarized in two groups; those which showed a relationship between
dogmatism and change and those which did not.

The bulk of the studies fall into the first group. Several
investigators have concluded that early adopters as a group have signi-
ficantly lower dogmatism scores (more Open-minded) than the group termed
by Rogers as laggards. Lin and others (1966), in an investigation of
the diffusion of an innovation in three Michigan high schools, Mechling
(1970) in a study of diffusion of innovations in science curriculum
among elementary school teachers, Apel (1966) in a study of change

orientation among adult educators, Russell and Warmbrod (1977) in a

84

study of vocational teachers and Childs (1965) in a study of Michigan
school districts have all reached that conclusion.

Similar findings have derived from studies in fields other than
education. For example, both Rogers (1957) and Jamias (1964) have
found that the adoption of farm practices is negatively related to
dogmatism. In other words, those who were highly innovative tended to
be low-dogmatic.

The foregoing are representative of studies which have focused
on the relationships between dogmatism and innovativeness as defined
either by number of innovations adopted or by the time at which indi-
viduals adopted a new idea. Several studies have explored the rela-
tionships between (a) dogmatism and change-orientation and (b) dogmatism
and attitudes toward innovation (as distinct from actual adOption
behavior). Research conducted by (l) Bridges and Reynolds (1968) among
262 elementary teachers in urban, suburban and rural schools of Illinois,
Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee, (2) O'Reilly and Fish (1976-77)
among junior high school teachers in a metropolitan school district,
and (3) Renuart (1973) in eleven secondary schools in Dade County,
Florida all resulted in the conclusion that teachers high in dogmatism
were less receptive to change and innovation.

Similar conclusions utilizing different populations have been
fbund. Ramer (1970) found a Significant relationship between super-
intendents' dogmatism and their receptivity to innovation. Those who
were least dogmatic were most receptive and vice versa. The receptivity
scale used by Ramer provided the basis for the scale used in this study.

In a study similar to the Ramer study, except that it was con-

ducted with a sample of curriculum directors, Hanssel (1970) found a

85

negative relationship between the Rokeach Dogmatism scale scores and
those on the Ramer Educational Innovation Attitude Scale. This relation-
ship, although in the direction expected, was nevertheless weak.

Finally, in a closely allied investigation, Kerelejza (1967)
reached the following three conclusions after assessing the relationship
between dogmatism and perceived barriers to curriculum change among a
random sample of elementary and secondary school teachers in thirteen

school systems in Connecticut.

1. Teachers who were closed-minded identified a significantly
greater number of total barriers to curriculum change than

did teachers who were open-minded.
2. Teachers who were closed-minded identified a significantly

greater number of external barriers to curriculum change
than did teachers who were open-minded.

3. Those who were closed-minded identified a significantly

greater number of internal barriers to curriculum change

than did teachers who were open-minded. (p. 356l-A)

External barriers were defined as emanating in the sthool plant,
other personnel, time constraints, and so forth, whereas internal
barriers were considered to be the attitudes, beliefs, and feelings of
the teachers themselves.

The Kerelejza study provides additional support for the proposi-
tion that dogmatism is negatively correlated with receptivity.

Several research efforts have produced contradictory findings.
Hall (1971) found that high-dogmatics were more accepting of changes
than were low-dogmatics. This result, the opposite of expectations,
was attributed by the author to the manner in which the instruments
were administered. Apparently there was no opportunity for discussion of
proposed changes and quick answers were required.

In a study by Richards (1978), no relationship was found to

exist between teacher change proneness and dogmatism. This lack of

86

relationship in a sample of teachers in innovative and traditional
schools in the United States and Canada was explained by the author
in terms of the insensitivity of the change proneness scale utilized.

Symington and Fensham (1976) studied the relationship of dog-
Their findings

matism to the adoption of innovative science curricula.
suggest that the expected relationship between open-mindedness and

acceptance was confbunded by beliefs about the roles of teachers in

classrooms and by the teachers' attitudes toward science.
Urick and Frymier (1964) reported no differences in dogmatism

between one group of teachers rated by their principals as being most
The authors suggest that design inadequacies

willing to accept change.
may have accounted for the lack of significant correlation.

No studies relating dogmatism and receptivity among student

teachers have been found.
In summary, the following conclusions can be drawn from the

studies reviewed.
Generally there tends to be a positive relationship between

1.
receptivity toward educational innovations and actual adoption

of innovations.
Generally, dogmatism can be expected to relate negatively to

In other words, high-dogmatics

receptivity to innovation.
will tend to be less receptive to innovations than will low-

dogmatics.
One can expect the relationships in (l) and (2) above to be

3.
tempered by the realities of the contexts in which subjects

find themselves. Expectations of high correlations may be

unrealistic.

87
Research Regarding the Relationship Between Open:/
Closed-Mindedness and Attitudes Toward Education

Whereas the theoretical formulation of dogmatism enables one to
predict a relationship between it and receptivity to change, the expected
relationship between dogmatism and progressive/traditional attitudes
toward education is less clear-cut.

To be recalled at this point is the basic notion around which
Rokeach formulated his ideas and researched the concept of dogmatism.

He posited that dogmatism related to the structure of beliefs (the way
they are held) rather than the content of those beliefs. That reasoning
suggests that degree of dogmatism would not be correlated with philosophi-
cal positions. One then can conceive an individual at the extreme right
of the political spectrum and yet being either open- or closed-minded.
The relationship between leftism and open-/closed-mindedness should

also be similar. In other words, the theoretical position would suggest
that dogmatism would be free of political, religious or ideological con-
tent. However in the research conducted by Rokeach and his associates,
a consistent positive correlation between conservatism and dogmatism
was found to exist. Although weak, this relationship was persistent
over many studies. This led Rokeach (1960) to conclude that ". . . the
chances are somewhat better than even that a closed-minded person will
be conservative rather than liberal . . ." (p. 122).

Kerlinger, whose work is the basis of the progressive/
traditional formulation used in this study, has argued that liberalism-
conservatism in the political spectrum is reflected in progressive/
traditional attitudes toward education. He states ”While the educational

schism corresponds rather well to the liberal-conservatiVe dimension,

88

its character seems to be somewhat different, and can perhaps best be
epitomized by the words progressive and traditional" (Kerlinger, 19588,
p. 111).

Given that there tends to be a weak positive correlation
between closed-mindedness and conservatism and given that conservatism
is reflected in traditional attitudes toward education, one can hypothe-
size that a weak positive correlation will exist between dogmatism and
traditional attitudes toward education.

It is therefore not surprising that much of the available
empirical evidence confirms that expectation. In a recent study of
teachers in Connecticut, Dickens (1976) found that among his sample of
268 teachers, traditional attitudes toward education were significantly
correlated with closed-mindedness as measured by the Rokeach Dogmatism
(Form E) Scale.

Similarly, Clarke (1969) found a significant negative correla-
tion between authoritarianism and progressive attitudes toward education.

In a study cited earlier, McGeown (1979) found that tradition-
alism, conservatism, and dogmatism were all negatively related to
venturesomeness, progressivism, and change proneness. That study which
was conducted in Ireland used a large sample (n=l,757) and seems to
have been well conceived and executed.

A parade of corroborating studies is probably redundant at this
point. However, additional evidence for the generalization that closed-
mindedness is positively correlated with traditionalism can be found in
the work of Cohen (1971), Kremer (1978), Book (1975), Sears (1967),
and Slipp (1976).

89

Of those studies, the one conducted by Kremer is particularly
instructive. In that study, which involved 125 Israeli female teachers
in training, the fbllowing relationships were found. Over a period of
one year of teacher training the students moved toward less tradition-
alism and more progressivism. When divided along the dogmatism dimen-
sion, open-minded students changed significantly on traditionalism and
progressivism whereas there were no significant changes among those
who were closed-minded. The implication to be drawn from that con-
clusion is that it may be simplistic to expect uniform attitudinal
changes for students of teacher education in various programs. The
personality structure of the individual student which results in differ-
ential outcomes should be taken into account in the design of teacher
education programs.

Before invoking closure on this section, it is necessary to
point out that not all studies have resulted in findings compatible
with the consensus of conclusions indicated above.

For example, Sch (1974), in a study of teacher trainees, found
that those who were highly-dogmatic held more progressive educational
attitudes when compared with those who were low-dogmatic.

Likewise, Bremer (1970) found that student teachers at the Uni-
versity of Northern Colorado changed toward increased agreement with
experimentalist classroom practices as a result of student teaching.
However, this was not related to beginning dogmatism levels of students.

These findings are to be expected if the underlying theoretical
Propositions are correct. Since the relationship would ideally only be

weak, it is quite conceivable that the five intervening variables

90

described by Ehrlich and Lee may well account for deviations from what

one might normally expect.

Research Regarding Interrelationships
Among All Three Variables

 

 

This section of the literature review presents the work of
those researchers who have examined the relationships among the three
variables; (1) open-lclosed-mindedness, (2) attitudes toward education,
and (3) receptivity to educational innovation (or closely allied con-
cepts).

Although the studies to be reviewed are not directly related,
they are presented because they shed some light on the present effort.
Inferences from these studies can only be indirect in that (1) none of
these studies has used a student teacher population, (2) the instrumen-
tation in some cases differs from that used in this study, (3) none of
the studies used a pre- post-test design, and (4) some of the variables
differ in one or more respects from those used in the present study.

Rogers (1977) assessed the relationship of "perceptions of
recommended changes in secondary education" to the dogmatism and edu-
cational attitudes of 351 secondary school teachers. He found signifi-
cant main effects for both dogmatism and attitudes toward education.
Those who held progressive attitudes had a higher mean perception of
change score than did those who were traditional. Both of these find-
ings are in accord with theoretical expectations. However, Rogers
found that closed-minded educators had a significantly higher mean
perception of change score than did open-minded educators. This is
the opposite of what one would normally expect; however, it is not

totally unexpected Since it has been demonstrated in the review of

91

dogmatism presented earlier in this chapter that reality probably con-
sists of dialetical relationships between man and his consciousness on
one hand and the social context and its constraints on the other. Given
such a construction of reality, one is not surprised to find that closed-
minded individuals may have higher mean perceptions of change scores.

To underline this point, Table 2-5 presents data from a study
conducted by Jamais and Troldahl (1976) in the field of agriculture.
They examined willingness to adopt new farming practices as a function
not only of personality (dogmatism) but also of the social system.

Social systems were described in terms of the value placed upon innova-
tion. Table 2-5 clearly shows that the mean adoption rate of the high

dogmatic group is much higher in social system which place a high value
on innovativeness.

Table 2-4.--Mean Ad0ption Rate by High and Low Dogmatic Groups Living

in Social Systems High and Low in "Value for Innovativeness"
(Jamais and Troldahl, 1976, pp. 145-146).

 

Social System In
Which Value for
Innovativeness Is

 

 

Low High
Low dogmatism group 7.3 6.2
High dogmatism group 4.9 6.8

Correlation between dogmatism and
adoption rate --40 -.O9

 

92

Within the context of the discussion of approaches discussed
in Chapter I, that study represents a compromise (or a complementary
mixing) of the phenomenological and the structural functionalist
approaches. In other words, the subjective understanding and conscious-
ness of the individual does not readily explain the phenomena described
by Troldahl and Powell. Only when we view the individual in terms of
his embeddedness in the social context do we avoid a simplistic
reification which is capable of explanation of only a portion of the
puzzle.

In a study conducted among 222 social studies teachers in
California, Anctil (1973) sought to determine the relationships among
dogmatism, educational philOSOphy and teachers' acceptance and/or
understanding of the new social studies. He concluded that level of
dogmatism and philosophical orientation were significantly related to
the extent the rationales and strategies of the new social studies were
accepted and/or understood.

If one makes the quantum leap (at least tentative) between
educational philosophy and attitudes toward education and between
acceptance of the new social studies and receptivity to educational
innovation, then some parallels with the present study become evident.
In fact the findings support the theoretical expectations described in
this chapter.

However, it should be noted that besides the obvious differ-
ences in variables under study the Anctil study differs from the present
one in three important respects. First, the sample consists only of
practicing teachers. Second, the study did not attempt to assess the

impact of training program variables upon receptivity toward the new

93

social studies and, finally, the dependent variable studied was
acceptance and/or understanding of the rationales and strategies in
one discipline, the social studies. The present study sought to assess
dispositions toward acceptance of a range of innovations in other
aspects of schooling as well as in the area of curriculum.

The last research effort to be examined here is that conducted
by McKee (1971) among industrial education teachers in Utah. The three
variables investigated in that study were dogmatism, educational
philosophy (which he Seems to have equated with attitudes toward edu-
cation since he used the Kerlinger Scale to measure that variable), and
willingness to participate in activities presenting improved instruc-
tional practices.

The following is an exerpt from the abstract of that study.

The general conclusion of the study is that teachers attitudes

particularly those associated with dogmatism and educational

philosophy do contribute significantly to the acceptance or
rejection of activities presenting improved instructional

practices. (p. 4470A)

Once again the conclusions are consistent with expectations.

Taken together, these studies may foreshadow the results to be

expected in this study.

The present work is much different in focus when compared with
the foregoing studies. Those efforts examined connections among vari-
ables in an attempt to ascertain personality correlates of innovative-
ness (or a similar variable), whereas the purpose of this study is to
examine the relationship of several teacher training programs upon
changes in those variables. Although there are differences in

purpose, the studies described here may be indicative of possible out-

come S .

94

A Theoretical Perspective--Cognitive:Qissonance
and Attitude Change During Student Teaching

Placing the theoretical framework after a discussion of the
variables to be measured is a departure from orthodoxy which has been
taken deliberately. In this case, it was deemed more appropriate to
approach the literature in this way since the manner in which the vari-
ables are defined in this study differs from the way they have been
utilized in some earlier work. It seemed best to delineate those
differences at the very beginning to avoid prolonged confusion regarding
the purpose of the study.

Since this study is not primarily concerned with testing or
validating theoretical formulations of attitude change the following
discussion is not an extensive one. The main tenets of one particular
theory of attitude change are presented as a framework for the expecta-
tions of attitude change during student teaching.

Cognitive Dissonance--A Theorypof
Attitude Change

Central to this study is the proposition that attitudes, defined
as predispositions to respond in differential ways to objects and ideas,
are capable of being changed as a result of exposure to new and differ-
ing ideas and practices. The cognitive dissonance theory proposed by
Festinger (1957) provides a theoretical basis for examining that parti-
cular proposition. According to Festinger, a person experiences a state
of tension when two Simultaneously held cognitions (values, attitudes,
opinions, or increments of knowledge) are inconsistent or contradictory.
That state of tension termed "cognitive dissonance" can be reduced by

changing one of the cognitions, usually the one which is least powerful

95

and salient. Dissonance theory then is based on the assumption that

individuals constantly strive to reduce dissonance among cognitions in

an attempt to re-establish harmony.

Festinger (1957) has suggested that there are a number of cate-

gories of dissonance-producing situations.

1.
2.

Dissonance almost always exists after a decision has been
made between two or more alternatives.

Dissonance almost always exists after an attempt has been
made, by offering rewards or threatening punishment, to
elicit overt behavior that is at variance with private
opinion.

Forced or accidental exposure to new information may create
cognitive elements that are dissonant with existing cognition.
(pp. 261-262)

(It should be noted that only those aspects of the Festinger

formulation which are applicable to this study are being quoted.)

Festinger has suggested ways in which dissonance can be reduced.

Post-decision dissonance may be reduced by increasing the
attractiveness of the chosen alternative, decreasing the
attractiveness of the unchosen alternatives or both.

If forced compliance has been elicited, the dissonance may
be reduced by changing private opinion to bring it into line
with the overt behavior. . . .

If forced compliance fails to be elicited, dissonsance may
be reduced by intensifying the original private opinion. . . .
The presence of dissonance leads to seeking new information
which will provide cognition consonant with existing cogni-
tive elements. . . .

When some of the cognitive elements involved in a dissonance
are cognitions about one's own behavior, the dissonance can
be reduced by changing the behavior, thus directly changing
the cognitive element.

Dissonance introduced by disagreement expressed by other
persons may be reduced by changing one's own opinion. . . .
(pp. 264-265)

In summary, the cognitive dissonance theory suggests that the

degree or extent of attitude change is a function of the intensity of

perceived dissonance and the duration of the state of dissonance.

Mahan and Lacefield (1977-78) have suggested that:

of

the
dur
(111
suf

qu

bu
me

01

96

Given that cognitive dissonance is present and is of "low"
or "moderate" intensity, dissonance reduction is very likely.
However, if the dissonance level is high, the theory predicts
that although dissonance reduction is still quite likely, the
possibility of a "boomerang" effect becomes greater; that is,
the dissonance may reinforce the preexisting attitude causing
little or no ative attitude change rather than the "predicted"
reduction. p. 5)

Cognitive Dissonance and Student Teaching

Within the framework of cognitive dissonance theory, the earlier
review of studies dealing with attitude change during student teaching
is more meaningful.

In that review, it has been demonstrated that college professors
of education as a group tend to be more progressive in their attitudes
than are most other populations. Hence, it is not surprising that
during on-campus work in education, prospective teachers move in the
direction of agreement with those attitudes. Given the superordinate-
subordinate relationships of the professor-student relationship, it is
quite likely that attitude shifts may be explained in Festinger's terms,
i.e., if forced compliance (this does not suggest only physical force
but may include subtle inducements) has been elicited, the dissonance
may be reduced by changing attitudes to bring them into line with such
overt behavior as the writing of an essay, the holding of a stance in
a class discussion, and so forth.

During the student teaching phase of teacher preparation, the
student works closely with one or more c00perating teachers who, as a
group have been shown to be more traditional in their attitudes than
are college professors as a group. Cognitive dissonance theory would

predict that if student teacher and cooperating teacher attitudes are

incongruous, we can expect change in student attitudes toward the

posit
argue
held
by e:
ting
her
tud
phil
atti

visi

tea

(5
O
O

.1

m
(‘0
L

I

the
in
con
cur
91‘!
yo
1h
of
he
be

97

positions held by their cooperating teachers. It may, of course, be
argued that supervising teachers' attitudes would change toward those
held by the student teacher. This possibility has been totally ignored
by educational researchers. However, it seems that because the coopera-
ting teacher is the superordinate in the relationship and because his or
her attitudes have become fixed over a period of time whereas the
student teacher may still be in the process of formulating a coherent
philosophy and concomitant set of attitudes, one would expect the
attitudes of student teachers to change more than those of the super-
vising teacher.

Given this fbrmulation, the studies of attitude change of student
teachers become more comprehensible and meaningful.
Cognitive Dissonance and Cross-Cultural
Student Teaching

If what has been suggested regarding the reasons for attitude
change of student teachers is a valid explanation, then cross-cultural
student teaching will probably result in an even more predictable out-
come. In most cases, home-based student teachers complete their practi-
cum in school systems with which they are already familiar to a very
great extent. In the case of the home-based programs studied in this
work, this is particularly so because of the homogeneity of the system.
That homogeneity is the result of two main factors: (1) the vast majority
of teachers working in the system are products of that school system and
have been trained in the same teacher training institution, and (2) the
basic curriculum (including not only sequences but also prescribed text
books and common examinations at school‘leaving) of the school system

is outlined by the provincial government department of education.

teach

expec

prese
in wt
prese
with
and f
stud.

In t

the
tier
as 1
419
reg

mlg

stu

98

However, in the case of an overseas cross-cultural student
teaching program incongruence with previously held attitudes can be
expected to be even more exaggerated.

Detailed information regarding the programs under study will be
presented in Chapter III. The point to be made here is that the context
in which the cross-cultural student teaching program operates will
present many instances of information, ideas and practices at variance
with those previously held or favored by the student teacher. As Herman
and Schild (1960) have put it, "The 'cognitive maps' which he (the
student) has learned in his home culture are no more veridical" (p. 231).
In those instances it seems reasonable to expect an even greater degree

of attitude change than in the home-based programs.

Summary

This chapter has presented analyses of concepts associated with
the major variables used in this study. That was followed by an examina-
tion of previous research dealing with those variables individually and
as they interact with each other. Finally, the theory of cognitive
dissonance was presented as an explanation of the many research findings
regarding student teacher attitude changes and as a predictor of what
might be expected in this study.

In Chapter III an account of the procedures used to conduct the

study will be presented.

 

diff
to c
Spec
prac
week
and
Her

Cdt

bio
stu

to

‘13

de

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN, INSTRUMENTATION, AND PROCEDURES

Introduction

 

It was the general purpose of this study to investigate the
differential relationships of three types of student teaching programs
to changes in the attitudes of the students who enroll in those programs.
Specifically the study focused on three types of student teaching
practica; an overseas thirteen week practicum, a home-based thirteen
week practicum, and a third program which combined on-campus course work
and off-campus student teaching. The dependent variables in this study
were the dogmatism, attitudes toward education, and receptivity to edu-
cational innovation of the students involved.

In addition the study explored relationships among a number of
biographic, demographic, and programmatic variables and changes in
student teacher dogmatism, attitudes toward education, and receptivity
to educational innovation.

The remainder of this chapter is devoted to a discussion of the
variables involved, the samples, the instrumentation, the research

design, and data analyses utilized in the study.

Research Design
AS with most studies conducted in natural settings, it was

impossible to utilize a truly experimental design in this work. It

99

 

100

was necessary throughout this study to work with pre-formed groupings
of students in three distinct programs; hence, random assignment to
groups was impossible as was random assignment of treatments. Given the
.gfi post facto nature of the research, the design adopted was a modified
version of what Campbell and Stanley (1963) refer to as “The Nonequiva-
lent Control Group Design." They describe this design as research
involving:
. . . an experimental group and a control group both given a
pretest and a posttest, but in which the control group and the
experimental group do not have pre-experimental sampling equiva-
lence. Rather the groups constitute naturally assembled
collectives such as classrooms, as similar as availability per-
mits but yet not so similar that one can dispense with the pre
test. (p. 47)
The design is represented in the following manner.
(0) O
(0) represents the pre-test, O the post-test, and X represents
the experimental treatment. Campbell and Stanley describe two vari-
ations on this design, one in which the researcher decides which group
will receive the treatment and the second in which the researcher does
not have that choice because the subjects have sought out the treat-
ment(s). This distinction is important in that the threats to validity
are different in each case. The second type accurately reflects the
conditions obtaining throughout this study. Specific threats to the
validity of this approach and how those threats were handled will be
discussed later in this chapter.
It should be noted that although the diagrammatic representation

presented earlier has only two groups, the experimental and the control

groups, the present study utilized three groups each of which represents

101

a different condition. Therefore the comparisons made in this study
are not, strictly Speaking, between treatment and control groups, but

rather between and among different conditions.

The Three Conditions--Student Teaching Practica
This section describes the three conditions under study; the home-
based student teaching program, the overseas student teaching progrmn,
and the mixed (on-campus course work and distributed school practice)
program. Each of these will be described in turn with distinguishing

characteristics noted where appropriate.

The Home-Based Student Teaching_Program

One of the components of teacher education programs at Memorial
University of Newfoundland is a thirteen-week student teaching experi-
ence. The reader should note that this program is an optional one
available to all students. Students may complete the requirements for
the Baccalaureate in Education by enrolling in another student teaching
program to be described later in this report.

Entry into this thirteen-week optional student teaching program
is open to those students who have completed most of the required
courses in pedagogy. For example, student teachers at the secondary
school level must have completed methods courses in their major dis-
cipline and courses in three of the following four areas: (1) educational
psychology, (2) educational administration, (3) curriculum and in-
struction, and (4) foundations of education. Normally students at the
secondary school level are in their fourth or fifth year of a five year
program leading to conjoint degrees in either arts, science, or physical

education and education. At the elementary level, students are usually

I th
aach
inim

duca

he
lohn
days
with
sch
fie

0115

car
de'
st
ab
ac

5P

C)—

102

in the final year of a four year B.A. (Ed.) program. The student
teaching program is weighted as five semester credits toward the
minimum of twelve (secondary programs) and twenty (elementary programs)
education credits needed to graduate.

The program consists of an orientation period of approximately
one week followed by twelve weeks of work in a public school in St.
Johns, Newfoundland. During the twelve-week period, students Spend four
days per week in the schools and the fifth day is devoted to seminars
with members of the faculty of education, provincial government officials,
school district personnel and so forth. In addition to those seminars,
field trips to such agencies as teacher organization headquarters, vari-
ous post-secondary institutions, and rural schools are conducted.

During the first half of the term emphasis is placed upon
careful observation of school and classroom procedures, curricular
decision-making, instructional practices and so on. In addition, the
student begins teaching and gradually assumes responsibility until at
about half-term he/she will normally be taking responsibility for the
activities of a class (or classes) for about 50 percent of the time
Spent in the school.

Supervision of the work of the student teacher is shared jointly
by a member of the Division of Student Teaching of Memorial University
and one or more public school teachers in the school to which the
student has been assigned. The faculty member closely monitors the
development of the prospective teacher and observes the student's
teaching on at least one occasion per week after he/she has begun

teaching. Those observations are followed by conferences between the

 

103

faculty member and the student teacher. The cooperating teacher attends
those sessions whenever possible.

Classroom teaching is videotaped twice during the term, once
early on in the student's experience and once late in the term. These
are viewed by the supervising teacher and the student teacher and are
used as instructional and evaluative devices.

Throughout the term the student teacher is required to keep a
log of his experiences focusing less on description of events than upon
analysis of and reflection upon critical events of the term.

Responsibility for the summative evaluation of the student
teacher is jointly shared between the school personnel and the faculty
advisor. Both of those individuals complete a rating form and final
ratings are averaged in those cases where large discrepancies do not
exist. When big differences do occur, a third independent individual
is asked to render a judgment after observing the student at work. That
individual is usually the director or assistant director of the Division
of Student Teaching or the principal of the school to which the student

has been assigned.

The Overseas Student Teaching Program

The overseas student teaching program is an extension of the
home-based program. In all respects it is similar to the home-based
program except where the overseas circumstances dictate changes.

In order to gain acceptance to the overseas program, students
must make application for admission to the student teaching Program
.22: §e and if admitted are placed in a school of their choice in Harlow,

England if they indicate a preference for such a placement. The admission

 

104

requirements in the overseas program are identical to those of the
home-based program.

Students accepted for the overseas program complete their field
experience in public schools operated by the West Essex Area Education
Office. The great majority of students are assigned to schools in
Harlow, a town of approximately 80,000 population, twenty miles north
of London in Essex County, England.

The overseas program differs from the home-based program in a
number of ways. First, the orientation period tends to be longer and
more intensive. This is necessary given that students are entering
both an alien culture and a school system which is different in some
respects from those with which they are familiar. Those differences in
school systems constitute the major substantive differences in the two
programs.

No systematic attempts have been made to delineate the major
contrasts between the Newfoundland and the British school systems.
Kelleher (1973) attempted to compare curricular decision-making in the
two systems. The major difference between the two was seen as the
greater degree of centralization in Newfoundland. The major forum of
curricular decision-making in England was considered to be the school.
This decentralization resulted in greater teacher autonomy with regard
to stipulation of objectives, selection of materials, establishment of
varied patterns of pupil organization, and evaluation of pupil progress.
By contrast, in the Newfoundland system teacher autonomy was perceived
by teachers as being circumscribed by provincially established courses
of study, prescribed text-books, and the existence of common school

leaving examinations at the end of secondary school.

iona
riti
axam
mp1
11 du
are
pri

tie

of

$1.1

c—f

a)

105

The differences are not only apparent in methods of organiza-
tional control and administration. The progressive practices of the
British primary school, for example, have been lauded worldwide as
examplars of child-centered methodology. The freedom of movement of
pupils, the absence of the lock-step graded system, the emphasis on indi-
vidualization, the absence of Standard texts, and other such practices
are at variance with what one ordinarily experiences in Newfoundland
primary and elementary schools. Cuff (1973) in a report of the activi-
ties of the first group of Newfoundland student teachers in Harlow
characterized primary schools as having the following common features:
". . . they permitted pupils to move around freely. Children worked in
small groups, there were no formal class lessons and generally students
were doing things rather than listening." The junior schools (pupils
between seven and eleven years of age) were characterized by some form
of "integrated program" where there were no clear distinctions among
subject areas (p. 13).

In a report of a student teaching program conducted by the
University of Florida in Lancashire, England, Martinello (1973) made
similar observations. Her report deals at some length with describing
two characteristics of the schools observed namely "informal teaching"
and "the integrated day." She defined those terms in this way:

Informal teaching refers to the teachers structuring of the
class environment and the children's tasks in such ways as to
promote the simultaneous occurrence of different activities
undertaken by individuals and groups. The good informal teacher
holds different standards of achievement for different children.

He works from children's interests rather than exclusively from
textbook lessons. He acts as coordinator of the multiple strands

of activity engaged in by the children which he seeks to stimulate,
connect and extend. (p. 2)

1‘09

ype

fou
men
ten

dV

 

106

This description is remarkably similar to the conception of
progressive teaching described earlier in Chapter II.

The term “integrated day" seems to be used to describe two
types of classroom operations.

Integration of studies sometimes meant that a child's interests
(whether self-detennined or teacher-stimulated) were utilized as
the source of thematic material for reading, writing, number work
and creative expression.

The second category of integrated day practices refers to the
timing and differentiation of activities in language, maths and
creative expression. When children were engaged in varied activi-
ties at different times and, to some extent by self-determination
of when activities were to be undertaken and how much to accomplish
at one sitting, the integrated day was considered to be in opera-
tion. (Martinello, 1973, p. 3)

Differences between secondary schools in the British and New-
foundland systems are not as pronounced as those at the primary and ele-
mentary level. However, the secondary comprehensive schools of Harlow
tend to have larger pupil enrollments, have a greater breadth of programs
available to pupils, accept a greater age range (ll-18 years) of pupils,
and have greater flexibility in curricular decision-making when com-
pared to secondary schools in Newfoundland. However, the wide differ-
ences in teaching practices at the elementary level do not seem to
exist at the secondary level. Teaching approaches tend to be very
similar.

Some studies have been conducted in an attempt to make cross-
cultural comparisons of teacher attitudes. After a large survey of a
sample of 2,482 teacher education students in the United States and
2,175 student teachers fron Britain, Dickson (1969) reported that the
United States sample was more learning-centered whereas the British

sample was more child-centered and permissive. In this writer's opinion,

that study is suggestive of the differences which exist between English

107

and Newfoundland teachers particularly if the sample considered were
from primary and elementary schools. No research related to this
hypothesis has been undertaken.

In other respects such as supervision, evaluation, and extent
of teaching and observation, the overseas program is similar to the
home-based program. The basic differences are those related to the

different school contexts in which the programs Operate.

The Mixed Program (Course-Work/Field-Work)

The minimal practice teaching requirements of teacher prepara-
tion programs at Memorial University is a course which entails weekly
half-day visits to public schools during one academic semester (thirteen
weeks) followed by a two-week block which occurs only in the spring of
each year between the winter and spring semesters.

During the term in which the student is enrolled in this course,
he is normally enrolled in four other courses either in education or in
other academic departments throughout the university.

Requirements for entry into this program are similar to those
for the other two programs described earlier. In fact the prerequisite
courses are identical. The program is supervised by the same personnel
(members of the Division of Student Teaching) as the student-teacher
Programs. Likewise, evaluation is shared with public school personnel.

The half-day sessions in public schools are supplemented by on-
campus seminars and combined micro-teaching and peer teaching. Video-
taping of micro-teaching lessons is used extensively to provide feed-

back to students.

unt

tha

te

 

108

It should be noted that in the design of the study, pre-testing
and post-testing within this program was done Simultaneously with that
in the other two programs. This in effect eliminated the two-week block
from consideration in this research. To have included that block would
have meant eliminating two controls: (1) the control of simultaneous
pre- and post-testing, and (2) the control of length of treatment period.
For example, students who completed the half-day sessions during the
September-December semester would not have completed the two-week block
until April or May of the following year because, as indicated earlier,

that block occurs only once per year.

The Populations and Sample Selection

 

The treatment conditions already described are three types of
teacher preparation programs; an overseas student teaching program, a
home-based program, and a combined field-work, course-work_program.

The subjects studied in the overseas and the home-based student
teaching programs were total populations of those programs during the
1977-78 academic year. The number of students in the overseas program
during that year was thirty-six and the number in the home-based student
teaching program was twenty-eight.

Subjects in the mixed program consisted of a random sample of
fifty-five students of a total population of approximately 400 who
enrolled in that program during the 1977-78 academic year.

Descriptive data regarding the three samples will be presented
in Chapter IV. Those data will focus on biographic, demographic, and
programmatic similarities and differences among the three groups as

well as on pre-test score comparisons.

a P
the
to
acc
pr
ex
co

€11

si

 

109

It will be recalled that the two student teaching programs are
optional programs fer prospective teachers. The mixed program is the
compulsory minimum student teaching requirement. In this respect, the
three groups may be considered to differ. It was for this reason that
a pre-test was undertaken. One other attempt was made to control for
the "volunteering" factor. It was hoped at the outset of this study,
to isolate a group of students who initially applied for and were
accepted into (or were eligible for acceptance into) either the overseas
program or the home-based student teaching program but who for reasons
extraneous to the programs (time constraints, financial problems, home
commitments, and so forth), finally apted out of those programs and
enrolled in the minimum program (the mixed program). Unfortunately only
six such students were identified, a number too small to use as a control

group.

The Instruments

 

The following sections discuss in some detail the instruments
used to operationalize the dependent variables; 0pen-/closed-mindedness,
progressive/traditional attitudes toward education, and receptivity to
educational innovation. In addition, a description of an instrument to
gather biographic data will be presented.

Qpen-lClosed-Mindedness (The
Dogmatism Scale)

In the analysis of the concept of 'open-lclosed-mindedness' in
Chapter II, it was indicated that much of the empirical work related
to that construct had been conducted by Milton Rokeach. In fact, he

developed several versions of the Dogmatism Scale as an empirical

 

111635

beli

bas

C011

NV
st
an

58

If)

110

measure of the extent of the Openness or closedness of individual's
belief systems.

Items for the scale were initially formulated by Rokeach on the
basis of conversations with and observation of individuals who were
considered to be dogmatic.

Validation of item selection has proceded along three lines:
"Validation by the method of known groups, . . . validation against other
standardized scales purporting to measure the same or similar variables,
and . . . theoretical validation by testing hypotheses stemming from a
set of theoretical conditions" (Rokeach, 1960, p. 287).

Rokeach and his associates reported a number of experiments
comparing high and low scorers on the Dogmatism Scale on a variety of
laboratory tests. Those experiments confirmed theoretical expectations
that closed-minded individuals were less capable of (l) relinquishing
old systems, (2) entertaining and enjoying new systems, and (3) actively
synthesizing new materials into an integrated whole (Rokeach, 1956,

p. 22).

As pointed out in Chapter II, a number of studies have been con-
ducted comparing the Dogmatism Scale with the California F Scale
developed by Adorno and associates. These have confirmed the hypothesis
that the Dogmatism Scale measures general authoritarianism rather than
only right authoritarianism as does the F Scale.

Studies utilizing the "known-groups" method have provided
additional evidence of the validity of the Dogmatism Scale. For example,
Rokeach reports higher scores for communists and religious non-believers
as well as for authoritarian groups right of center. Catholics are

given as an example of such a group.

 

its
tha

C011

ing

in

St

F0

C0

ci

 

111

In a review of literature related to the dogmatism construct and
its attendant measurement device, Robinson and Shaver (1969) concluded
that the Rokeach Scale adequately served the purpose for which it was
constructed. In fact, there seems to have been little serious question-
ing of the validity of that scale.

Rokeach has reported reliability coefficients for Form E of .81
for English college students, .78 for a sample of English workers and
reliabilities varying from .68 to .93 for samples drawn from Michigan
State and Ohio State Universities.

Moore (1970) summarized a number of studies which utilized
Form E of the Dogmatism Scale. He reported split-half reliability
coefficients varying from .64 to .90 and test-retest reliability coeffi-
cients ranging from .50 (with a four year lapse) to .88 (for a one month
interval). It should be noted that sample sizes ranged from 30 to
1,239.

The instrument used in this study is a short-form of the Dogma-

tism (Form E) scale. That scale developed by Troldahl and Powell (1965)
contains the best twenty items of the original forty in Form E.
Troldahl and Powell report a split—half reliability coefficient of .79
for the short form. They further report a correlation of .94 between
this short form and the forty item scale. The short form was used
because it was to be combined with two other scales and the total scale
would have resulted in the usual problems associated with overly long
questionnaires. The reliability coefficient obtained during this study
was .80.

The Dogmatism Scale is a Likert-type instrument requiring

respondents to reply to one of six responses; agree very strongly, agree

112

strongly, agree, disagree, disagree strongly, and disagree very strongly.
There is no provision for a non-commital "don't know" response. Scoring
is accomplished by summing responses from 1 (for disagree very strongly)
to 7 for agree very strongly. High scores are indicative of a high

level of dogmatism or closed-mindedness. .
ProgressivelTraditional Attitudes Toward

Education (Education Scale VIII

The instrument used in this study to measure attitudes toward
education is Kerlinger's Education Scale VII. That scale is the result
of approximately a decade of efforts by Kerlinger and Kaya (1959) to
devise a measure of tendencies of individuals toward attitudes which
may be classified as progressive or traditional. Using 0 methodology
they initially isolated the progressivism and traditionalism dimensions
which were then translated into forty Likert-type items twenty of which
constituted the progressivism domain and twenty the traditionalism
domain. Traditional referents are discipline, subject matter and moral
standards. Progressivism referents are child needs, individual differ-
ences, and social learning.

That scale which has subsequently undergone a number of revisions
was validated by the known groups method. The scale was administered
to samples of education students, education professors, liberal arts
professors, and laymen. The various samples scored as hypothesized
along the two dimensions. Education students and professors were more
progressive in their attitudes than were liberal arts professors and
laymen.

The Education Scale VII, a descendant of‘those earlier efforts

is a 30-item Likert-type instrument with fifteen items in each of the

two
rep
ali
tie

ver

th

it

of
on

ed

3

w

113

two basic categories. Reliability coefficents for three samples
reported by Kerlinger and Kaya ranged from .70 to .81 for the tradition-
alism scale and from .77 to .81 for the progressivism scale. Reliabili-
ties for the progressivism and traditionalism subscales in this study
were .75 and .71 respectively.

The method of response to the thirty items is identical with
that used for the Dogmatism Scale and as with the Dogmatism Scale each
item has a range of possible values from 1 to 7.

Two methods of scoring have been used in past administrations
of the scale. By summing the fifteen items in each of the two subscales,
one arrives at two scores, one measuring the degree of progressivism of
educational attitudes and the second measuring the degree of tradition-
alism of education attitudes. Given that Kerlinger has determined by
factor analysis that these dimensions are dualistic rather than bipolar
then one can treat these as two separate scales. However, in the early
history of the scales one overall score was obtained by subtracting the
progressivism score from the traditionalism score. A high positive or
negative score suggested that the subject held consistent attitudes.

Some criticism has been levelled at the logic of subtracting one
subscale score from another if attitudes are in fact dualistic (Oliver
and Butcher, 1962, pp. 56-59).

This issue has not yet been settled definitively, however, the
subtraction method does seem to be logically faulty. Throughout this
report, separate scores will be presented for the progressivism and

traditionalism scales.

114

The Receptivity to Educational
Innovation Measure

To meet the needs of this study, the investigator developed a
closed-form Likert-type, summated rating scale to assess the degree of
receptivity of student teachers to educational innovation. Subjects
were asked to respond on an agree-disagree continuum (identical to the
one used for the Dogmatism Scale) to twenty-six items each dealing with
a specific innovation. The items were worded in a negative manner. For
example, one of the items states, "I feel the new flexible type of
school building encourages disorganization and confusion." This method
of wording was utilized in order to interject a sense of realism which
it was hoped would result in more deliberate and thoughtful responses
than if the items were worded in a neutral or positive manner. Since a
Likert-type scale was used, this resulted in a situation where a high
score represented low receptivity and vice versa. In order to avoid the
confusion that this might have created, the scores reported herein have
been inverted and a high score does, in fact, represent high receptivity.

This particular approach to measuring receptivity to educational
innovation is one adopted by Ramer (1968) in his attempt to assess the
attitudes of chief school administrators. In fact, twenty-two of the
original pool of twenty-six items were developed by Ramer.

One of the problems inherent in this particular method of deter-
mining receptivity relates to the manner in which the term innovation
is defined.

It will be recalled from Chapter II that an innovation is defined
as a new idea or practice which at a particular time in a specific area

has not been accepted on such a wide scale as to be considered common

pra

G n . . u H U e e u _

115

practice. Given such a definition, the scale used to assess receptivity
in Newfoundland in 1977 may be totally inappropriate in New York in 1977
or in Newfoundland in 1982. Quite simply, an innovation in Newfoundland
may be a common practice in New York at the same point in time and that
particular innovation may have become accepted method five years later
in Newaundland. Hence, scales of this type can, at best, only have
situational and temporary validity.

In addition to the twenty-two items from the Ramer pool, eight
others were develOped by the researcher on the basis of familiarity with
the Newaundland school system. The thirty items were then submitted
to a panel of six judges comprising two teachers (one elementary and
one secondary), two public school administrators, and two college of
education professors. The judges were asked to indicate (a) whether
each item could be considered to be an innovation within the context
of the Newfoundland school system and (b) whether changes in wording of
items might be necessary. Of the thirty items, four were dropped
because they were rejected by four or more of the six judges. Four
other items on which there was evenly divided Opinion were retained
until the degree of internal consistency of the scale had been deter-
mined.

Time did not permit a statistical analysis of a pilot run of
the scale before the first administration of the pre-test in September
1977. As a result all twenty-six items were included for both the pre-
testing and post—testing and analysis of the scale was completed at a
later date.

That analysis indicated an alpha level of .80 as a measure of

the internal consistency of the scale. After the four dubious items

had
tha
and

the

du

pr
pr

an

-r1

116

had been dropped the alpha coefficient remained at .79. It was decided
that since the four items were questioned by three of the six judges

and since they did not add considerably to the consistency of the scale,
they would be dropped in subsequent analyses.

The remaining twenty-two items upon which analyses were con-
ducted can be categorized by type in the following manner. Seven items
represent innovations in content, eight in the area Of instructional
practices and teaching methodology, four represent changes in personnel
practices and policies, and three items refer to changes in school plant
and equipment.

Determining the validity of such a scale as this one is diffi-
cult at best. Face validity can, of course, be assessed by a careful
examination of the items. In addition, the distribution of scores
provides a rough indication of the construct validity of the instrument.
For example, one might reasonably expect a distribution approximating
the normal curve. This would be in keeping with Rogers and Shoemaker's
findings regarding the rates at which individuals adopt innovations.

Figure 3-1 is a graphic representation of the distribution of
receptivity scores attained during the present study.

The mean score was 70.34 and the standard deviation 13.56. The
skewness of the distribution was -.270 which indicates minimal skewness
to the left. In addition, the distribution is slightly less peaked in
the middle than the normal curve (Kurtosis = -.247). However, the
histogram in Figure 3-1 indicates that the distribution of receptivity
scores does not depart radically from the normal curve.

One test of concurrent validity has been run. However, it must

be considered somewhat suspect since it was conducted by the researcher

i
mOwUCOSGOLL

 

117

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35 1'
3O ~+
lfi’
“I
25 J.
in
OJ
oo-
8
§- 20 it
2 lg:
u.
15 J-
.__|___-.
10 t'
«*1
5di————‘
<1- N o (n so <1- N 8 g
‘1' “8 'f ‘f 'T ‘1' ‘1‘ 'T "T
1\ LO ('0 F- 01 l\ L!) M F'-
m <1- m o to N oo 01 o
P

Receptivity Scores
Figure 3-1.--Distribution of post-test receptivity scores.

118

using subjective criteria. Twenty of the respondents to the receptivity
scale were well known to the author. He had observed their classroom
teaching on several occasions, had observed micro-teaching lessons, and
conducted a number of individual conferences with each student. In
addition all students had been observed in seminar situations. Those
twenty subjects were rank ordered by the author along a continuum from
least receptive to most receptive. That rank ordering was compared with
scores on the receptivity scale by computing a Spearman Rank-Order Corre-
lation coefficient. That procedure resulted in a Rho of .60, significant
beyond .01.

Once again caution is in order in interpreting this finding. A
more valid method would have been for the researcher to have developed
criteria for judging receptivity and then had others rate individuals
known to them. Time constraints prior to pre-test administration did

not permit such an approach; as a result the foregoing is presented.

Biographic Data_Qnestionnaire

This section of the combined questionnaire contained only three
items. The first asked respondents to indicate the extent of their
classroom experience Since completing high school. The second sought
information regarding the size of the respondents' hometowns (defined
in terms Of where they had attended elementary school). The third
question, an open-ended one, asked students to state the occupation of
their father. Finally, students were asked to state their Memorial
University student identification number.

Additional information regarding grade averages, practicum grade,

sex, and area of academic major was ascertained from student academic

119

records procured from the office of the Registrar at Memorial University.
That information was forthcoming after guarantees had been given that

confidentiality would be maintained.

Data Collection

 

The questionnaire (see Appendix E) combining the three scales
and biographic data section was administered to one half of the students
in both the home-based and overseas student teaching program during the
first week of each semester of the 1977-78 academic year. In addition,
the questionnaire was administered to one half of the sample of students
in the mixed program during that week. Those who would receive the
pre-test was determined by using a table of random numbers. All students
in the overseas and home-based student teaching programs as well as the
total sample of students from the mixed program completed the post-
testing during the final week of the semester. The time lapse between
pre- and post-testing was twelve weeks.

The instrument was group administered by either the reseacher
or a faculty member of the Division of Student Teaching of Memorial
University of Newfoundland. Students in each of the three programs were
administered the questionnaire separately. In several instances, logisti-
cal problems such as absences from testing sessions, and the inadvisibi-
lity of having students complete the questionnaire concurrently with
other on-going regular class activities necessitated that students be
given the questionnaire to be returned to a letter-drop on campus at a
later date.

Instructions on page one of the questionnaire were read to each

group and forthcoming questions were answered. The specific purpose

01‘

wer

abc

thl

tw

120

or design of the study was not divulged to the research subjects. They
were told only that the study was designed to ascertain their ideas
about a number of sociological and educational issues.

A pilot administration of the scale had earlier indicated that
the average length of time required to complete the questionnaire was
twenty-five minutes. In order to provide sufficient time for instruct-
ions, questions, and completion of the questionnaire, a class period
(fifty minutes) was allocated. This period of time proved to be ade-
quate.

Permission to conduct this study had earlier been granted by

the Director of the Division of Student Teaching.

Threats to Internal and External Validity

 

As indicated earlier, the approach adopted in this study has
been labelled "The Nonequivalent Control Group Design.“ As with any
design there are threats to both the internal and external validity.
Campbell and Stanley (1963) describe internal validity as ". . . the
basic minimum without which any experiment is uninterpretable. Did in
fact the experimental treatments make a difference in this specific
experimental instance?" (p. 5).

External validity relates to the extent of generalizibility of
the study. "To what populations, settings, treatment variables, and
measurement variables can this effect be generalized?" (p. 5).

Campbell and Stanley note that confidence in this design is
greatly enhanced if the experimental and control groups are similar to
each other in their recruitment and if the pre-tests confirm this
similarity. Given that the subjects of this study were self-selected

in terms of opting for a particular program, the pre-test was included

 

to
of
th

f1

121

to ascertain initial differences. Data from the pre-tests plus analysis
of biographic data will be presented in Chapter IV. Those data suggest
that the groups were quite similar. Given this information some con-
fidence can be placed in the use of this particular design.

Nevertheless there are Specific limitations which must be con-
sidered in the interpretation of findings from such a study. The
following factors represent the major threats to the validity to this
study.

1. Selection bias--Since the students in this study have opted for
one of the three programs and although the pre-test did not
turn up radical differences among the groups, there is still the
possibility that the selection factor may interact with other
factors such as maturation of the subjects to produce effects
which may erroneously be attributed to condition effects. It
was stated earlier that in the initial conception of the study
provision was made for a control for this factor. That entailed
getting a control group of students who had applied for either
the home-based or the overseas program but who for reasons other
than programmatic ones, opted to do the shorter practicum and
hence the mixed program. The attempt to identify subjects for
such a control group was unsuccessful. Only Six students in
this category completed the questionnaires, a number too small
to use in the statistical analyses.

2. Interaction of testing and the treatment--One of the major
threats to the validity of studies such as this one arises from
the possibility that the pre-test will sensitize the subjects

to the later treatment and result in an effect that would not

122

have occurred had the pre-test not been administered. In order

to account for this possibility, only one-half of the subjects

in each of the three groups were administered the pre-tests.

All subjects completed the post-tests. By taking this approach,

it was possible to ascertain whether such an interaction did

indeed occur.

Before concluding this section, it should be stressed that
Campbell and Stanley refer to this design as quasi-experimental in order
to distinguish it from truly experimental ones. As a result, it is
impossible to attribute causality to the treatment conditions even if
relationships are found to exist between the independent and dependent

variables. At best one can only conclude that there is a correlation

between the two.

Data Analyses

Data were coded and punched on batch cards for use with the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.

Preliminary analyses were performed on the data to determine
the characteristics of the total sample and of the three subgroups.
Comparisons of the pre-test scores and biographic data were conducted
using Chi-square tests of independence (for non-interval data) and
multivariate analysis of variance tests (with interval data). The
results of those comparisons are presented in Chapter IV.

Testing of the major hypotheses of this study was conducted by
using multivariate analysis of variance and several attendant procedures.
Each of those will be described in detail as the results of analyses

are presented in Chapter IV.

123

Significance levels for all analyses were set at .05.
Chapter IV consists of a presentation of the analyses of data

obtained in this study.

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

Introduction

 

This chapter is subdivided into six sections. The first deals
with an analysis of demographic and biographic data in a presentation
of findings regarding similarities and differences among the three
groups of research subjects. The second presents findings regarding
the intercorrelations among the four dependent variables. Sections
three through five each deal with findings regarding one of the three
hypotheses presented in Chapter III. Those sections will include both
a presentation and a discussion of the findings. More general conclu-
sions to be reached and implications to be drawn will be presented in
Chapter V. The last section of this chapter will include findings

which do not neatly fit into either of the other sections.

Comparison of Practicum Groups on Biogrephic Data
In this section, data regarding various biographic and demog-
raphic characteristics of the subjects are presented. Variables dis-
cussed are sex, size of hometown, father's occupation, teaching level,
major area of study, teaching experience, and academic grade averages.
The purpose Of this section is to reveal the points of compari-
son and contrast among the students in the three field experience

programs.

124

125

.Seé

Table 4-1 reveals the sex of the subjects in the three groups
and the total sample. Females accounted for 61 percent of the total
and males 39 percent. The ratio of males to females varies slightly
from that reported in The Standard Education Almanac (Chandler, 1980).

During 1978-79, 52 percent of all teachers in Newfoundland were male.

Table 4-l.--Sex of Sample by Type of Practicum.

 

 

 

Sex
Type of Program Total
Male Female
Home-based program 13 15 28
Cross-cultural program 11 25 36
Combined course-lfield-work 22 33 55
Total Sample 46 73 119

 

A Chi-square test for independence suggests that significant
differences did not exist among the three groups on the sex variable

2

(x = 1.75, p = .42).

Size of Hometown

Information regarding the size of the hometowns of subjects
(hometown was defined as the town in which the subject attended ele-
mentary school) was gathered in an attempt to ascertain whether the
three programs had similar rural/urban mixes. Since, it has been shown
that cosmopolitan individuals tend to be more receptive to innovation, '
it was deemed necessary to ascertain whether any of the programs drew

students predominantly from the small fishing villages of Newfoundland

126

or predominantly from the few urban centers which exist there. Although
urbanism and cosmOpolitanism should not be equated, given the homogeneous
nature of many small Newfoundland communities, it was a factor for

which accounting was considered necessary.

Table 4-2.--Size of Hometown of Sample by Type of Practicum.

 

Size of Hometown

Type of Program Total
Below 250- 1,000- 10,000- Over ‘

250 1,000 10,000 50,000 50,000

 

 

 

Home-based program 2 5 8 5 8 28
Cross-cultural program 1 4 ll 7 12 35
Combined course-/field-
work 7 ll 16 ll 10 55
Total sample 10 20 35 23 30 118
2

x = 5.91, p = .66

As Table 4-2 reveals, a Chi-square test resulted in a signifi-
cance level of .66 indicating that any differences among the groups

with regard to size of hometown was quite within the realm of chance.

fether's Occupations

Table 4-3 presents data regarding the occupations of the fathers
Of the research subjects. This was taken as a rough indicator of socio-
economic level. Each subject was asked to list his/her father's occupa-
tion and those were subsequently grouped into four categories; pro-
fessional, technical/managerial, skilled, and unskilled.

The Chi-square test of fathers' occupations by program produced

a significance level of .56. Even a cursory examination of the data in

127

Table 4-3.--Fathers' Occupations of Sample by Type of Practicum.

 

Fathers' Occupations

 

 

Type of Program Total
Technical/
Professional Managerial Skilled Unskilled

Home-based program 4 8 12 3 27
Cross-cultural
program . 4 8 l4 5 31
Combined course-/ .
field-work ~ 2 18 20 ll 51

Total sample 10 34 46 19 109

 

Table 4-3 indicates that the groups are not significantly different on

this variable.

Teaching Level

Students involved in this study were all training to be teachers
at either the elementary or secondary school level. Table 4-4 presents
information regarding the number of students in these levels in each of
the three programs.

In Chapter II, evidence was presented that elementary school
teachers tended to be both less dogmatic and more progressive than
secondary teachers. Had any one of the three samples contained a dis-
proportionate number of students from one level, it would have been
difficult to interpret the findings regarding scores on those two scales.

However, as Table 4-4 indicates, the Chi-square result was nonsignifi-

cant.

128

Table 4-4.--Teaching Level of Subjects by Type of Practicum.

 

Teaching Level

 

 

Type of Program Total
Secondary Elementary

Home-based program 17 ll 28

Cross-cultural program 20 16 36

Combined course-lfield-work 25 30 55

Total sample 62 57 119

 

Major Subject Area

There is little evidence to suggest that the choice of academic
discipline of an individual is related to progressivism, traditionalism,
or receptivity. However, as suggested in Chapter II, there is some
evidence, albeit somewhat contradictory, regarding the relationship
between area of study and level of dogmatism. The Chi-square analysis
in Table 4-5 was undertaken to ascertain whether the three groups
differed significantly in that respect. As indicated, the groups did

not differ on this variable.

Previous Classroom Experience

Table 4-6 presents information regarding the amount of teaching
experience (defined as public school classroom experience including
observation since completion of secondary school) of the sample prior
to enrolling in the various programs.

It was the original intention to classify the amount of previous

classroom experience into four categories; no experience, 1-20 days,

129

mN. u a ._m.ep n x

 

N
m__ N_ e mm o __ op mm d_aEam _eooe
mm m N _N e N e N_ ecoz-upd_c\-dm235d emceaeou
on e m m N m N e_ Emcmocq pmcsupzo-mmocu
mN m _ m o e N m actuate edman-deoz

amopozoamm mommzmceg mwocwwom cowaeozuu mmocm_om sue: gmwpmcm
ucoomm —mmoom pmowmxga peo_ma;a

peach Eacmoca we maze
xvzum we mmc< cone:

 

 

.E:o_uuecm mo weak an muumnazm mo mmc< uumnazm conoziu.mie epoch

130

Table 4-6.--Amount of Previous Experience by Type of Practicum.

 

Level of Previous Experience

 

 

Type Of Program None 1-20 Days More Than Total

20 Days
Home-based program 22 6 O 28
Cross-cultural program 10 21 5 36
Combined course-/field-work 36 13 6 55
Total sample 68 40 11 119

 

x2 = 21.36 p < .001

21-90 days, and more than 190 days. However, the data Obtained from the
administration of the questionnaire indicated that such a categorization
resulted in a Chi-square contingency table with slightly more than 20%
of the cells containing fewer than five cases. In order to obviate

the Obvious difficulties associated with the use of a Chi-square test
for independence in such circumstances, two categories were collapsed.
The resultant three categories; no experience, 1-20 days, and more than
20 days, were utilized in this analysis and in subsequent analyses to

be presented in this chapter.

This was the only biographic variable on which the three groups

differed at a significant level. The Chi-square result was significant

131

beyond the .001 level. An examinatiOn of Table 4-6 would suggest that
students in the home-based thirteen-week practicum have less prior
experience than students in the other two programs. In addition, a
high percentage of the students in the overseas program (58%) already
had between 1 and 20 days of experience before enrolling in that parti-
cular program. Percentages of students in the other two programs with
1-20 days of experience were 24 (mixed program) and 21 (home-based

program).

Academic Grade Averages

An analysis of variance was performed to ascertain whether
subjects in the three programs differed with regard to their academic
grade averages. Academic grades were those numerical grades achieved
by students on all courses completed at Memorial University of New-
foundland prior to enrolling in the programs under study. The uni-
variate F-test resulted in a non-significant probability level of .26.
The mean grades for the three groups were 67.5 for cross-cultural
student teachers, 65.7 for the mixed program, and 66.4 for the home-

based student teachers. The overall mean grade for the total sample

was 66.4

Summary and Discussion of Demographic
Differences AmongpStudents 1n
the Three Programs

The foregoing data and statistics have been presented for two
reasons: first, to provide a picture of the samples and populations

under study and second, to indicate where the samples differed on cer-

tain background characteristics. AS was noted earlier, of those vari-

ables measured the only one on which the samples were initially

132

significantly different was the amodnt of previous classroom experience.
The potential effect of this initial difference was monitored and taken
into account in subsequent analyses of pre- and post-test data.

In concluding this section, it is probably worthwhile to high-
light the fact that the results Of the foregoing Chi-square and analysis
of variance tests indicate that the clients served by any one program
do not substantively differ from those in the other two. NO one of the
programs seems biased in favor of any one particular type of student.
For example, it seems that the overseas program is equally accessible
to all students regardless of rural or urban backgrounds or level of
fathers' occupations. This equal access may be the result of the
practice of Memorial University of Newfoundland of paying for the cost
of airfare for all students involved in their overseas, cross-cultural
program. This factor probably eliminates any bias toward the well-to-do

which might otherwise be inherent in an overseas program.

Intercorrelations Amongnthe Four Dependent Variables

Table 4-7 is a correlation matrix presenting the intercorrela-
tions among the four dependent variables on the post-test scores. Post-
test scores were used because of the larger number of subjects and
because the relationships were not dissimilar from those on the pre-
test. Several points are worthy of note.

First, the relationships among the variables tend to be similar
to that predicted in Chapter II. For example, the moderate correlation
(r = -.47) between dogmatism and receptivity to educational innovation
seems to support the conceptual distinction drawn between the two vari-

ables. In other words, it is clear that the Dogmatism Scale in and of

133

Table 4-7.--Intercorrelations Among the Dependent Variables.

 

 

Variables 1 2 3 4
l. Dogmatism -- .Ol .46** -.47**
Progressivism -- .17* .36**
Traditionalism -- -.29**

4:- as N
O o

. Receptivity --

 

*p < .05, **p < .001

itself is not a sufficient measure of receptivity to educational
innovation.

A second noteworthy relationship is that between traditionalism
and progressivism. The low positive correlation (r = .17) would suggest
that Kerlinger's proposition that educational attitudes fall into two
relatively uncorrelated factors does, indeed, hold true in this case.

Another interesting finding is that a moderate correlation
existed between dogmatism and traditionalism (r = .46). Although not
high, this suggests the tendency for more dogmatic individuals to be
more traditional in their views. Again, this is consonant with the
literature review which indicated a positive correlation between dogma-
tism and conservatism which in turn was reflected in traditional atti-
tudes toward education.

Given the foregoing relationships, it is not surprising to find
correlation coefficients Of Similar magnitudes between progressivism and
receptivity (r = .36) and traditionalism and receptivity (r = -.29).

In addition, it is not surprising that the correlations are in opposite

directions. Those who are progressive in their attitudes toward

134

education tend to be more receptive to educational innovation and those
who are more traditional less receptive. However, since the relation-

ships do not account for large proportions of the variance, caution is

in order in generalizing beyond that warranted by the moderate correla-
tions. In other words, the relationships are not strong enough to

permit the use of one scale to predict an individual's score on another.

Hypothesis One

 

Hypothesis number one in null form stated "No significant differ-
ences exist initially among the three groups of students with regard to
open-mindedness, progressive/traditional attitudes toward education, and
receptivity to educational innovation."

In order to test this hypothesis, two planned contrasts were
established using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The prin-
cipal advantage of multivariate analysis over the calculation of separate
univariate F scores for each of the four dependent variables is that
it takes into account any possible interactions among the four criteria
that could not be examined if each of those criteria were to be tested
in isolation.

Table 4-8 is a presentation of means and standard deviations
obtained by the three groups on the pre-tests for the four variables.
An examination of that table indicates that on the basis of the pre-
test the overseas students were least dogmatic and least receptive.

In addition, that group was the most progressive and least traditional.

Program Contrast l
The first contrast was designed to compare the pre-test scores

of subjects in the mixed program with the pre-test scores of those in

135

Table 4-8.--Descriptive Statistics for Pre-Test Data.

 

Dogmatism Receptivity Progressivism Traditionalism

 

Program I I I I
Mixed program i = 3.41 2 = 5.48 x = 5.68 x = 4.43
n = 25 SD = .61 SD = .44 SD = .55 SD = .70
Home-based 2 = 3.63 i = 5.78 2 = 5.80 x = 4.44
program SD = .83 SD = .77 SD = .64 SD = .80
n = 15
Cross-cultural 2 = 3.10 2 = 5.45 x = 5.88 2 = 4.32
program SD = .79 SD = .51 SD = .40 SD = .85
n = 18

 

the home-based student teaching program. The multivariate F (Wilks
Lambda Criterion) was nonsignificant (F = 1.90, df = 4, 46, p = .13)
indicating that the linear combination of the pre-test scores obtained
on the four criteria was not significantly different for subjects in
those two programs. For those two groups, the null hypothesis was not
rejected.

Program Contrast 2

Data from this contrast which compared the overseas students
with those in the other two programs are presented in Table 4-8. The
multivariate test was significant (F = 2.71, df = 4, 46, p < .05)
indicating that those students who opted for the student teaching program
in Britain were different from students in the other two programs.

The data in Table 4-9 suggest that although the groups did not
differ at the level of significance on any one variable (although level
of dognatism is close to being significant), the biggest contributors to
the multivariate difference among the groups in this contrast (as indi-
cated by the standardized discriminant function coefficients) are

dogmatism and receptivity.

136

Table 4.9--Program Contrast 2: MANOVA with Pre-Test Scores as the
Dependent Set.

 

 

MS
Source of Variance Variable Between Univariate P SDFC
.Groups Fa

Program Contrast 2: Dogmatism - 1.81 3.43 .07 1.06
Cross-cultural Progressivism .29 1.01 .32 -.53
program--
Home-based and Traditionalism .13 .22 .64 .16
Mixed programs

Receptivity .22 .66 .43 -1.02

 

Note: Abbreviated: SDFS = Standardized discriminant function
coefficients.

adf = 1,49

Discussion

Discussion of the results of testing hypothesis number one will
focus on two points. First, the fact that those in the cross-cultural,
overseas program were initially different from students in the other
two groups needs some comment. That dogmatism contributed most of that
difference may be explained in terms of the type of individual who
seeks out a cross-cultural program. The willingness to face the unknown
factors of an overseas assignment, the propensity to take the risks of
learning the technical skills of teaching in an alien school system,
and the readiness to forego the relative security of a home-based
student teaching placement may all be indicators of a high degree of
Open-mindedness. In fact, the pre-test mean dogmatism score for the

overseas students is lower than most groups tested in earlier studies.

137

Of twenty-six samples reported by Alter and White (1966), only one had
a lower mean dogmatism score than the students in the overseas program.

The fact that receptivity to educational innovation was a big
contributor to differences between the overseas student teachers and
the other two groups is more difficult to eXplain. Given the moderate
negative correlation between the dogmatism and receptivity scales, one
would expect that since the overseas students were initially least
dogmatic they would be most receptive to innovation. However, an
examination of the means in Table 4-8 indicates the opposite of expecta-
tions. The overseas students are least receptive. They are only
marginally less receptive when compared with students in the mixed
program but are much less receptive than students in the home-based
program. There would seem to be no logical explanation for this finding
although it is plausible given the conceptual distinction drawn between
dogmatism and receptivity in Chapter II. The progressivism and tra-
ditionalism scores for the overseas student teachers are what would
be predicted on the basis of the initial level of dogmatism. In other
words, one would expect the least dogmatic group to be most progressive
and least traditional. Those relationships did indeed obtain in the
scores of the three groups.

The second point to be made regarding the initial differences
among the groups relates to the manner in which the subsequent statisti-
cal analyses were conducted. Had no significant differences existed
among the three groups on the pre-test, then it would have been possible
to analyze post-test differences to assess differential outcomes of the
three programs. Since, however, initial differences were shown to

exist, it was necessary to utilize multivariate analysis of covariance

138

using pre-test scores as the covariate in order to ascertain whether

differences existed on the post-tests.

Hypothesis Two
Hypothesis two stated “No significant differences exist among
the three groups of students with regard to changes in open-mindedness,
progressive/traditional attitudes toward education, and receptivity to
educational innovation." The testing of this particular hypothesis was

the central focus of the present study.

Hypothesis Test--Method One

In order to test this hypothesis, it was necessary to use multi-
variate analysis of covariance in order to control statistically for any
differences which existed among the groups on the pre-test and which
might have confounded differences among the three groups.

Two planned contrasts were conducted to test hypothesis three.
Those contrasts paralleled the contrasts conducted on the pre-test
scores. The first contrast compared the students in the mixed program
with those in the home-based student teaching program. The second

compared the overseas students with those in the other two groups.

Program Contrast 1

When the students in the mixed program (field-work and on-
campus course work) were compared with those in the home-based student
teacher program with initial differences on the pre-test statistically
controlled, the result was a nonsignificant F value (F = 1.25, df =
4, 42, p = .31). In other words, those two groups did not differ signi-
ficantly on the post-test scores for the combination of the four vari-

ables under study.

139

Program Contrast 2

 

When the post-test scores of those in the overseas program were
compared with post-test scores attained by students in the other two
programs, the result was significant (F = 3.98, df = 4, 42, p = .008).
Table 4-10 presents the results of the multivariate analysis of co-
variance. .

Table 4-10.--Program Contrast 2: MANOVA With Post-Test Scores as the
Dependent Set and Pre-Test Scores as Covariate.

 

 

MS
Source of Variation Variable Between Univariate P SDFC
Groups Fa
Program Contrast 2: Dogmatism .79 4.12 .048 1.00
Cross-cultural Progressivism .29 2.01 .16 .71
program--
Home-based and
Mixed programs Traditionalism .44 2.23 .14 -.58
Receptivity .14 .95 .33 -.22

 

Note: Abbreviated: SDFC = Standardized discriminant function
coefficient.

adf = 1,45

The data in Table 4-10 suggest that the biggest contributors to
the multivariate significant difference were dogmatism, progressivism,
and traditionalism. Receptivity contributed little to the differences.

To assist with interpretation of this result, Table 4-11 presents
the pre-test, post-test and adjusted post-test means for the two

groups on the four dependent variables.

140

.cmme “mounumoa umpmawom u m .cde ummanpmoa u N .cme amouamca u pt .

 

 

. Aw— u c

mm.m mm.m m¢.m Nm.¢ m¢.¢ Nm.¢ Fe m ©®.m mm.m m~.m mm.N op.m Fmszup301mmWLu
. . . . . . . Amp u 5

Nm.m em.m m~.m am 4 mm c we 4 “A m mm m ow m _m m mo.m mo.m uamma-msoz
m... u 5

Nm.m m¢.m mv.m ¢¢.¢ mm.¢ m¢.¢ mm.m m©.m mo.m me.m m¢.m p¢.m Em; oga umxwz

 

m N F m N P m N p cm «N «—

>u_>wuamomm Emppmcopupnmgh Emw>wmmmcaocm Emwpmemoo

 

 

 

azoco

 

 

.mummhuumom new :mcm :aom umpmpnsoo
0;: mpownnzm mmogp com usage ha memo: pmmpuumom umumzmc< can .pmmhuumoa .ummhumgaul.FPue wrath

141

Discussion

 

In the interpretation of the foregoing results, it must be borne
in mind that the small numbers in the groups (only one-half of each
group completed both the pre-test and the post-test) may have the effect
of producing spurious findings. One or two outliers in a group may
inflate or deflate mean scores unduly. Given this caution, interpre-
tations of slight differences among the groups should be tempered by
that chance factor. However, where differences are great, such as is
the case with dogmatism scores, it is more reasonable to assume a
genuine difference. In fact, with regard to dogmatism, the cross—
cultural students differ significantly (p < .05) from the other two
groups. This is the case even when the initial differences at the
beginning of the program have been controlled by the covariance pro-
cedure.

It will be recalled from the previous section that the students
in the overseas program were initially less dogmatic than were the other
students and now it seems that they become even less dogmatic and more
Open-minded after exposure to the overseas experience.

With regard to the other variables, it will be noted that at
the end of the term the overseas students are least progressive, most
traditional and least receptive when compared to the other two groups.
However, the differences are not great and do not approach significance.
An examination of the adjusted post-test means indicates that even when
initial differences were statistically controlled the ranking of the
groups is relatively unchanged. Later in this section the results of

the post-tests for all subjects (including those who did not do the

142

pre-test) will be presented. Because of the larger numbers, the results

may be more stable and of more practical significance.

Hypothesis Test--Method Two

 

A second approach to testing hypothesis number two is to use
multivariate analysis to assess differences among the groups on the post-
test scores regardless of pre-test scores. This procedure has the
limitation of ignoring initial differences among the groups but it has

the strength of larger numbers on which to base analyses.

Program Contrast 1

When the students in the mixed program were compared with
students in the home-based, student teaching program, the result was
nonsignificant (f = 13, df = 4, 115, p = .27). This is very similar to
the result obtained when only the post-test scores for the half sample

which had completed the pre-test were analyzed.

Program Contrast 2

When students in the overseas program were compared with those
students in the other two programs, the multivariate test was signifi-
cant (F = 3.96, df = 4, 115, p = .005). Table 4-12 presents the
results of that test.

It is interesting that the result obtained here is quite similar
to that obtained on the half-sample which had completed both the pre-
and post-test. Again, dogmatism is the one variable on which the over-
seas students differed significantly from the students in the mixed and

the home-based student teaching program.

143

Table 4—12.--Program Contrast 2: MANOVA With All Post-Test Scores as
the Dependent Set.

 

 

MS
Source of Variation Variable Between Univariate p SDFS
Groups Fa
Program Contrast 2: Dogmatism 4.25 8.66 .004 1.18
Cross-cultural Progressivism .30 .94 .33 .36
program--
Home-based and Traditionalism .05 .11 .74 -.72
Mixed programs
Receptivity .02 .07 .79 -.16

 

Note: Abbrevivated: SDFC = Standardized discriminant function
coefficients.

adf = l, 118

Discussion

Since both methods of testing hypothesis number two resulted in
similar findings, it seems reasonable to conclude that although the home-
based student teachers do not differ from those in the mixed (course-
work, field-work) program, those two groups combined differ significantly
from the students in the cross-cultural program operating in England.

In both sets of analyses, the overseas students were significantly less
dogmatic than were students in the other programs. No significant

difference existed on the other variables.

144

Hypothesis Three

The third null hypothesis stated, "No significant relationships
exist among (a) level of teaching preference, (b) size of hometown, _
(c) fathers‘ occupations, (d) sex, (e) level of teaching preference,
and (f) major discipline and levels of open-mindedness, progressive/
traditional attitudes toward education, and receptivity to educational
innovation."

In order to test this hypothesis multivariate analysis of vari-
ance was used to test for a number of interactions and to test a number
of planned contrasts.

,Iype of Practicum and Level of
Previous Experience

The multivariate analysis of variance test for an interaction
effect between type of program and level of previous classroom experi-
ence was nonsignificant (F = .66, df = 12, 121, p = .79) by the Wilks
Lambda Criterion. Since there was no interaction effect, the two
variables could be considered separately. The results of the program
contrasts which were subsequently conducted have already been reported
in section two. The following is a presentation of the results of the

experience contrasts.

_§xperience Contrast 1

In the earlier presentation of demographic and biographic data,
it was noted that the only variable on which the groups differed was
level of previous experience. Because of that difference, it was impor-
tant to ascertain whether a main effect for experience was reflected in

pre-test scores. The first contrast to examine this question compared

 

 

145

those subjects having no previous experience with those who had less
than twenty days classroom experience since completing secondary school.
The multivariate F (Wilks Lambda Criterion) was nonsignificant (F = .83,

df = 4, 45, p = .51).

Experience Contrast 2

The second planned comparison for a main effect for previous
experience compared those who had less than twenty days experience
(including those who had no experience) with those who had more than
twenty days experience. The F-test in this case again produced a non-
significant result (F = .81, df = 4, 46, p = .53).

Since there was no main effect for level of previous experience
reflected in the pre-test scores in either of the contrasts, it can be
assumed that although the groups differed with regard to level of
previous experience, that difference was not reflected in a substantive
difference on the four dependent variables.

The fOregoing planned contrasts to ascertain whether there was
a main effect for previous experience were conducted on the pre-test
scores. This was done as has already been stated in order to check for
a difference among groups initially since they differed on that variable.

Since, however, tests of relationships for all other demographic
and biographic variables were conducted on the post-test scores, fOr the
sake of completeness, the experience contrasts were conducted on the
post-test scores as well.

The results of both those contrasts, which are parallels of these
already reported for the pre-test scores were nonsignificant. For con-

trast one (those with no previous experience compared with those who had

 

146

less than twenty days experience), the F value was 1.07 with 4, 42
degrees of freedom and significant at .38..

The second contrast (those who had less than twenty days com-
pared with those who had more experience) produced an F = 1.03 with a
probability of .40.

No significant relationships existed between the level of prior
classroom experience of the research subjects and scores on either the

pre-test or post-test.

Major Area of Study

Three planned comparisons were conducted to test for the main
effect for the discipline (area of academic major) variable. Table 4-13
presents the results of those contrasts. Because of small numbers in
some cells, it was necessary to regroup into the categories presented
in the table. As Table 4-13 indicates, there is no significant rela-
tionship between area of study and the linear combination of the four

dependent variables.

Table 4-13.--Discip1ine Contrasts: MANOVA With Post-Test Scores as the
Dependent Set.

 

Source of Variation df F P

 

Discipline Contrasts

1. English, French, social sciences--
physical sciences 4, 109 .57 .68

2. English, French-~socia1 sciences 4, 109 .41 .80

3. English--French 4, 109 .99 .41

 

 

147

Size of Hometown

 

Two contrasts were planned in order to establish whether a rela-
tionship existed between the size of the hometowns of the research

subjects and the scores they attained on the four dependent variables.

Hometown Contrast 1

 

When students from small towns (between 1,000 and 50,000 popula-
tion) were compared with those from cities with more than 50,000 popula-

tion a nonsignificant result was obtained (F = .93, df = 4, 111, p = .93).

Hometown Contrast 2

Similarly, when students from villages of less than 1,000
population were compared with those from towns and cities of more than
1,000 population, the F test was nonsignificant (F = .71, df = 4, 111,
p = .59).

Father's Occupations

The following are the results of three contrasts established to
determine whether a relationship existed between fathers' occupations
and dependent variable scores.

Table 4-14 presents data from those contrasts.

No significant relationships existed between the occupational
level of the fathers of the research subjects and the subjects‘ levels
of openemindedness, extent of traditional or progressive attitudes

toward education, or their receptivity to educational innovation.

TeachingALevel
A multivariate test of significance was conducted to determine

whether a difference on post-test scores existed between those who were

 

148

Table 4-14.--Fathers' Occupations Contrasts: MANOVA With Post-Test
Scores as the Dependent Set.

 

Source of Variation df F p

 

Fathers' Occupation Contrasts:
1. Professional--Technica1/Managerial 4. 99 1.45 .22
2. Skilled--Unskilled 4, 99 1.03 .39

3. Professional and Technical/Managerial--
Skilled and Unskilled 4,99 .22 .92

 

studying to be elementary teachers and those who are prospective secon-
dary teachers. The MANOVA produced a significant result (F = 3.06,
df = 4, 115, p = .02).

Table 4-15 presents a breakdown of the results of that test.

Table 4-15.—-Teaching Level MANOVA With Post-Test Scores as the
Dependent Set.

 

 

Source of Variable Bergeen Univariate p SDFC

Variation Groups Fa

Teaching Level: Receptivity 1.55 4.67 .03 -.53

Elementar -- Dogmatism .39 .80 .37 .44

Secondary Traditionalism 3.69 8.78 .004 -.93
Progressivism .06 .18 .67 .10

 

Note: Abbreviation SDFC = Standardized discriminant function
coefficients.

adf = 1, 118

149

The major contributors to the differences between the two
teaching levels were receptivity to educational innovation and tradi-
tionalism. Table 4-16 is a presentation of the means obtained by the

' subjects in the two teaching levels on the four variables.

Table 4-16.--Post-Test Means by Teaching Level.

 

Teaching Level Dogmatism Progressivism Traditionalism Receptivity

 

Elementary 3.30 5.59 4.35 5.46
Secondary 3.40 5.55 4.69 5.26

 

A discernible pattern is evident in Table 4-16. Prospective
elementary teachers are less dogmatic, more progressive, less tradi-
tional and more receptive to educational innovation than are prospective
secondary teachers. This finding is in keeping with the trend of
findings reported earlier in Chapter II.

One of the possibilities posed in Chapter II concerned the
effect of completing a student teaching program in the elementary
schools of England upon the progressivism and traditionalism of the
students involved. In order to test whether those elementary level

student teachers who completed their field experience in England became

more progressive and/or less traditional than students in the other

programs a multivariate analysis of covariance test for an interaction
between praticum group by teaching level was conducted. The result

was nonsignificant (F = 1.25, df = 8, 88, p = .28) indicating that,

in fact, the exposure to the elementary schools in England did not

result in a significantly different attitudinal outcome when compared

with the two other programs.

150

ggyg

It is perhaps not surprising that the findings regarding the
scores of males and females would be similar to those attained when
the scores were analyzed by teaching level. Since 87 percent of all
elementary level teachers were female and 63 percent of all secondary
level teachers were male, one might expect this to be the case. Never-
theless, there were some differences. Although there was a significant
difference between males and females on the multivariate test (F = 3.02,
df = 4, 115, p = .02), Table 4-17 indicates that the differences between
them did not exactly parallel the differences between the elementary

and secondary teachers.

Table 4—17.--Sex Contrast: MANOVA With Post-Test Scores at the Dependent

 

 

Set.
MS

Source of Variable Between Univariate p SDFC
Variation Groups Fa
Sex: Receptivity 3.75 11.59 .0009 -.80
Male--Female Dogmatism 2.19 4.55 .03 -.17

Traditionalism 1.10 2.45 .12 -.17

Progressivism .57 1.71 .19 .13

 

Note: Abbreviation SDFC = Standardized discriminant function
coefficient.

adf =1, 118

Table 4-18 indicates the direction and extent of differences

which caused the results reported in Table 4-17.

151

Table 4-18.--Post-Test Means by Sex.

 

 

Sex Dogmatism Receptivity Traditionalism Progressivism
Male 3.55 5.14 4.64 5.50
Female 3.23 5.50 4.46 5.62

 

Once again, the pattern across teaching levels is evident across
the sex variable. Females tend to be less dogmatic, more receptive to
educational innovation, less traditional and more progressive in their
attitudes toward education. However, in this case, the two univariate
F tests results which are significant are those for receptivity and

dogmatism.

Discussion

Hypothesis number three was designed to be exploratory in
nature. In the review of literature in Chapter 11, some evidence was
presented to suggest that students in certain subject areas were less
dogmatic than others: that females tended to be less dogmatic than
males; that elementary teachers tended to be more progressive and less
traditional than secondary teachers and so forth. As was noted in
Chapter II, the evidence in support of these and the many other findings
reported in that chapter is tentative and inconclusive.

The testing of hypothesis number three was an attempt to shed
some light on these inconsistencies.

Of the demographic, biographic, and programmatic variables
tested, only the sex variable and the teaching level variable were
significant. The pattern which has already been reported tended to hold

true across both variables.

152

Other Findings

 

This section is devoted to an examination of a set of findings
which do not relate specifically to the topics dealt with in the pre-
vious segments of this chapter.

Those findings deal with the effect of the research design

adopted for the present study.

Pre-Test Effect

In the discussion of the research design in Chapter III, it was
indicated that only one-half of the subjects in each practicum group had
received the pre-test whereas all had been administered the post-test.
This was done in order to be able to check as to whether the taking of
the pre-test had any effect on scores achieved on the post-test. By
comparing the post-test scores of those who did the pre-test with the
post-test scores of those who did not have the benefit of the pre-test,
it was possible to test for interaction and main effects for the pre-
test.

A multivariate analysis of variance test indicated no inter-
action between the pre-test and the practicum group variable (F = 1.3,
df = 8, 232, p = .23). However when the same procedure was used to check
for a main effect for pre—test, the result was highly significant (F =
3.6, df = 4, 115, p = .008). This suggests that those who had been
administered the pre-test had significantly different scores when com-
pared with those who had not done the pre-test. Since those who com-
pleted the pre-test constituted a random sub-sample of each practicum

group, this finding is significant for two reasons.

153

First, if the pre-test had the effect of sensitizing subjects
and as a result their post-test scores were affected, then the results
of the analysis of post-test scores for those who had the pre-test cannot
be generalized because in effect the pre-test becomes an integral part
of the treatment condition. The information in Table 4-19 is helpful
in ascertaining Whether, in fact, the pre-test effect has a contaminating
effect upon the post-test outcomes. From that table, it is clear that
the greatest impact of the effect of taking the pre-test was upon the
level of progressive and traditional attitudes toward education. Since
those particular variables were not among those accounting for the
significant differences among the subjects in the practicum groups
(either initially or on the post-test), we can be reasonably safe in
assuming that although the pre-test had an effect, it did not determine
the differences among the practicum groups on the dogmatism variable.

Table 4-19.--Pre-Test/Post-Test MANOVA With the Post-Test Scores as the
Dependent Set.

 

 

MS

Source of Variable Between Univariate p SDFC
Variation Groups Fa
Pre-test effect: Receptivity .19 .54 .46 .18
Pre-test-- Dogmatism .1O .21 .65 .51
no pre-test

Traditionalism .92 2.05 .15 -.89

Progressivism 2.16 6.80 .01 .95

 

Note: Abbreviation SDFC = Standardized discriminant function
coefficient.

adf = 1, 118

 

 

154

Table 4-20 indicates the direction of differences on the four

variables by the pre-test factor.

Table 4-20.--Post-Test Scores by Pre-Test/No Pre-Test.

 

 

Pre-Test Dogmatism Receptivity Progressivism Traditionalism
No 3.34 5.31 5.40 4.60
Yes 3.37 5.39 5.72 4.43

 

For some reason, those who completed the progressivism and tra-
ditionalism pre-tests seem to have different scores on the post-test
for those two scales. The differences on the dogmatism and receptivity

scales are not as pronounced.

Discussion

The finding regarding the differences between the post-test
scores for those who did the pre-test compared with those who did not
complete the pre-test has several possible explanations. First, there
is the possibility that a Type I error was made; that is that a true
hypothesis was in fact rejected. A second explanation is that having
done the pre-test, the subjects had become sensitized and as a result
their responses were different on the post-test either as a result of
reflecting upon their responses or as a result of having spent some
time in school systems after completing the pre-test. However, since
there was no interaction between whether an individual had or had not
completed the pre-test and the particular practicum group in which he

happened to be, we can only conclude that the three programs did not

155

interact differentially (at least at a statistically significant level)
with the effect of having completed the pre-test.

A third possible explanation is that although those who com-
pleted the pre-test were selected in a random manner (by using a table
of random numbers), in fact the small numbers in each group resulted in
a non-random sampling from each group.

The second point to be made regarding this finding is that it
casts doubt upon the efficacy of using pre-test/post-test designs where
no strategies are utilized to control for the effect of pre-testing.

Implications of this will be discussed in Chapter V.

§EEEE£X
In this chapter, the findings of the study have been presented

along with interpretative discussion regarding those findings. Chapter
V will be devoted to a discussion of the conclusions to be reached and
implications to be drawn from the findings herein. The following is a
summary of those findings.

1. With the exception of level of classroom experience, students
in the three groups were not significantly different from each
other on a number of demographic, biographic, and programmatic

variables (sex, teaching level, size of hometown, fathers'
occupations, grade point averages, and area of academic major).
2. Those students who enrolled in the overseas student teaching
program were initially different from those who enrolled in the
other two programs. The major contributor to that difference

was the dogmatism variable with receptivity of secondary

importance.

156

3 Those who completed the overseas cross-cultural program were

even less dognatic at the end of the field experience term than

they were at the beginning. In addition, at the end of the

term, those in the cross-cultural program were significantly
less dogmatic than were students in the other two programs.

A significant difference existed between males and females on

receptivity to educational innovation and dogmatism. Females

were more open-minded and more receptive.
A significant difference existed between prospective elementary

teachers and prospective secondary teachers on traditionalism

and receptivity to educational innovation. Elementary students

were both more receptive and less traditional.

A significant difference existed between the post-test scores

of those who had completed the pre-test and those who had not

completed the pre-test. Those who completed the pre-test had

higher progressivism scores.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter begins with a review of the problem and the research
procedures utilized in the study followed by a discussion of the con-
clusions to be reached and the implications to be drawn from the find-
ings presented in Chapter IV. In the concluding section, recommenda-

tions for future research are presented.

Review of the Problem and Procedures

 

It is perhaps trite but true to suggest that the history of
education is the story of an educational pendulum forever swinging
between liberal and conservative positions. Given such a state of flux,
those who are charged with the responsibility of preparing teachers for
the future find themselves in a difficult position. Traditional school
districts seek individuals who will be in tune with their particular
brand of educational philosophy and progressively oriented school dis-
tricts seek teachers who will fit into their established modus operandi.
In most instances teacher training institutions do not explicitly
declare allegiance to one or the other particular school of thought.
Even if they do officially declare for one side or the other, they
probably will experience difficulty in providing student teaching

experiences which are consonant with the philosophy and bias of the

157

158

training program. Throughout this study researcher bias and commitment
has not explicitly been made public. The notions of traditionalism and
progressivism, for example, have been presented in what is h0ped is a
neutral, unbiased fashion. Given the need fOr different types of
teachers for different schools in different societal contexts the
question as to whether traditional teachers are more or less desirable
than progressive ones is a philoSOphical question of value to be answered
on those grounds rather than on empirical ones. Empirical data may bear
on the issue but ultimately as with almost all educational issues, the
question necessitates a value judgment.

This report, however, is not free of researcher bias. A basic
assumption underlying this project is that regardless of the "type" of
teacher (progressive, traditional, or otherwise) society has the right
- to expect that he or she will be open-minded to the extent that new
ideas will be evaluated objectively; that they will neither be mindlessly
adopted nor rejected out of hand as being unworthy or unworkable.

The problem in this study was to assess three methods of pro-
viding practical experiences for prospective teachers. The first issue
studied was that surrounding the type of individual attracted to each
program. The second and central focus of the study was the measurement
of attitude change experienced by individuals in the three programs.

The particular attitudes and outcomes assessed were open-mindedness,
receptivity to educational innovation, progressivism, and traditionalism.
The three programs studied were: (a) one which combined course work
with distributed school practice, (b) a thirteen week student teaching
practicum, and (c) a thirteen week overseas cross-cultural student

teaching program.

159

The final question examined the relationships among certain
demographic and biographic factors and the degree of open-mindedness,
level of receptivity to educational innovation, and extent of progressive
and traditional attitudes toward education.

All students in the student teaching programs (home-based and
overseas) during the 1976-77 academic year were included for study.

A random sample of students in the mixed program was studied. A random
sample of half of the research subjects in each program completed a
pre-test at the beginning of the academic term and all subjects com-

pleted a post-test in the last week of the term.

Findings and Conclusions

 

An analysis of background variables of the subjects in the three
samples indicated that the groups were not significantly dissimilar
except with regard to amount of previous classroom experience. That
experience (defined as time Spent in public school classrooms engaged
in any activity including observation) could have stemmed from a number
of sources. First, some pedagogy courses have school practices attached
as part of the requirements. Second, some student teachers may have
already taught in supply or substitute capacities in situations where
more qualified teachers were not readily available. Third, there is
the possibility that some students would have completed the mixed pro-
gram prior to going on to enroll in either the home-based or overseas
student teaching program.

In order to ascertain whether the differences among the groups
on the experience variable might have accounted for any initial differ-

ences on pre-test or post-test scores, multivariate tests were conducted

160

and in both instances the relationship of amount of experience to scores
attained on the attitude scales was nonsignificant.

This is interesting because one can reasonably assume that the
exposure was to public school classrooms in Newfoundland where, in fact,
the mixed program and the home-based programs are conducted. This
being the case, it is probably not surprising that level of experience
did not affect dependent variable scores since neither of those two
particular programs affected scores to a significant extent. This
particular conclusion, that exposure to the school system does not have
significant impact upon attitudes, is reinforced by an examination of
the differences between pre-test and post-test scores for students in
the two programs operating in Newfoundland. Almost without exception,
there is little movement in terms of change between pre-test and post-
test. This finding is different from the trend reported in the litera-
ture which suggests that exposure to on-campus course work leads to
more progressive, less traditional attitudes whereas exposure to field
work leads to less progressive and more traditional attitudes. One
might normally expect that if this were the case, the mixed program
might have a neutral effect (the effect of the field-work balancing out
the effect of exposure to on-campus courses and professors), however
that argument does not hold in the case of the thirteen-week home-based
student teaching program.

It might be interesting to investigate whether the Newfoundland
situation parallels those reported elsewhere. It just may be the case
that education professors and prospective teachers there are no more

progressive and no less traditional than are public school teachers.

161

This would explain the lack of change between pre-tests and post-test
and the lack of an effect for amount of experience.

The finding that those who opt for the overseas program are
initially different from other students has already been explained in
terms of the type of individual who would forego the security of a known
situation for an unfamiliar one. This seems to be the most plausible
interpretation of the finding that the overseas students are more Open-
minded than are the other students.

There are several interpretations of the finding that those who
Opted for the overseas program were not only more open-minded initially
but became moreso during the overseas assignment. First, the British
and Newfoundland cultures may be dissimilar but yet enough alike to
allow changes of the nature predicted by Festinger's theory of cognitive
dissonance. If the two cultures were very dissimilar with fewer com-
monalities, the result may have been the boomerang effect referred to
in Chapter II. The second interpretation is an extension of the first.
It seems logical that an individual who is initially open-minded may
become moreso as a result of contact with an alien culture. The exposure
to different values, norms, and mores may have the effect of decreasing
the level of dogmatism.

It has been reported in earlier studies that those who are
initially open do not become more open-minded and this is usually ex-
plained in terms of a ceiling effect. That generalization does not seem
to hold true in this case. This is so in spite of the fact that the
overseas student teachers were among the least dogmatic of many samples

tested.

162

It was not the purpose of this research to assess the “quality"
of the programs under study. Such an assessment would necessarily have
to be based on a much wider and varied group of outcomes. Nevertheless
within the limited scope of this work, some tentative verdicts seem
justified.

In Chapters I and II.a plethora of studies was cited indicating
that with few exceptions, the student teaching experience resulted in
less than desirable attitudinal shifts on the part of the students
involved. This study has indicated that at Memorial University, the
three programs do not seem to have such deleterious effects as those
almost universally reported. Specific reasons for such a finding were
beyond the sc0pe of this study to ascertain. Perhaps further studies
are warranted in an attempt to isolate those critical factors which
significantly influence student attitudes.

A second issue of interest relates to the efficacy of the over-
seas program in England vis a vis the other two programs which operate
in Newfoundland. The finding of this study suggests that the cross-
cultural program may result in increased Open-mindedness and less
dogmatism within the students who participate. Given the strong positive
correlation between dogmatism and authoritarianism and dogmatism and
prejudice, it may be argued that the overseas program has positive out-
comes. To be Open-minded is to have a concern for rationality and for
truth. In that sense, increased open-mindedness is an aim of education
and particularly for those who will later assist others in the pursuit
of truth. If true education (as opposed to indoctrination, training,
conditioning, and instruction) involves engaging the rationality of the

learner then open-minded teachers are requisite to the creation of

 

163

educational atmospheres and environments in which cherished and com-
monly held assumptions are held accountable to scrutiny and question.
To the extent that teacher education programs produce that result, it
may be argued they are successful.

The finding regarding the attitudes of males versus females
and elementary teachers versus secondary teachers are consistent with
findings reported in Chapter II. Elementary teachers who are largely
female tend to be more child-centered and place less emphasis on the
teaching of the bodies of knowledge of particular disciplines than do
secondary and male teachers. Likewise, they tend to be less custodial
in their pupil control ideology than are males and secondary teachers.

The finding that males are more dogmatic than females is also
consonant with earlier reported findings.

One of the most significant findings of this study is that
related to the fact that a pre-test effect was evident in the post-test
scores of the research subjects. This effect was similar across pro-
grams. Generally, those who completed the pre-test had lower tradition—
alism scores and higher progressivism scores than did those who had not
completed the pre-test. The scores on dogmatism and receptivity do not
seem to have been affected. However, that tentative conclusion should
be tempered by the possibility that the pre—test may have had the effect
of restraining any potential changes on those latter two variables.

Some possible explanations for this finding have already been presented
in Chapter IV.
It seems that in this instance, pre-testing prior to the student

teachers' experience may have had the effect of causing the subjects to

164

ad0pt a set of attitudes that they might not have adapted had they not
been administered the pre-test.

The most important implication of this finding is that studies
which utilize the classic pre-test/post-test, two-group design may not
have the generalizability often assumed since it is impossible to ferret
out the effect of the treatment versus the effect of the treatment in
interaction with the pre-test. In the conduct of attitude research,
alternatives to the two-group pre-test/post-test design must be utilized.
Two possible designs are the randomized two group post-test design and
the Solomon four group design. In both of those instances, it is
possible to test for program effects without the possibility of pre-test

interaction affecting the post-test outcome.

Recommendations for Further Study

 

Hindsight is sometimes more precise than foresight. Certainly
that is the case here and it is with the benefit of that hindsight that
the following recommendations are presented.

Research such as that conducted herein is piecemeal. It leaves
more questions unanswered than it actually answers. Studies such as this
one can be more meaningful if they are conducted within the framework of
a larger overall strategy or research program. Longitudinal studies
which trace the stability or malleability of student attitudes from entry
into preservice programs through to the early years of inservice experi-
ence are needed. However, that alone is insufficient. Connections
would have to be made between attitudinal structures and adopted teach-
ing styles. Contextual variables such as student teaching contexts,

professional and peer contracts during periods of study, and

165

administrative and other constraints once on the job should be included
in any comprehensive program of research.

Finally, that effort would have to proceed simultaneously with
the attempt to make the connections between the effect of teacher edu-
cation and the effects of teaching. Some effort must be made to trace
the effect of teacher education programs upon teacher behaviors which
in turn can be shown to have at least some probability for success in
teaching, however that may be defined.

The main point is that without a comprehensive research program,
the findings of short-term small scale studies are difficult to inter-
pret in any meaningful way that can have the potential for impact on
practice.

Proverbially all roads may lead to Rome, however in teacher
education we are yet a long way from the Piazza Venezia. Our progress
is slow and uncertain because there are no maps to guide us. That, of

course, is the nature of research.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N.
The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper, 1950.

Ager, M. Dogmatism and the Verbal Behavior of Student Teachers.
Journal of Teacher Education, 1970, 21, 179-183.

Alter, R. D., & White, B. J. Some Norms for the Dogmatism Scale.
Psychological Reports, 1966, 19, 967-969.

American Educational Research Association. Report of the Committee on
the Criteria of Teacher Effectiveness. Review of Educational
Research, 1952, 22, 238-263.

Anctil, D. E. Dogmatism and Philosophy: Their Relation to Teacher
Acceptance and Understanding of the New Social Studies (Doctoral
dissertation, Utah State University, 1973). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 1973, 33, 4654A.

Apel, J. 0. Prediction of Adult Educators' Attitudes Toward Institu-
tional Changes (Doctoral dissertation, The University of
Chicago, 1966). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1967,
21. 1679A.

 

Association of Teacher Educators. Survey Conducted for the Council for
Intercultural Teacher Education. Washington, D.C.: 1980.

Austin-Martin, G. G. The Effects of Student Teaching and Pretesting
on Student Teachers' Attitudes. Journal of Experimental Edu-
cation, 1979, 48, 36-38.

 

Barry, G. C. Teacher Open-Closed-Mindedness as a Predictor of Student
Creativity Progress (Doctoral dissertation, Utah State Uni-
versity, 1974).

Barth, R. 5. Open Education and the American School. New York:
Agathon Press Inc., 1972.

Bassett, G. W. Innovation in Primary Education. London: John Wiley
and Son, 1970.

166

167

Bennett, N. TeachingVStyles and Pupil Progress. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1976.

Bennie, W. A. Campus Supervision of Student Teaching: A Closer Look.
Teacher College Journal. 1964, 36, 131-133.

Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D., & Chin, R. The Planning of Change. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., 1969.

Berg, S. D. Attitude Toward Teaching Children and Degree of Open-Closed-
Mindedness as a Function of Level of Exposure to Field Experi-
ences (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1977).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977, 38, 2710A.

Berghoff, B. A. K. A Comparison of Educational Attitudes, Role Expecta-
tions and Dimensions of Progressivism Between Teachers and Pre-
Service Teachers in Mental Retardation and Elementary Education
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1979).

Berliner, D. C. Impediments to the Study of Teacher Effectiveness.
Journal of Teacher Education, 1976, g1, 5-13.

Bettas, G. A. An Analysis of Teacher Attitudes and the Implementation
of Selected Innovative Programs in Open Concept Schools in the

State of Washington (Doctoral dissertation, Washington State
University, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974,
5, 6379A.

Bills, R. The Classroom Teacher, Mental Health and Learning. Mental
Health and Teacher Education (Forty-sixth yearbook of the
Association of Student Teaching). DeBuque, Iowa: William
Brown, 1967.

Book, L. C. An Investigation of the Effects of Immunization on Student
Teacher Dogmatism and Attitudes Toward Teaching (Doctoral
dissertation, Purdue University, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1975, 31, 1496A.

Borgers, S. B. Effect of Counselor Involvement on Dogmatism Scores of
Teacher Education Students. The Humanist Educator, 1979, 11,
160-166.

 

Borgers, S. 8., & Ward, G. R. Differences in the Needs of Low Dogmatic
and High Dogmatic Prospective Teachers. Educational Leadership,
1974, 31, 697-699.

Bowers, C. A. The Ideologies of Progressive Education. History of Edu-
cation Quarterly, 1967, Z, 452-473.

Bremer, B. 0. Changes in Student Teacher Dogmatism and Attitudes as a
Function of Cooperating Teachers and Grading Systems (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1970).

168

Bridges, E. M., & Renolds, L. 8. Teacher Receptivity to Change.
Administrators Notebook, 1968, 16, 1-4.

Brophy, J., & Evertston, C. M. Learning from Teaching: A Developmental
Perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc., 1976.

Brumbaugh, R. B., Holdt, K. C., & Beisel, W. H. Teacher Dogmatism and
Perceptual Accuracy. Journal of Teacher Education, 1966, 11,
332-335.

Burgess, J. A Guide to English Schools. Harmondsworth, England:
Penguin Books, 1969.

 

Campbell, 0. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental
Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.

 

Cappelluzzo, E. M., & Brine, J. Dogmatism and Prospective Teachers.
Journal of Teacher Education, 1969, g9, 148-157.

 

Carlson, R. Adoption of Educational Innovations. Eugene, Oregon: The
University of Oregon Press, 1969.

Chalker, J. W. A Study Using Interaction Analysis of the Relationship
Between Teacher Dogmatism and the Reflective Method of Teaching
Social Studies (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania,
1972 .

Chandler, B. J. (Ed.). Standard Education Almanac 1980-81. Chicago,
Ill.: Marguis Who's Who Inc., 1981.

 

Chase, 0. J. A Comparative Study of the Cooperative Michigan State Uni-
versity-Lansing SERL Projects and the Conventional Program of
Student Teaching With Reference to Openness and Attitude Forma-
tion (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971).

Childs, J. W. A Study of the Belief Systems of Administrators and
Teachers in Innovative and Non-Innovative School Districts
(Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965).

Chin, R., & Downey, L. Changing Change: Innovating a Discipline. In
R. N. W. Travers (Ed.), The Second Handbook of Research on
Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1973.

 

Cohen, L. Dogmatism and Views of the Ideal Pupil. Educational Review,
1971, 24, 3-10.

 

Cohen, L. The Effects of Different Forms of Response Set on the Decision
Making Behavior of Teachers With Varying Levels of Dogmatism
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, 1972).

Conant, J. B. The Eucation of American Teachers. New York: McGraw
Hill Book Co. Inc., 1963.

169

Dale, R. From Endorsement to Disintegration: Progressive Education
from the Golden Age to the Green Paper. British Journal of
Educational Studies, 1979, 28, 191-207.

Dalin, P. Limits to Educational Change. New York: St. Martin's Press,
1978.

Davies, 0., & Amershek, K. Student Teaching. In R. Ebel (Ed.), The
Encyclopedia of Educational Research. London: Macmillan:_1969.

 

Day, H. P. Attitude Changes of Beginning Teachers After Initial Teach-
ing Experience. Journal of Teacher Education, 1959, 19, 326-328.

 

Denemark, G., & MacDonald, J. Pre-Service and In-Service Education of
Teachers. Review of Educational Research, 1967, 31, 233-247.

 

Dewey, J. The Child and the Curriculum. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1902.

 

Dewey, J. The Relation of Theory to Practice in Education. The Third
Yearbook of the National Society for the Scientific Study of
Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1904.

Dewey, J. Experience and Education. New York: The MacMillan Company,
1938.

 

Dickson, G. E., et al. The Characteristics of Teacher Education Students
in The British Isles and in the United States. Toledo, Ohio:
Research Institute of the University of Toledo, 1966.

 

 

Di Renzo, G. J. Professional Politicians and Personality. American
Journal of Sociology, 1967,.13, 217-225.

Doyle, W. Paradigms for Research on Teacher Effectiveness. In L. S.
Shulman (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 5). Itasca,
111.: F. E. Peacock, 1978.

Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. The Study of Teaching. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston Inc., 1974.

Dutton, W. H. Attitude Change of Elementary School Student Teachers and
Anxiety. Journal of Educational Research, 1962, 55, 380-382.

Ehrlick, J., & Lee, D. Dogmatism, Learning and Resistance to Change:
A Review and a New Paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, lo,
249-260.

Emmerling, F. C. A Study of Relationships Between Personality Character-
istics of Classroom Teachers and Pupil Perceptions of Those
Teachers (Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, 1963).

Febinger. G. N. A Study of the Personality Correlates and Other Vari-
ables Associated With the Openness and Closedness of the Belief
Systems of Prospective Teachers at the University of Colorado
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, 1965).

170

Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, Calif.:
Stanford University Press, 1957.

Finch, J. D. Instructor Openness and Student Evaluation of Teachin
Effectiveness (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama).
Dissertation Abstracts International. 1973, 34, 5165A.

Fish, A. Directing the Discovery of Scientific Generalizations in Ele-
mentary School Science Instruction. School Science and Mathe-
matics, 1962, 42, 184-187.

 

Friedenberg, E. Z. The VanishingyAdolescent. New York: Dell Pub-
lishing Co.,71959.

Friedenberg, E. Z. Critique of Current Practice. In D. McCarthy (Ed.),
New Perspectives on Teacher Education. San Francisco: Joey
Bassey, 1973.

Fromm, E. Escope From Freedom. New York: Rinehart, 1947.

 

Fullan, M. Overview of the Innovative Process and the User. Interchange,
1972, 3, 1-46.

 

Fuller, F., & Brown, D. On Becoming a Teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.),
Teacher Education (The seventy-fourth yearbook of N.S.S.E.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.

Gage, N. L. Paradigms for Research on Teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.

 

Gage, N. L. Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally,
1968.

Gage, N. L. The Evaluation of Teaching_Effectiveness and Teacher Edu-
cation. Paris: International Institute for Educational Plan-
ning, 1974.

Gage, N. L. The Scientific Basis of the Art of Teaching. New York:
Teachers College Press, 1977.

Garrison, F. M. Attitudes of Elementary Education Majors Toward Subject
Areas in Methods Courses and Student Openness-Closedness as
Measured by the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Northern Colorado, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1973, 3;, 3454A.

 

Giacquenta, J. B. Status, Risk, and Receptivity to Innovations in Com-
plex Organizations: A Study of the Responses of Four Groups of
Educators to the Proposed Introduction of Sex Education in Ele-
mentary School. Sociology of Education, 1975,-48, 38-58.

171

Good, T., Biddle, B., & Brophy, J. Teachers Make a Difference. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1975.

Gross, N., Giacquinta, J. B., & Bernstein, M. ImplementiogoOrganiza-
tional Innovations. New York: Basic Books Inc., 1971.

Hall, R. L. The Use of the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale in the Prediction
of Students' Reactions to Pr0posed Innovative Practices
(Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1971). Disserta-
tion Abstracts International, 1971, 32, 1272A.

Hanson, D. J. Dogmatism and Authoritarianism. Journal of Social
Psychology, 1968, lo, 89-95.

 

Hanssel, J. F. Selected Variables Relating to Change of Curriculum
Directors (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York,
1970). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 31, 1539A.

Harrison, 0., Jr. An Analysis of Attitude Modifications of Prospective
Teachers Toward Education Before and After a Sequence of Teacher
Preparation Experiences (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Oklahoma, 1967). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1967,
28, 986A.

Hart, M. M. Dogmatism as Related to Accuracy of Student Teachers'
Judgements of Students (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Minnesota, 1966). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1966,
27, 2243A.

Haven, 5. L. A Study of Selected Factors Affecting Teachers' Willing-
ness to Accept Educational Innovations (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Houston, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts Inter-
national, 1973,.34, 1768A.

Heelan, P. Hermeneutics of Experimental Science in the Context of the
Life-World. In D. Ihde and R. Taner (Eds.), Interdisciplinary
Sociology. The Hague: Maritinus Nishoff, 1977.

 

Herman, S. N., & Schild, E. Context for the Study of Cross-Cultural
Education. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1960, 52, 231-250.

Hermanowitz, H. J. The Pluralistic World of Beginning Teachers: A
Summary of Interview Studies. The Real World of the Beginning
Teacher. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association,
1966.

Hester, R. T. A Study of Open-Mindedness or Closed-Mindedness as a
Factor Related to Success in Student Teaching (Dictoral disserta-
tion, University of Southern Mississippi, 1976).

Hopkins, M. L. A Follow Up Study of Recent Graduates of the College of
Education. Columbia: University of Missouri, 1970.

172

Howey, K. Pre-Service Teacher Education: Lost in the Shuffle. Journal
of Teacher Education, 1977, 28, 26-28.

Howsam, R. 8., et a1. Educating a Profession. Washington, D.C.:
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1976.

Hey, W. K. Organizational Socialization: The Student Teacher and Pupil
Control Ideology. Journal of Educational Research, 1967, 61,
153-155.

Hughes, K. A. The Effect of Micro-Teaching and Student Teaching on
Scales of Dogmatism: Anxiety and Attitudes of Prospective Ele-
mentary Teachers (Doctoral dissertation, University of South
gakota, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1969, 39,

831A.

Hunt, 0. Book Review (N. Bennett, Teaching_Styles and Pupil Progress)

Iannaccone, L., & Button, N. Functions of Student Teaching: Attitude
Formation and Initiation in ElementaryoStudent Teaching—(CRP
Report 106): Washington, D.C.: United States Office of Edu-
cation, 1964.

Jacobs, E. B. Attitude Change in Teacher Education: An Inquiry Into
the Role of Attitudes in Changing Teacher Behavior. Journal
of Teacher Education, 1968, 19, 410-415.

Jamais, J. The Effects of Belief System Styles on the Communication
and Adoption of Farm Practices (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1964).

Jamais, J. F., & Troldahl, V. C. Dogmatism, Tradition and General
Innovativeness. In M. Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes and Values:
A Theory of Organization and Change. San Francisco: Joey-Bass,
1976.

James, Lord of Rusholme. Teacher Education and Training. (a report
by a committee of inquiry appointed by the Secretary of State
for Education and Science) London: Her Majesty's Stationery
Office, 1972.

Jay, R. H. Follow Up Study of First Year Teachers. Montana Education,
1968, g, l-10.

Johnson, J. S. The Relationship of Dogmatism to Student Teacher Atti-
tudes. Contemporary Education, 1977, 48, 214-217.

Johnson, W. W. Dogmatism as a Means of Predicting Insecurity, Self-
Concept, Meaning, Attitude and Effectiveness of Female Ele-
mentary Teachers (Doctoral dissertation, University of South
Dakota, 1967).

173

Kaltsounis, T., & Nelson, J. The Mythology of Student Teaching.
Journal of Teacher Education, 1968, 19, 277-281.

Katz, L. Issues and Problems in Teacher Education. In B. Spodek (Ed.),
Teacher Education of the Teacher, oy the Teacher, for the Child.
Washington, D.C.: NAEYC, 1974.

Kazlow, C. Faculty Receptivity to Organizational Change: A Test of Two
Explanations of Resistance to Innovation in Higher Education.
gournal of Research and Development in Education, 1977, lo,

9-98.

Kemp, C. G. Changes in Values in Relation to Open-Closed Systems. In
M. Rokeach (Ed.), The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic
Books, 1960.

Kemp, C. G. Influence of Dogmatism on the Training of Counselors.
Journal of CounselliogoPsychology, 1962, 2, 155-157.

Kerelejza, J. D. The Relationship of Closed and Open Mindedness to
Factors That Selected Groups of Teachers Regard as Barriers to
Curriculum Change (Doctoral dissertation, The University of
Connecticut, 1967). Dissertation Abstracts International,
1967, 28, 3561A.

 

Kerlinger, F. N. The Attitude Structure of the Individual: A Study
of the Educational Attitudes of Professors and Laymen. Genetic
Psychology Monographs, 1956, 53,

Kerlinger, F. N. Progressivism and Traditionalism: Basic Educational
Attitudes. School Review, 1958A, o6, 80-92.

 

Kerlinger, F. N. Progressivism and Traditionalism: Basic Factors of
Educational Attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 19588,
,ߤ, 111-135.

Kerlinger, F. The First- and Second-Order Factor Structures of Attitudes
Toward Education. American Educational Research Journal, 1967,
4, 191-205.

Kerlinger, F. N., & Kaya, E. The Construction and Factor Analytic
Validation of Scales to Measure Attitudes Toward Education.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1959, 19, 13-29.

Kerlinger, F., & Pedhazur, E. Attitudes and Perceptions of Desirable
Traits and Behaviors of Teachers (Eric Document EOOl9742).

Kerlinger, F. N., & Rokeach, M. The Factorial Nature of the F and D
Scales. Journal of Personality_end Social Psychology, 1966, 4,
393-399.

Kingsley, R. W. Commitment to Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
1968, 19. 452-455.

174

Krall, F., & Holt, L. A Comparison of Openness of Student Teachers
in Alternative and Typical Classrooms. Journal of Social
Studies Research, 1980, 4, 13-16.

 

 

Kremer, L. Changes in Attitudes Toward Education During Teacher Train-
ing, International Review of Education, 1978, go, 511-513.

Kremer, L., & Ben-Peretz, M. Teachers' Characteristics and Their
Reflection in Curriculum Implementation. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 1980, 6, 77-82.

 

Lacey, C. The Socialization of Teachers. London: Methuen, 1977.

 

Lanier, J. E., & Floden, R. E. Research and Development Needs for the
Advancement of Teacher Education. East Lansing: Institute for
Research on Teaching, Michigan State University, 1978.

Lin, N., Leu, 0. Rogers, E. M., & Schwartz, 0. F. The Diffusion of an
Innovation in Three Michigan High Schools. East Lansing:
Michigan State University, 1966.

Lomax, 0. Teacher Education. In H. J. Butcher and H. B. Pont (Eds.),
Educational Research in Britain (Vol. 3). New York: Crane
Russak and Company Inc., 1973.

McAtte, W. A., & Punch, K. F. Progressivism and Traditionalism in
Teachers' Attitudes Toward Education. Australian Journal of
Education, 1977, 21, 268-276.

McCarthy, J., & Johnson, R. C. Interpretation of City Hall Riots as a
Function of General Dogmatism. Psychological Reports, 1962,
11, 243-245.

McGeown, V. Dimensions of Teachers Innovativeness. CORE, 1979, 3.

McKee, R. R. Teacher Dogmatism and Educational Philosophy as Related to
the Willingness of Industrial Education Teachers to Participate
in Activities Presenting Improved Instructional Practices
(Doctoral dissertation, Utah State University, 1971). Disserta-
tion Abstracts International, 1971, o; 4470A.

McLeish, J. Teachers Attitudes: A Study of National and Other Differ-
ences. Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of Education, 1969.

Maclure, J. S. Curriculum Innovation in Practice. London: Her Majesty's
Stationery Office, 1968.

Mahan, J. M., & Lacefield, W. Educational Attitude Changes During Year-
Long Student Teaching. Journal of Experimental Education,

1977-78, go, 4-15.

175

Marion, P. B. Relationships of Student Characteristics and Experiences
With Attitude Changes in a Program of Study Abroad. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 1956, 21, 58-64.

Martinello, M. L. A Trans-Atlantic Quest: Reflections on Practice
Teaching in Lancash1re, England (Eric Docunent 094853), 1973.

Maslow, A. H. The Authoritarian Character Structure. Journal of Social
Psyohology, 1943, 18, 401-411.

 

Mechling, K. R. The Differential Adoption and Diffusion of Selected
Elementary Science Curriculum Innovations Among Elementary

School Teachers (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
970 .

Medley, D. M. Evaluation Designs for Innovative Teacher Education
Programs--Comments ( aper presented at the American Educational
Research Association). Chicago: 1972.

Medley, D. M., & Soar, R. S. Assessment and Research in Teacher Edu-
cation: Focus on PBTE. Washington, D.C.: American Association
of Colleges for Teadher Education, 1975.

 

Meierhenry, W. C. (Ed.). Media and Educational Innovation. Lincoln:
The University of Nebraska Press, 1964.

Michaelis, J. Teacher Education. In C. Harris (Ed.), Enc clo edia of
Educational Research. New York: Macmillan, 1960, 1473-1481.

Michelson, N., & Armstrong, R. Innovation and Change: The Locus of
Support in Elementary Education. Education, 1973, 93, 273-275.

 

 

Miles, M. Educational Innovation: The Nature of the Problem. In M.
Miles (Ed.), Innovation in Education. New York: Teachers
College, Columbia University Press, 1964.

Moore, D. W. The Influence of the Structure of Belief-Disbelief on
Individual Behavior (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina
State University at Raleigh, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts Inter-
national, 1970, 31, 5088A.

Mulloy, T. C. B. A Comparative Analysis of Two Educational Programs
Designed to Innovate American Schools: Progressive Education
as Proposed by John Dewey and Open Education as Advocated by
John Goodlad (Doctoral dissertation, Baylor University, 1976).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977, 38, 182A.

O'Leary, D. A. Open Education and the Progressive Education Philosophy
of John Dewey (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan,
1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1976, 37, 1377A.

176

Oliver, R. A. C., & Butcher, H. F. Teachers' Attitudes to Education:
The Structure of Educational Attitudes. British Journal of
Social Clinical Psychology, 1962, 1, 56-69.

Dogmatism and Tenure Status as Deter-

O‘Reilly, R. R., a Fish, .1. c.
291ml

minants of Resistance Toward Educational Innovation.
of Experimental Education, 1976-77,.4§, 68-70.

Orsini-Romano, C. I. Progressive-Traditional Beliefs and Personal
Orientations of Pre-Service, In-Service and Re-Entry Teachers
(Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, 1978). Dissertation

Abstracts International, 1978, 39, 1239A.
Owen, R. Orgonizational Behavior in Schools. Englewood, N.J.: Prentice
Hall, 1970.

Padgett, H. G. A Correlation Study of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude
Inventory and Kerlinger's ES-VII (Eric Document 029 820), 1969.

Paschal, B. 5., & Treloar, J. H. A Longitudinal Study of Attitude Change
in Prospective and Beginning Elementary School Teachers.

Teacher Education, 1979, 15, 2-9.

Research on Teacher Education. In R. M. W.

Peck, R. F., & Tucker, J. A.
Chicago:

Travers (Ed.), Second Handbook of Research on Teaching.
Rand McNally Co., 1973.

Pedhazur, E. J. Pseudoprogressivism and Assessment of Teacher Behavior.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1969, 29, 377-386.

Perrodin, A. F. In Support of Supervising Teacher Education Programs.
Journal of Teacher Education, 1961, 12, 36-38.

Plant, W. T. Rokeach‘s Dogmatism Scale as a Measure of General Authori-
tarianism. Psychological Reports, 1960, 6, 7-14.

Platow, J. A. Attitudinal Variables Among Teachers of Exceptional and
Non-Exceptional Children (Doctoral dissertation, University of

Southern CalifOrnia, 1969).

Children and Their Primary Schools: A Report

Plowden, Lady 8., et a1.
London: Her

to the Central Advisory Council in Education.
MajestyTs Stationery Office, 1966.

Performance Tests of Teaching Proficiency: Rationale

Popham, W. J.
American Educational Research

Development, and Validation.
Journal, 1971, 8, 105-117.

Open- and Closed-Mindedness and the Ability to Differ-

Powell, F. A.
Journal of Abnormal and Social

entiate Source and Message.
Psychology, 1962, 65, 61-64.

177

Presser, H. A. Measuring Innovativeness Rather Than Adoption. Rural
Sociology, 1969, 34, 510-527.

Rabkin, L. Y. The Dogmatism of Teachers. Journal of Teacher Education,
1966, 17, 47-49.

Ramer, B. The Relationship of Belief Systems and Personal Character-
istics of Chief School Administrators Toward Educational Innova-
tion)(Doctora1 dissertation, State University of New York,

1967 .

Regular, M. The Pupil Control Ideology of School Teachers in Harlow,
England: An Analysis of the Relationships Between Teachers'
Pupil Control Ideology and Certain Personal and Structural
Factors (Unpublished Masters Thesis, Memorial University of
Newfbundland, 1973).

Renuart, W. R. A Comparison of Teacher Dogmatism with Administrators'
Perceptions of Teacher Behavior and with Teacher's Receptivity
to Change (Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami, 1973).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973, 34, 3786A.

 

Reschly, 0., & Sabers, 0. Open Education: Have We Been There Before.
Phi Delta Kappan, 1974, 65, 675-677.

 

Richards, G. G. Teacher Change Proneness and Its Relationship to Dogma-
tism and Locus of Control. (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Southern California, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts Inter-
national, 1978, 38, 6670A.

 

Robinson, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. Measures of Social Psychological
Attitudes. (Appendix B to Measures of Political Attitudes)
Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social Research, 1969.

 

Rogers, E. M. Personality Correlates of the Adoption of Technological
Practices. Rural Sociology, 1957, 22, 267-268.

 

Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press of
Glencoe,'1962.

 

Rogers, E. M. What Are Innovators Like. Theory Into Practice, 1973, 2,
252-256.

 

Rogers, M., & Shoemaker, F. F. Communication oftInnovations: A Cross
Cultural Approach. New York: The Free Press, 1971.

 

Rogers, V. P. Secondary School Educators' Attitudes Toward Education,
Dogmatism, and Perceptions of Recommended Changes in Education.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami, 1977).

Rogers, V. P., & Church, 8. The Concept of Openness: An Introduction.
In V. Rogers & 8. Church (Eds.),Ooen Education: Critique and
Assessment. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervisors and
Curriculum Development, 1975.

 

178

Rokeach, M. Political and Religious Dogmatism: An Alternative to the
Authoritarianism Personality. Psychological Monographs, 1956,
70.

Rokeach, M. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books Inc.,
1960.

Rosenshine, 8. Classroom Instruction. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), The Ps cho-
logy of Teaching Methods (The 75th yearbook of the Nationa
Society for the Studty of Education, Part 1). Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1976.

Russell, E. G., & Warmbrod, J. R. Change Orientation of Educators: A
Potential Tool for Change Advocates in State-Level Educational
Agencies. Journal of Research and Development in Education,
1977,,19, 50-62.

Salzello, F., a Van Fleet, A. Student Teaching and Teacher Education:
A Sociological Model for Change. Journal of Teacher Education,
9 7, go, 27-41.

Scarr. 5. How to Reduce Authoritarianism Among Teachers: The Human
Development Approach. The Journal of Educational Research,
1970, 63, 367-372.

Scriven, M. The Methodology of Evaluation. In R. E. Stake (Ed.),
Curriculum Evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967.

 

Sears, 5., Jr. The Relationship Between Teacher Dogmatism and Philoso-
phical Orientation and Selected Teacher and District Character-
istics. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, 1967).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1967, 28, 3238A.

Self, H. J. A Comparison of the Openness to Experience of Teachers Who
Did Their Student Teaching in Latin America to the Openness to
Experience of Teachers Who Did Their Student Teaching in Alabama.
(Doctoral dissertation, The University of Alabama, 1975).

Sellitz, C. Research Methods in Sooial Relations (3rd Ed.). New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976.

Sharpe, R., 8 Green, A. Education and Social Control. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul, 1975.

Shavelson, R., & Dempsey, N. Generalizibility of Measures of Teaching
Behavior. Review of Educational Research, 1976, 46, 551-554.

Shaver, J. P., & Richards, H. E. Open-Closed-Mindedness of College
Students in Teacher Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. De art-
ment of Health, Education and welfare (project No. 7-8056 ,
968.

Silberman, C. You May Not Agree But . . . Even Student Teaching Is
Dismal. Today's Education, 1963, 69, 22-25.

179

Slipp, S. R. Bureaucratic Structure, Authoritarianism and Their Rela-
tionship to Teacher Role Definitions. (Doctoral dissertation,
New York University, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts Inter-

national, 1976, 31, 5457A.

Smith, L. M., & Keith, P. M. Anatomy of Educational Innovations: An
Organizational Analysis of Elementary School. New York: John

Wiley and Son, 1971.

Smith, M., Peck, R., & Weber, G. A Consumer's Guide to Educational
Innovations. Washington, D.C.: Council for Basic Education,

1972.

Soar, R. S. An Integration of Findings From Four Studies of Teacher
Effectiveness. (Paper presented at an invitational conference on
effective teaching sponsored by the National Institute for
Education and The Califbrnia Commission on Teacher Preparation

and Licensing.) San Diego: 1975.

 

Soderbergh, P. A. Dogmatism and the Public School Teacher. Journal
of Teacher Education, 1964, 15, 245-251.

Soh, K .g. Dogmatism and Educational Attitudes. Psychologia, 1974, 11,
0-24.

Sontag, M. Attitude Toward Education and Perception of Teacher Behaviors.
(Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1967). Dissertation

Abstracts International, 1968, 28, 1315-A.

Sontag, M., & Pedhazur, E. Dimensions of Educational Attitudes:
Factorial Congruence of Two Scales. Journal of Educational

Measurement, 1972, 2, 189-198.

Sorenson, G. On What Is Learned In Practice Teaching. In L. Horton &
P. Horton (Eds.), Teacher Education: Trends, Issues, Innova-

tions. Danville, 111.: Interstate, 1974. -

Stahl, R. Teacher Participation and Attitudes, Innovation Character-
istics and Adoption of Behavioral Objectives. (Doctoral disser-
tation, The Florida University, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1972,_§§, 2672A.

Stevenson, W. A. Authoritarian and Equalitarian Attitudes of Classroom
Teachers. (Doctoral dissertation, University of California,
1970). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 21, 1556A.

Strawitz, 8. M. Dogmatism and the Beliefs of Preservice and Inservice
Elementary Science Teachers. (Eric Document E0123032), 1975.

Stufflebeam, D. L., et a1. Educational Evaluation and Decision-Making
in Education. Itasca: Peacock, 1971.

180

Sughrue, R. L. An Investigation of the Effects of an Inner-City Student
Teaching Experience on the Attitudes, Values and Dogmatism of
Student Teachers. (Doctoral dissertation, North Texas State
University, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1976,

31. 2096-2097A.

Symington, D. J., & Fensham, P. J. Elementary School Teachers Closed-
Mindedness: Attitudes Toward Science and Congruence With a
New Curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1976,

12. 441-447.

Troldahl, V. C., & Powell, F. A. A Short-Form Dogmatism Scale for Use
in Field Studies. Social FOrces, 1965, 44, 211-215.

Trout, J. A. The Effect of Dogmatism Information Input and Hypothesis
Production Training and Its Relationship to Problem Solving
(Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University and Ball State Uni-

versity, 1972).

Turner, R. L. An Overview of Research in Teacher Education. In K.
Ryan (Ed.), Teacher Education (74th yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, Part 2). Chicago: Univer-

sity of Chicago Press, 1975.

Unruh, G. G., & Alexander, W. M. Innovations in Secondary Education.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970.

Urick, R., & Frymier, J. R. Personalities, Teachers and Curriculum
Change. Supervision: Emerging Profession. Washington, D.C.:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1969.

Vacchiano, R. B., Strauss, P. S., & Hochman, L. The Open and Closed
Mind: A Review of Dogmatism. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 11,

261-273.

Vidulich, R. N., & Kaiman, I. P. The Effects of Information Source
Status and Dogmatism Upon Conformity Behavior. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 639-642.

Walker, 0. Differences in Pupil Control Ideology: An Analysis of the
Pupil Control Attitudes of Student Teachers at Memorial Uni-
versity of Newfbundland (Unpublished Master's Thesis, Memorial

University of Newfdundland, 1973).

Wayland, S. R. Structural Features of American Education as Basic
Factors in Innovation. In M. Miles (Ed.), Innovation in Edu-
cation. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University Press,

1964.

WEber, L. The English Infant School and Informal Education. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1971.

181

Teachers with Reference to the Attitudes of Worldmindedness and
Ogegness (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,

Wheeler, D. K. The Educational Temper of a Teaching Service. Journal
of Educational Sociology, 1960, 34, 160-171.

Wiley, R. C. Determining Tendencies of College Faculty, Student Teachers
and Cooperating Teachers Toward Traditionalism or Progressivism
in Their Attitudes Toward Education (Eric Document 065492),
1972.

Willower, D. J., Eidell, T. L., & Hoy, W. K. The School and Pupil Con-
trol Ideology (Penn State Studies no. 24). University Park:
Pennsylvania State University, 1967.

Wright, A. W. The Problems of Beginning Elementary Teachers in New-
foundland Schools and the Relationship of Those Problems with
Pre-Service and Inservice Programs (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Norther Colorado, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1976, 36, 2758A.

Yee, A. H. Interpersonal Relationships in the Student Teaching Triad.
Journal of Teacher Education, 1968, 29, 95-112.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

ITEMS FROM THE SHORT FORM DOGMATISM SCALE

 

10.
11.

12.
13.

14.

APPENDIX A
ITEMS FROM THE SHORT FORM DOGMATISM SCALE

In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know what's
going on is to rely on leaders or experts who can be trusted.

My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he's
wrong.

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for the
truth and those who are against the truth.

Most people just don't know what's good for them.

Of all the different philosophies which exist in this world there
is probably only one which is correct.

The highest form of government is a democracy and the highest form
of democracy is a government run by those who are most intelligent.

The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something
important.

I'd like to, if I could, find someone who would tell me how to
solve my personal problems.

Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't worth the paper
they are printed on.

Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature.

It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that
life becomes meaningful.

Most people just don't give a "damn" for others.

To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous because it
usually leads to the betrayal of our own side.

It is often desirable to reserve judgment about what's going on
until one has had a chance to hear the opinions of those one

respects.

182

15.

16.
17.

18.

19.

20.

183

The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is only the

future that counts.

The United States and Russia have just about nothing in common.

In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat myself several
times to make sure I am being understood.

While I don't like to admit this even to myself, my secret ambition
is to become a great man, like Einstein, or Beethoven, or Shakespeare.

Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwhile goal,
it is unfortunately necessary to restrict the freedom of certain
political groups.

It is better to be a dead hero than to be a live coward.

 

APPENDIX B

ITEMS FROM THE EDUCATION SCALE VII

10.

11.

12.

APPENDIX 8
ITEMS FROM THE EDUCATION SCALE VII

Teachers need to be guided in what they are to teach. No individual
can be permitted to do as he wishes, especially when it comes to

teaching children.
Learning experiences organized around life eXperiences rather than
around subjects is desirable in our schools.

We should fit the curriculum to the child and not the child to the
curriculum.

Subjects that sharpen the mind, like mathematics and foreign
languages, need greater emphasis in the public school curriculum.

Since life is essentially a struggle, education should emphasize
competition and the fair competitive spirit.

The healthy interaction of pupils one with another is just as
important in school as the learning of subject matter.

The organization of instruction and learning must be centered on
universal ideas and truths if education is to be more than passing
fads and fancies.

The curriculum should contain an orderly arrangement of subjects
that represent the best of our cultural heritage.

True discipline springs from interest, motivation, and involvement
in live problems.

Emotional development and social development are as important in
the evaluation of pupil progress as academic achievement.

Education and educational institutions must be sources of new social
ideas.

Children should be taught that all problems should be subjected to
critical and objective scrutiny, including religious, moral,

economic, and social problems.

184

13.

14.

15.

16.
17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.
26.
27.

28.

29.

185

One of the big difficulties with modern schools is that discipline
is often sacrificed to the interests of children.

Teachers should encourage pupils to study and criticize our own
and other economic systems and practices.

Children need and should have more supervision and discipline than
they usually get.
Schools should teach children dependence on higher moral values.

The public school should take an active part in stimulating social
change.

Learning is experimental; the child should be taught to test alter-
natives before accepting any of them.

Learning is essentially a process of increasing one's store of
information about the various fields of knowledge.

The curriculum consists of subject matter to be learned and skills
to be acquired.

The learning of proper attitudes is often more important than the
learning of subject matter.

It is more important that the child learn how to approach and solve
problems than it is for him to master the subject matter of the

curriculum.

The true view of education is so arranging learning that the child
gradually builds up a storehouse of knowledge that he can use in

the future.

What is needed in the modern classroom is a revival of the authority
of the teacher.

Teachers should keep in mind that pupils have to be made to work.

Schools of today are neglecting the three Rs.

Standards of work should not be the same for all pupils; they
should vary with the pupil.

The goals of education should be dictated by children's interests
and needs, as well as by the demands of society.

Each subject and activity should be aimed at developing a parti-
cular part of the child's makeup: physical, intellectual, social,

moral, or spiritual.

186

30. Right from the very first grade, teachers must teach the child
at his own level and not at the level of the grade he is in.

Progressive Items--2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, 27, 28,
30

Traditional Items-4, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26,
29

APPENDIX C

ITEMS FROM THE RECEPTIVITY TO EDUCATIONAL
INNOVATION SCALE

10.

11.

12.

APPENDIX C
ITEMS FROM THE RECEPTIVITY TO EDUCATIONAL
INNOVATION SCALE

Team teaching causes too many problems.

Half-day of school and a half-day of work (work-study) is a poor
program, as there are still many dropouts.

Although Modern Math has been instituted in many schools, I think
the traditional approach to learning math is best.

I feel the new flexible type of school building encourages dis-
organization and confusion.

I believe teacher-aides are a luxury to give teachers more free
periods.

Allowing students to progress academically, as fast as they are
able is not a wise policy.

The teaching of driver education is a "frill," and should not be
taught during the school day.

I feel there are many places a student can learn to swim, there-
fore, it is not necessary to have swimming taught in the school.

There is no need for guidance-counselors in the elementary school,
as the teacher knows the students and parents, and can handle

their problems.

The numerical grade system is the best method of reporting achieve-
ment to the parents.

Audio-visual materials are used by many teachers as an excuse "not

to teach."

I believe that little educational value is gained by the school
system when teachers attend conferences.

187

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.
20.

21.

22.

188

It is difficult for me to see how sex education can be taught in
the public schools.

Although carpeting has some positive points in its favor, it
doesn't belong in the schools.

The abolition of corporal punishment would result in increased
discipline problems.

Governmentally prescribed textbooks are necessary to ensure an
adequate level of good teaching.

I believe activity and discovery methods are too time consuming to
be adopted on a large scale.

The abolition of public examinations would not serve any worthwhile
purpose.

Generally, women are not suited to be principals.

I believe that the elementary school is too early to start teaching
a foreign language.

I believe it is not the job of the school to teach about venereal
disease.

Coed physical education classes in junior and senior high school
would cause too many problems.

APPENDIX D

ITEMS DROPPED FROM ORIGINAL POOL OF RECEPTIVITY
TO EDUCATIONAL INNOVATION QUESTIONS

APPENDIX 0
ITEMS DROPPED FROM ORIGINAL POOL 0F RECEPTIVITY
TO EDUCATIONAL INNOVATION QUESTIONS

Items dropped from the original pool of questions designed for

the Receptivity to Educational Innovation Scale after assessment by a
panel of six judges.

1.

Computerized data processing of student records would be too costly
to consider.

The "school within a school" concept creates administrative con-
fusion. .

The voucher system of providing education is too unwieldy to be
effective.

Modular scheduling sounds good in theory but is a chaotic system
for both pupils and teachers.

Items dropped from the pool of questions designed for the

Receptivity to Education Innovation Scale after statistical analyses.

1.
2.

I believe that we Should not teach about Communism in the schools.

It is difficult to see the value of kindergarten as it is mostly a
play period.

The Language Laboratory is not necessary to the teaching of a foreign
language.

Reading specialists are not essential to a good school program.

189

APPENDIX E

COMBINED SCALES AS PRESENTED TO RESEARCH SUBJECTS

APPENDIX E
COMBINED SCALES AS PRESENTED T0 RESEARCH SUBJECTS

SOCIOLOGICAL AND EDUCATIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE

by

Royston Kelleher

Data obtained from this questionnaire will be kept strictly confidential.

190

191

Instructions:

Given below are a number of statements concerning social and educational
issues and problems about which we all have beliefs, opinions and atti-
tudes. We have tried to cover many different and opposing points of
view. The best answer to each is your personal opinion. Individuals
are sometimes frustrated with the wording of some of the statements and
feel a compulsion to rephrase them. Please do not try to interpret or
"read things into" the statements. You may find yourself agreeing
strongly with some of the statements, disagreeing just as strongly with
others and perhaps uncertain about others; whether you agree or disagree
with any statement, you can be sure that many people feel the same as
you do. ReSpond to each of the items as follows:

Agree Very Strongly +3 Disagree Very Strongly -3
Agree Strongly +2 Disagree Strongly -2
Agree +1 Disagree -1

For example, if you agree very strongly with a statement, you would write
+3 on the short line preceeding the statement. Respond to each state-
ment as best you can. Do not spend too much time on any one statement;
try to respond and then go on. Please mark every one.

1. In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know
what's going on it to rely on leaders or experts who can be
trusted.

2. We should fit the curriculum to the child and not the child to
the curriculum.

3. Subjects that Sharpen the mind, like mathematics and foreign
languages, need greater emphasis in the public school curriculum.

4. The teaching of driver education is a "frill," and should not be
taught during the school day.

5. I feel there are many places a student can learn to swim, there-
fore, it is not necessary to have swimming taught in the school.

6. Education and educational institutions must be sources of new
social ideas.

7. Children should be taught that all problems should be subjected
to critical and objective scrutiny, including religious, moral,
economic, and social problems.

8. My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit
he's wrong.

9. There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for
the truth and those who are against the truth.

192

Agree Very Strongly +3 Disagree Very Strongly -3
Agree Strongly +2 Disagree Strongly -2
Agree +1 Disagree -1
.__ 10. The numerical grade system is the best method of reporting

__11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

achievement to the parents.

Audio-visual materials are used by many teachers as an excuse
"not to teach."

One of the big difficulties with modern schools is that discipline
is often sacrificed to the interests Of children.

Teachers should encourage pupils to study and criticize our own
and other economic systems and practices.

It is often desirable to reserve judgment about what's going on
until one has had a chance to hear the Opinions of those one
respects.

The organization of instruction and learning must be centered
on universal ideas and truths if education is to be more than
passing fads and fancies.

The curriculum should contain an orderly arrangement of subjects
that represent the best of our cultural heritage.

In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat myself
several times to make sure I am being understood.

While I don't like to admit this even to myself, my secret
ambition is to become a great man, like Einstein, or Beethoven,
or Shakespeare.

Reading specialists are not_essential to a good school program.
There is no need for guidance-counselors in the elementary
school, as the teacher knows the students and parents, and can
handle their problems.

Right from the very first grade, teachers must teach the child
at his own level and not at the level of the grade he is in.

Although carpeting has some positive points in its favor, it
doesn't belong in the schools.

The abolition of corporal punishment would result in increased
discipline problems.

Children need and should have more supervision and discipline
than they usually get.

Schools should teach children dependence on higher moral values.

 

 

193

Agree Very Strongly +3 Disagree Very Strongly -3

Agree Strongly +2 Disagree Strongly -2
Agree +1 Disagree -1
26. Most people just don't know what's good for them.

27.

H

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

Of all the different philosophies which exist in this world
there is probably only one which is correct.

The public school should take an active part in stimulating
social change.

Learning is experimental; the child should be taught to test
alternatives before accepting any of them.

Governmentally prescribed textbooks are necessary to ensure an
adequate level of good teaching.

I believe activity and discovery methods are too time consuming
to be adopted on a large scale.

Learning is essentially a process of increasing one's store of
information about the various fields of knowledge.

The curriculum consists of subject matter to be learned and
skills to be acquired.

I'd like to, if I could, find someone who would tell me how to
solve my personal problems.

Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't worth the
paper they are printed on.

Teachers need to be guided in what they are to teach. No indi-
vidual can be permitted to do as he wishes, especially when it
comes to teaching children.

Learning experiences organized around life experiences rather
than around subjects is desirable in our schools.

Schools of today are neglecting the three RS.

Standards of work should not be the same for all pupils; they
should vary with the pupil.

Although Modern Math has been instituted in many schools, I think
the traditional approach of teaching math is best.

I feel the new flexible type of school building encourages
disorganization and confusion.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.
50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.
57.

194

Agree Very Strongly +3 Disagree Very Strongly -3

Agree Strongly +2 Disagree Strongly -2

Agree +1 Disagree -1

___ 42. Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwhile
goal, it is unfOrtunately necessary to restrict the freedom of
certain political groups.

___ 43. It is better to be a dead hero than to be a live coward.

44. It is difficult to see the value of kindergarten as it is mostly

a play period.

Coed physical education classes in junior and senior high school
would cause too many problems.

The learning of proper attitudes is Often more important than
the learning of subject matter.

It is more important that the child learn how to approach and
solve problems than it is for him to master the subject matter

of the curriculum.

The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is only
the future that counts.

The United States and Russia have just about nothing in common.

I believe that little educational value is gained by the school
system when teachers attend conferences.

It is difficult for me to see how sex education Can be taught in
the public schools.

The goals of education should be dictated by children's inter-
ests and needs, as well as by the demands of society.

Each subject and activity Should be aimed at developing a parti-
cular part of the child's makeup: physical, intellectual,
social, moral, or spiritual.

The highest form of government is a democracy and the highest
form of democracy is a government run by those who are most

intelligent.

The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something
important.

Team Teaching causes too many problems.

Half-day of school and a half-day of work (work-study) is a poor
program, as there are still many dropouts.

 

195

Agree Very Strongly +3 Disagree Very Strongly -3

Agree Strongly +2 Disagree Strongly -2
Agree +1 Disagree -1
‘__ 58. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature.

.__ 59. It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause
that life becomes meaningful.

___ 60. True discipline springs from interest, motivation, and involve-
ment in live problems.

___61. Emotional development and social development are as important
in the evaluation of pupil progress as academic achievement.

___ 62. I believe teacher-aides are a luxury to give teachers more free
periods.

__.63. Allowing students to progress academically, as fast as they are
able is not a wise policy.

___64. What is needed in the modern classroom is a revival of the
authority of the teacher.

.__ 65. Teachers should keep in mind that pupils have to be made to work.

___ 66. Most people just don't give a "damn" for others.

___ 67. To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous because
it usually leads to the betrayal of our own side.

___68. Since life is essentially a struggle, education should emphasize
competition and the fair competitive Spirit.

__ 69. The healthy interaction of pupils one with another is just as
important in school as the learning of subject matter.

___70. The Language Laboratory is not necessary to the teaching of a
foreign language.

___ 71. I believe that we should not teach about Communism in the
schools.

__ 72. The true view of education is so arranging learning that the
child gradually builds up a storehouse of knowledge that he can
use in the future.

.__ 73. I believe that the elementary school is too early to start
teaching a foreign language.

74. I believe it is not the job of the school to teach about venereal

disease.

196

Agree Very Strongly +3 Disagree Very Strongly -3
Agree Strongly +2 Disagree Strongly -2
Agree +1 Disagree -1

___ 75. The abolition of grade eleven public examinations would not
serve any worthwhile purpose.

___ 76. Generally, women are not suited to be principals.

PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING

1. How much classroom experience (including observation) have you had
since cgmpleting high school? (Please circle the appropriate
letter.

A. None

8. l to 5 days

C. 6 to 20 days

0. 21 to 190 days

E. More than one year

2. What is the size of your hometown (where you attended elementary
school)? (Please circle the appropriate letter.)

Below 250
250-1000
1000-10,000
10,000-50,000
over 50,000

1710003)
0 o o o o

3. What is your father's occupation?

 

4. What is your Memorial University Student Number?

"’11111111111111111111S

 

\.

 

I I I". I I I
:II III I I I.-. III1

"I1111111111111111111111s