SYSTEM EFFECTS ON BEGENNING TEACHERS IN iNNOVATWE AND NON-INNOVATIVE Sill-1001.3 Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MECHlGAfi STATE ENEVERSW mum R. FORCE 197G LIBRARY . 5“ ‘Q 3,35. Michigan State University I\\|\\H\|UHII\MW“WWI 3 1293 10 This is to certify that the thesis entitled SYSTEM EFFECTS ON BEGINNING TEACHERS IN INNOVATIVE AND NON-INNOVATIVE SCHOOLS presented by William R. Force has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ! Ph .D . degree in Curriculum ..—~--...._—...__ I I Date August 4, 1 0-169 ABSTRACT SYSTEM EFFECTS ON BEGINNING TEACHERS IN INNOVATIVE AND NON-INNOVATIVE SCHOOLS BY William R. Force The study examined the effects that innovative and non-innovative school social systems have on innovative and non-innovative beginning teachers. The independent variables consisted of innovative and non-innovative beginning teachers in innovative schools, and innovative and non-innovative beginning teachers in non-innovative schools. Dependent variables included: job satisfaction, acceptable performance feedback, acceptance of educational beliefs, and social acceptance. Fifty-eight beginning teachers (21 in innovative schools and 37 in non-innovative schools) employed by 12 school systems (five innovative and seven non-innovative) were studied: 1. To determine if norm-conforming beginning teachers experienced greater job satisfaction, perceived more acceptable performance feedback, perceived more acceptance of their educational beliefs and experienced greater social ac- ceptance than norm-deviant beginning teachers. William R. Force 2. To determine if beginning teachers in innovative schools experienced greater job satisfaction, perceived more acceptable performance feedback, perceived more acceptance of their educational beliefs and experienced greater social ac- ceptance than beginning teachers in non- innovative schools. 3. To determine if norm-deviant beginning teachers change in innovativeness toward system norms, over a period of time. Findings showed that: (l) norm-conformers experi— enced greater acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm-deviants; (2) beginning teachers in innovative social systems experienced greater job satisfaction, perceived more acceptable performance feedback, and perceived more acceptance of their educational beliefs than beginning teachers in non-innovative social systems; (3) non- innovative beginners in innovative social systems became more innovative, over time; and (4) innoVative beginning teachers in non-innovative schools experienced the least satisfaction and acceptance of the teachers studied. SYSTEM EFFECTS ON BEGINNING TEACHERS IN INNOVATIVE AND NON-INNOVATIVE SCHOOLS BY William R. Force A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1970 To Dad who wanted me to become, and Mom who let me be, a beautiful blend of encouragement and support ii His pat best Wa: study n with SOC ate thos which fc ConSider ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Charles Blackman has waited, probed and questioned. His patience, friendship and ability to make me find my own best ways are most appreciated. A tailor—made program of study resulted from our many discussions. It was exciting studying in areas of interest to me. John Suehr introduced me to the world of working with social systems for change and innovation. I appreci- ate those early visits to schools and the discussions which followed. His needling caused some discomfort but considerable growth. Everett Rogers' course in Diffusion of Innovations Opened the door to independent study and the resulting thesis. Without his criticism, assistance, and warm sup— port this study might not have been attempted. Troy Stearns' seminar in Innovations in Education helped me focus on several concerns related to change. Dr. Stearns' faith in people and support are appreciated. William Gerard and Burt Thorn have given me much. Their warmth, support and concern for humanity have touched and encouraged me. iii of Gui provid letter apprec cation gettin Jane h. iS at 1 when D5 more 01 James Owens and the secretaries from the department of Guidance and Counseling, Central Michigan University, provided much assistance in preparing questionnaires, letters and materials for the study. Their assistance is appreciated. Don Goodson, from the Michigan Department of Edu- cation and the entire Impact 7 staff were most helpful in getting the study underway. My family--Jane, Rex, Drew and Clark were wonderful. Jane has been a source of constant energy and support. She is at her best when I am not. The boys were available when Dad was and understood when he wasn't. Now we'll see more of each other. iv LIST C LIST C Chapte II. III Iv, TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . vii LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . x Chapter I. PRESENTATION OF THE STUDY . . . . . . 1 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . 2 Importance of the study . . . . . . 3 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . 7 Assumptions and Limitations. . . . . 9 Overview of thesis. . . . . . . . 10 II. LITERATURE REVIEW. . . . . . . . . 12 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . 12 System Effects . . . . . . . . . l4 Dependent Variables . . . . . . . 25 Critique . . . . . .. . . . . . 33 III. METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . 35 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . 35 Selecting the Sampl . . . . . . . 3S Instrumentation. . . . . . . . . 44 Data Collection. . . . . . . . . 48 Hypotheses to be Tested . . . . . . 51 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . 59 IV. PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS . . . . . . 61 Job Satisfaction . . . . . . . . 62 Acceptable Performance Feedback . . . 66 Acceptance of Educational Beliefs. . . 72 Social Acceptance . . . . . . . . 77 Change in Innovativeness. . . . . . 82 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 83 ( Ari-“'3..- n'I-w-r‘u W‘s Chapte: BIBLIOC APPEND] Appendi Chapter V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . Summary of the Study . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . Reflections . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . Finale. . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES Appendix A. Curricular Practices Poll . . . . . . . B. Comparative Data on Schools Studied. . . . C. First Letter to Superintendents and Principals . . . . . . . . . . . D. Letter to Beginning Teachers . . . . . . E. Educational Ideas and Practices Poll . . . F. First Item Analysis of the Educational Ideas and Practices Poll. . . . . . . . . G. Second Item Analysis of the Educational Ideas and Practices Poll. . . . . . . H. Third Item Analysis of the Educational Ideas and Practices Poll Using Extreme High, Extreme Low Scores. . . . . . . . . I. Frequency Distribution and Median for Beginning Teachers in Innovative and Non- Innovative Schools. . . . . . . . . J. Confidential Teacher Questionnaire . . . K. Letter to Superintendent . . . . . . . L. Letters to Teachers . . . . . . . . . vi Page 85 85 89 97 100 108 110 119 120 121 122 123 126 127 128 129 130 136 137 II‘ Ill! l l r1 LIST OF TABLES Page Norm-Conformers and Norm-Deviants . . . . 52 Innovative Teachers vs. Non-Innovative Teachers in Innovative Social Systems and in Non-Innovative Social Systems. . . . 58 Mean Scores on Job Satisfaction. . . . . 62 A Summary of Relationships on Job Satis- faction Between Norm-Conformers and Norm- Deviants in Innovative and Non-Innovative Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 A Summary of Relationships on Job Satis- faction Between Beginning Teachers in Innovative and Non-Innovative Social Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Job Satisfaction Differences Between Teachers in Innovative Social Systems Compared to Differences Between Teachers in Non-Innovative Social Systems. . . . 67 Mean Scores on Acceptable Performance Feedback. . . . . . . . . . . . 67 A Summary of Relationships on Acceptable Performance Feedback Between Norm- Conformers and Norm-Deviants in Innovative and Non-Innovative Schools. . . . . . 69 A Summary of Relationships on Acceptable Performance Feedback Between Beginning Teachers in Innovative and Non-Innovative Social Systems. . . . . . . . . . 71 vii Table (i ll! Table Page 10. Perceived Acceptable Performance Feedback Differences Between Teachers in Inno- vative Social System Compared to Differences Between Teachers in Non- Innovative Social Systems . . . . . . 71 11. Mean Scores on Acceptance of Educational Beliefs O I C O I C O O O C O O 72 12. A Summary of Relationships on Acceptance of Educational Beliefs Between Norm- Conformers and Norm-Deviants in Innovative and Non-Innovative Schools. . . . . . 74 13. A Summary of Relationships on Perceived Acceptance of Educational Beliefs Between Beginning Teachers in Innovative and Non- Innovative Social Systems . . . . . . 76 14. Perceived Acceptance of Educational Beliefs Differences Between Teachers in Innovative Social Systems Compared to Differences Be- tween Teachers in Non-Innovative Social Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 15. Mean Scores on Social Acceptance . . . . 77 16. A Summary of Relationships on Social Acceptance Between Norm-Conformers and Norm-Deviants in Innovative and Non— Innovative Schools . . . . . . . . 79 17. A Summary of Relationships on Social Acceptance Between Beginning Teachers in Innovative and Non-Innovative Social Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 18. Social Acceptance Differences Between Teachers in Innovative Social Systems Compared to Differences Between Teachers in Non-Innovative Social Systems. . . . 82 19. Mean Change Scores for Innovative and Non— Innovative Beginning Teachers in Inno- vative and Non-Innovative Social Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 viii l I. II Page Comparative Data on Schools Studied . . . 120 First Item Analysis of the Educational Ideas and Practices Poll . . . . . . 126 Second Item Analysis of the Educational Ideas and Practices Poll . . . . . . 127 Third Item Analysis of the Educational Ideas and Practices Poll Using Extreme High, Extreme Low Scores . . . . . . 128 Frequency Distribution and Median for Beginning Teachers in Innovative and Non-Innovative Schools. . . . . . . 129 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Relationships Tested in Sub—Hypotheses . . . 53 utili: The W( time—j idea c to get PUblic Utiliz PErfor they c join. beginn. SystemE praCti< be inte cation6 turn- EVidEnC CHAPTER I PRESENTATION OF THE STUDY Educators and educational institutions could be utilizing much more scientific knowledge than they do. The work of Carlson (1965) and Mort (1938) describing the time-lag between the invention of a useful educational idea or theory and its adoption reveal that it takes years to get educators to change. Crawley (1970) polled 915 public schools in Michigan to learn that only 29 were utilizing some form of modular scheduling. Assuming that many beginning teachers desire to perform in keeping with recent innovative developments, they could serve as resources to the school systems they join. If schools looked forward each year to receiving beginners with new ideas, and if beginners in joining systems knew they were expected to disseminate new practices, educational theories and innovations, it would be interesting to speculate on the magnitude of the edu- cational revolution which might result. Such a drastic turn-around is not the case, however. There is little evidence that beginning teachers have an effect on l:_ "-31 changi appear perpet Beginn formal indoct System actual t0 the practi and im assump changing schools, and modern educational practices do not appear to be sweeping the country. Instead, the strong possibility exists that schools perpetuate themselves, their practices and their beliefs. Beginning teachers often describe subtle or obvious in- formal and formal social system attempts to orient or indoctrinate them to the norms and values of the social system they join. The degree to which these activities actually exist and are successful may well be proportional to the rate at which educational social systems adopt new practices. The pages which follow will discuss the purpose and importance of the study, define terms, discuss assumptions and present a brief overview. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study is to examine the effects that innovative and non-innovative school social systems have on beginning teachers. Hypotheses tested in the study are listed in Chapter III. They reveal the suppo- sition that innovative and non-innovative social systems have effects on: (1) the job satisfaction, (2) perceived acceptable performance feedback, (3) perceived acceptance of educational beliefs, and (4) the social acceptance of innovative and non-innovative beginning teachers. The study does not consider the possibility that screening and hiring practices may be a factor pertaining _."— _ ,p- ——_— ——\———— .. .— —-—.‘—- — — _ to the systems Contrib System silent 4 takes p. review ¢ of Educe vatiVe t of SYSte to the compatibility of beginning teachers and their social systems. Importance of the Study Contribution to Social System Research Miles (1965:12) contends that "the literature is silent on the organizational setting in which innovation takes place." The literature is even more silent pertaining to social system effects1 on individual members. The review of literature in Chapter II discusses the dearth of educational social system research. Findings to questions like: (1) Do innovative and non-innovative social systems have effects on beginning teachers? (2) Are effects different on members of inno- vative than non-innovative social systems or do both kinds of systems discriminate on the individual members' inno— vativeness? may help social system researchers design methods for studying how social systems differ in their effects on individual members. Contribution to Understanding System Effects on Newcomers No one has studied the effects of the social system on human beings entering them. Should the current study 1System effects are the influence of systemic structure, social attitudes and ideologies on the behavior of the members of a social system. discove systems underst system Contrib Change vidual ; Change that so. means 0 SYStem. teacher: more cox ProcesS adminis1 Way thi, norm W01 bEginneI should h discover that newcomers are affected by different social systems, it may focus greater importance on the need for understanding the dynamics and interactions between the system and the new recruit. Contribution to Applied Change Strategists The discovery of how social systems affect indi- vidual members could provide needed knowledge to applied change strategists. A major assumption to be tested is that school social systems have both formal and informal means of orienting teachers to the norms and values of the system. This assumption often entails the "making over" of teachers in order to make new teachers' belief systems more congruent with the beliefs of the social system. The process entails beginners "getting the message" from administrators and established faculty pertaining to "the way things are done" and to learn that deviation from that norm would result in the social system rejecting the beginner for his idea. The testing of this assumption should help change strategists direct greater efforts to understanding the dynamics of organizational groups and contribute to the development of applied means for altering institutional norms as a means of instituting change. Findings could point to the importance of in-service activities for organizations which emphasize: the ne- cessity for a variety of approaches to solving the problems - 4-\——_—__ of educ the res faculty indivié beliefs necessi whether organiz Leda Educate —\ b99n co. desirou‘ improve then, t] find Wa} beginnir unaware likened the Stud rejectic leaders Planned and Prep gradUate possib1e of education; the need to thoroughly explore and utilize the resources of all members, young and old, of a school faculty; the importance of supporting and encouraging individual faculty members to bring forth educational beliefs which may not conform to established norms; the necessity to question all educational ideas and practices whether established or not established as part of the organizational "way of life.” Contribution to Curriculum Leaders and Teacher Educators Curriculum leaders and many teacher educators have been concerned with producing beginning teachers who are desirous of improving educational processes. Schools will improve only as people are freed to grow. It follows, then, that if schools are to renew themselves they need to find ways of supporting and utilizing the resources of beginning teachers. Beginning teachers entering a system unaware of how the system may alter their beliefs might be likened to lambs blindly on their way to slaughter. Should the study reveal that beginners are pressured through rejection to conform, the implications for curriculum leaders and teacher preparation programs should be great. Planned orientation programs, feedback and support sessions and preparation programs may help beginners and under- graduate teacher candidates become more aware of and share possible system effects and aid in the assessment of such effects acquisi‘ are to 1 systems they ma: Contribr Practice K beginnir accepted hiring F holes" n the need reSult 0 eduCatiO fbrmal e and take DEen COn. abilitie1 is si16n1 ciffeCtins DGginninc effects. Beginning teachers might also be helped in the acquisition of applied change skills and processes if they are to become effective change-agents in their respective systems. If beginners are more aware of system effects they may be less apt to succumb to non-innovative pressures. Contribution to Hiring Practices If innovative beginning teachers and non-innovative beginning teachers are not accepted in certain schools and accepted in others, then perhaps some light will be shed on hiring practices. The placing of "square-pegs—in-round- holes" notion was mentioned by Davis (1965) who suggested the need for social system research. He recommended, as a result of his findings, that institutions wishing to modify educational programs ought to assess the formal and in— formal expectations the social system holds for beginners and take a look at recruitment and selection policies. Management, guidance and personnel people have long been concerned with matching personal qualities, skill and abilities with organizational requirements. The literature is silent with regard to innovativeness as a quality affecting job satisfaction and social system acceptance of beginning teachers. Although in some cases low satis— faction and lack of social system acceptance might stimu- late workers in positive directions, these qualities are often reasons for low morale, low commitment, low produc- tivity, high turnover and poor organizational effectiveness or effi: the nor! the soc: practice resource Contribt Placemer young ed Optimum Placemen ideas W0 teachers eduCatio an eduCa indiVidu or efficiency. School district leaders wishing to alter the norms of school social systems might do so by flooding the social system with norm-deviants through hiring practices and develop inservice activities to utilize the resources of these deviants. Contribution to College Placement Services College placement directors wishing to assist young educators in finding positions where they can have Optimum impact could also be assisted by the study. Placement people might wish to place beginners where their ideas would be accepted. Retention of innovative-inclined teachers in the profession could result. Definition of Terms Innovative school. An innovative school is an educational organization which adopts innovations earlier. Non-innovative school. A non-innovative school is an educational organization slow to adopt innovations. Beginning teacher. A beginning teacher is an individual involved in his first year of full-time teaching. Innovative teacher. An innovative teacher is relatively earlier in adopting innovative practices. Non-innovative teacher. A non-innovative teacher is relatively slower in adopting innovative practices. Social system. A social system is a population of system members organized for a purpose. = 11.1.. «1 _L——— of syste the beha patterns social 5 Whose fr haviors Purposes Whose fr haViors purPoses QUence O. pleaSUre 3 message : eff9ctivE Vidual. E EdUcatiOr individua System effects. System effects are the influence of systemic structure, social attitudes and ideologies on the behavior of the members of a social system. Ngrms, Norms are the most frequently occurring patterns of beliefs and behaviors of members of particular social systems. Norm-conformer. A norm-conformer is an individual whose frequently occurring patterns of beliefs and be- haviors are relatively congruent with the ideologies and purposes of his social system. Norm-deviant. A norm-deviant is an individual whose frequently occurring patterns of beliefs and be- haviors are relatively incongruent with the ideologies and purposes of his social system. Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is the conse- quence of feeling relaxed, secure and of experiencing pleasure as a member of one's social system. Performance feedback. Performance feedback is a message from a receiver to an individual regarding his effectiveness in the job setting as perceived by the indi- vidual. Acceptance of educational beliefs. Acceptance of educational beliefs is a favorable attitude toward an individual's stated and unstated beliefs and feelings about education. to whicl activiti As umptj and will innovatj assume 3 innova t j and indi innovati w°uld no Social acceptance. Social acceptance is the degree to which an individual is invited or involved in social activities with colleagues outside the work setting. Assumptions and Limitations Assumptions 1. Teacher agreement with innovative practices and willingness to take leadership in the adoption of innovative practices is a function of innovativeness. 2. Teachers who agree with and are willing to assume leadership in the adoption of innovations are innovative whereas teachers who disagree with practices and indicate resistance are non-innovative. 3. Innovative schools are adopters of several innovative educational practices and non—innovative schools would not adopt such practices. 4. Beginning teachers are aware of and can relate verbal and non-verbal social system messages. Limitations 1. An innovative school, for purposes of the current study, is limited in scope by the degree to which it has adopted several of 25 selected innovative practices. 2. A non-innovative school is limited in scope by the degree to which it has resisted the adoption of 25 selected innovative practices. vativenes is limits cational systemic behavior ceptance less than 10 3. For the purposes of the current study, inno- vativeness or lack of innovativeness of a beginning teacher is limited to his agreement or disagreement with 16 edu- cational ideas and practices. 4. System effects are limited to the influence of systemic structure, social attitudes and ideologies on the behavior of members of educational social systems. 5. Job satisfaction, performance feedback, ac- ceptance of educational beliefs and social acceptance are less than perfectly measured by questionnaire responses. Overview of Thesis A social system may be narrowly or broadly defined. For this reason the second chapter devotes considerable attention to ways in which various aspects of one's environment influence him. The aspects include, as a part of the literature review pertaining to social system effects, a resumé focusing on reference groups, communities or neighborhoods and organizations. A brief review of literature pertaining to the dependent variables follows the section dealing with system effects, primarily focusing on the clarification of definitions and showing the importance of each dependent variable to system functioning. The sample for the present study included inno- vative and non-innovative schools and innovative and non— innovative beginning teachers. The operationalizing of definitions through selecting and categorizing the sample are disc depender definiti Operatic are CODE study. of innov (a) job feedback and (d) and fine teachers SPGCtiVe SOCial S final ch and futu R6commen administ 11 are discussed in the first portion of Chapter III. The dependent variables and hypotheses are presented next with definitions of the dependent variables and how they were operationalized. Methods of data-collection and analysis are considered in the final sections of the chapter. The fourth chapter presents the findings of the study. Four sections reveal data pertaining to the effects of innovative and non-innovative social systems on the (a) job satisfaction, (b) perceived acceptable performance feedback, (c) perceived acceptance of educational beliefs, and (d) social acceptance of beginning teachers. A fifth and final section presents data depicting changes beginning teachers made in innovativeness as members of their re- spective social systems. The effects of innovative and non-innovative social systems on beginning teachers are discussed in the final chapter. Recommendations for refinement of the study and future studies might assist social system researchers. Recommendations may be of assistance to change strategists, administrators, teacher educators and placement bureaus. pertain neighbo members diffusi Of the dePende; factionl social a brief (:1 With thi ence gro is inclu to Systei be consic could git System ef CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction This chapter will review the research literature pertaining to system, reference group, community or neighborhood and organizational effects on individual members. An additional section deals with innovation and diffusion studies in education. The second major portion of the chapter reviews the literature pertaining to the dependent variables dealt with in the study: job satis— faction, performance feedback, acceptance of beliefs and social acceptance. The final section of the chapter is a brief critique of previous related research. A social system may be defined narrowly or broadly. With this in mind a resumé of literature focusing on refer- ence groups, communities or neighborhoods, and organizations is included as part of the review of literature pertaining to system effects. The effects of these dimensions should be considered here since principles may be extracted which could give further insight into the dynamics of social system effects on individuals regardless of the narrowness or breadth of their particular definitions. A review of 12 innovati insight regard t schools) literatt to assis importan and in h research non-inno is not ux sYstem is different behavior. Character (1) T) membe. which relat: ObjEC'l actior instit Fa SOCial SYS qualities ‘ stereo tYpes p‘i‘tterns of l3 innovation and diffusion studies in education should provide insight into the work done in the area, particularly with regard to system effects (of innovative and non-innovative schools) on individual members. Finally, a review of literature relating to the dependent variables is included to assist: in clarifying definitions, in understanding the importance of the dependent variables to system functioning, and in briefly determining the degree to which previous research has shown these to be effects of innovative or non-innovative social systems. A school social system is defined as a population of system members organized for a purpose. This definition is not unlike Rogers' (1962:14). He indicated that a social system is "a population of individuals who are functionally differentiated and engaged in collective problem solving behavior." Dubin (1962:70) indicated that there are three characteristics of any social system: (1) The participants have means of identifying who its members are, therefore locating the boundaries within which social relations take place. (2) The social relations within a system are guided by a core of objectives. (3) These objectives are attained through actions whose regularity of pattern can be labeled institutionalized behavior. Paris (1962) supports Dubin by reporting that social systems generate certain unique and emergent qualities which are evidenced through policies, ideologies, stereotypes and social attitudes, objectives and policies, patterns of behavior, ideologies and stereotypes are I Luv believed social S} ideologie processes are the i and ideoi em. eating t1 structure members c 1 recent fc the Effec Phenomenc (1897). “one di: Vidual me DUrkheim which f0c realities (1923) St that they Subjects. similar r 14 believed to often have affects on individual members of social systems. System Effects The characteristics of social systems, their ideologies and social attitudes reflecting their norms and processes differ from one system to another. System effects are the influence of systemic structure, social attitudes and ideologies on the behavior of the members of a social system. Saxena (1968:16) supports this definition indi- cating that "system effects are the influence of systemic structure and/or composition on the behavior of the members of a social system." Although Brown (1967) indicated pleasure with recent focus and attention on system effects, concern for the effects of systems on individuals is not new. The phenomenon of system effects may be traced to Durkheim (1897). He noted that suicide rates varied considerably among different religions and were much lower when indi- vidual members were part of a minority in the society. Durkheim encouraged the utilization of research methods which focus on social groups as "things" or external realities affecting the individual. Groves and Ogburn (1928) studied marriage rates for men and women and found that they varied inversely with the sex ratios of the subjects' residing communities. Faris (1939) obtained similar results in his studies of rates of psychosis. These 6 who hay hoods, vidual Referen of fiel group 0 et al. found t fession the ado; (1954) ( friends Vaccine. Vaccina1 Stojanox importar and acce % 1 “£133 1930ls' Group On Benningte 1.00de t 15 These early investigations pointed the way for researchers who have studied the effects of reference groups, neighbor- hoods, communities and formal organizations on the indi- vidual members of these groups. Reference Grouprffects Probably the best known of a considerable number of field studies researching the influence of a reference group on its members were those conducted by Coleman et a1. (1966). In their study of Doctors and Drugs, they found that interpersonal relationships with the pro- fessional group seemed to be the most important factor in the adoption of innovations. Studies by Clausen §E_al, (1954) on the acceptance of Salk vaccine indicated that friends were important influencers on adoption of the vaccine. Those who knew others who had previously been vaccinated were more likely to adopt. Glasser (1958) and Stojanovic (1961) also found the interpersonal influence important in their studies of the adoption of Salk vaccine and acceptance and utilization of a new hospital. Thg§§_ studies, and others, show that diffusion is mostly an interpersonal matter. Newcomb's (1943) study, carried out in the late 1930's, clearly established the effects of one's reference group on individual attitude changes. Girls who entered Bennington College as conservatives politically and who looked toward the liberal upper classmen and faculty 16 members, changed their political attitudes over the first few years to match the desired group as a result of system effects. On the other hand, those students who still looked to their parents as their major reference remained relatively conservative politically indicating the system had little effect on them. A study similar to Newcomb's by Siegel and Siegel (1957) showed similar results. Dealing with students living in a sorority and those unable to join a sorority, the study showed that one's environment had an effect on changing attitudes toward being more congruent with students with whom they lived. Several additional studies demonstrate the systemic effects of reference groups: 1. Wilson (1959) found system effects influencing the aspirations of high school students. 2. Stouffer gp_al. (1949) investigating attitudes toward promotion among soldiers showed system effects influencing individual solders' attitudes toward promotion. 3. Davis gE_al. (1961) encountered system effects in their study of the Great Books reading groups. 4. Merei (1941) exposed system effects in children's play groups. 5. The gang studies of Shaw (1938) (1939), Thrasher (1927), Whyte (1943) and Zorbaugh underlin in influ the refe i SYStem v,- TheY Shot, of Party neighbor} acceptanc (I954) fc more fave indicatin norms. F community He found 1 aCCOLlnted 17 (1929) point to system effects on individual members. 6. Lipset g£_al. (1956) found system effects in their study of a labor union. 7. Blau (1960) found that prevailing values in work groups had system effects on the conduct of the individual member. Generalization #1. Reference group research underlines the importance of interpersonal relationships in influencing the adoption of innovations. Generalization #2. Studies point to the power of the reference group in changing attitudes of group members. Community-Neighborhood Effects An example of community studies dealing with system variables is the Berelson gE_al. (1954) inquiry. They showed the effects of community composition in terms of party affiliation on voting behavior. Using the neighborhood as the unit of analysis for studying the acceptance of 25 farming practices, Duncan and Kreitlow (1954) found heterogeneous neighborhoods were consistently more favorable toward a majority of the innovations, indicating the influence of both social structure and norms. Flinn (1963) also investigated the influence of community norms in predicting agricultural innovativeness. He found that community norms relative to innovativeness accounted for more variation in farmer innovativeness than any 0t] explail with cc larges1 (I961) vativer of truc this va Coleman neighbo: neighboi ence anc (1954) s that sta and the related . Economic IEarned i farm innc residenCe Q villagers "compositj adOptiOn C variables . lnnOvativel 18 any other variable studied. Five variables taken together explained 64 per cent of the variance in innovativeness with community norms alone accounting for 20 per cent (the largest single factor) of the variance explained. Rogers (1961) included a community variable, "norms on inno~ vativeness," and found that the prediction of innovativeness of truck farmers much improved because of the inclusion of this variable, not used in earlier studies. Finding local influence important, Young and Coleman (1959) indicated that farmers in high adoption neighborhoods ascribe scientific farming attitudes to their neighbors, saying that they were often guided by the influ- ence and opinions of these neighbors. Marsh and Coleman (1954) studied 393 Kentucky farm operators in one county in that state. They found that socio-economic characteristics and the neighborhood of residence were both positively related to the adoption of farm innovations. When socio- economic characteristics were held constant, it was learned that the extent to which the farm operators adopted farm innovations was in part a function of neighborhood of residence. Qadir (1966) conducted his study utilizing 600 villagers in 26 Philippine neighborhoods. His analysis of "compositional" (system) effects and their influence on the adoption of technological innovations indicated that system variables were effective as predictors of individual innovativeness. He concluded that the locality group had an effect logical c T locality as educat Van den 8 categorie found sig to differ D sYstem ef of 1,149 ‘ geria. H Social 5y Nigerian A Variables the innov. He follnd . beyond im The Simuh 19 an effect on the individual's behavior in adopting techno- logical changes. The notion that social organization and culture of locality groups influence adoption more than factors such as education, farm size, and net worth was tested by Van den Ban (1960). She divided 47 Wisconsin townships into categories according to their innovativeness scores and found significant differences in innovativeness attributed to differences in social structure. Davis (1968) studied individual characteristics and system effects in an attempt to explain the innovativeness of 1,149 Nigerian farmers in 18 villages in Eastern Ni- geria. He found that both individual characteristics and social system effects contributed to the innovativeness of Nigerian farmers. Also, Saxena (1968) utilized individual and system variables in studying the degree to which systems affected the innovativeness of 680 farmers in 8 Indian villages. He found that system effects made a unique contribution beyond individual effects in explaining innovativeness. The simultaneous consideration of both individual and system variables explained 62 per cent of the variance in innovativeness, an increase in explained variance of 14 and 21 per cent over that explained by individual and system variables. Saxena also found "that farmers high on both individual and system variables were more innovative than when they were high on one type of variable and low L" k" Lima-.7“: J on the C system v system e effects, effects and neig and soci. vativene: ( innovatix innovatix C heterogen is tOWard (3% S.‘ Either in] based the Variables 20 on the other, or when they were low on both individual and system variables. In the case of imbalanced situations, system effects seemed to predominate over individual effects, and the dominance was greater when individual effects were lower." The research regarding the effects of communities and neighborhoods: Generalization #3. Indicate that the composition and social structure of communities influence the inno- vativeness of members. Generalization #4. Reveal that environments with innovative norms increase the innovativeness of less innovative members. Generalization #5. Indicate that the greater the heterogeneous mix of a neighborhood, the more favorable it is toward innovations. Organizational Effects Shepard (1967) classified various organizations as either innovation-resisting or innovation-producing. He based the classification on an analysis of numerous system variables which influenced the attitude of members toward innovations. He found system effects existing in innovation-producing organizations. Sapolsky (1967) studied nine retail organizations in six department stores. Using personal interviews, he found that three major inno- vations suggested by store executives were not implemented because c reward sy mail surv nois to d on five 1 size of t rounding administr These var the organ Particula Ships. af T generally G are impOr Innovat iv W A. vatign an. individua‘ adopts am 21 because of the nature of the stores' organization and reward systems. Becker and Stafford (1967) utilized a mail survey of 140 savings and loan associations in Illi- nois to discover the effect upon organization efficiency on five independent variables. The variables included size of the organization (assets), growth rate of sur— rounding community, ad0ption of innovations, size of the administrative component, and management leadership style. These variables explained 40 per cent of the variance in the organizational efficiency of the institutions studied, particularly the attributes of the staff-line relation- ships, affected innovation acceptance. The studies regarding the effects of organizations generally reveal that: Generalization #6. Organization system variables are important in influencing the attitude of members toward innovativeness. Related Educational Studies As indicated previously, past research on inno- vation and diffusion processes has focused largely on the individual innovator, what he is like, when and why he adOpts and generally not on the organization or system. The majority of these have been agricultural studies. A number of educational studies are typified by Klingenberg (1966) who studied 15 characteristics of superintendents to find that only half of them appeared to predict t contribut organizat highly ir. concluded seem to t innovativ 0 location findings the quali K Was SUppo innovativ found tha (a) resis- normative faculty a] that aSSUJ of the in: college me misSive a Ct tratorS an schools f0 had little HOWEVer ' S 22 predict the innovativeness of the school. Hughes (1965) contributed to the "great leader" approach by studying the organizational climate of central administrative offices of highly innovative and non—innovative school districts and concluded that the belief systems of the leadership did not seem to be an adequate determinate for a school being innovative or non-innovative. Other characteristics such as the wealth, size and location of school districts report such a wide range of findings that one is persuaded to look elsewhere to explain the qualities for innovative and non-innovative schools. Klingenberg's notion of social system involvements was supported by Davis (1965). In comparing presidents of innovative and non-innovative liberal arts colleges, he found that the president of the innovative institution: (a) resisted attempts to establish explicit, less permissive normative expectations, (b) was available to talk with faculty about innovations, and (c) supported a set of norms that assured the faculty's participation in the governance of the institution. The president of the non-innovative college maintained greater social distance, was less per- missive and supportive. Childs' (1965) study of belief systems of adminis- trators and teachers in innovative and non-innovative schools found that the belief systems of administrators had little to do with the innovativeness of their school. However, schools having a faculty with more open belief systems facultie might as innovati school 5 shed fur variable innovati effects, that dif things c acceptan Studied of Organ judges 5 kinds of Organize haVe a S PSYcholc in 10889 that Org Salary 0 remainin rePOrted objeCtiv‘ 23 systems tended to be more innovative than schools with faculties possessing closed belief systems. Thus, one might assume that the determination of innovative and non- innovative schools lies in part with the dynamics of the school social system. A study by Lin and others (1966) shed further light on the importance of social system variables in determining the innovativeness or non- innovativeness of school organizations. Discussing the importance of organizational system effects, Andrews and Greenfield (1966) proposed the thesis that diffusion in education is not so much the adoption of things or objects by individual members as it is the acceptance of ideas by an organization. Flizak (1967) studied what he termed the structural and dynamic elements of organizations. Eight schools were selected by three judges according to predetermined criteria defining two kinds of school organizations. Flizak learned that the organizational structure and related dynamics of a school have a significant relationship to certain social- psychological characteristics of its teachers. In studying organizational factors (system effects) in losses of elementary teachers, Lingel (1965) indicated that organizational factors were more important than salary or status as influences on teachers resigning or remaining with their respective school districts. He also reported that teachers identified with and believed in the objectives of their school district in order to experience I 4 satisfac achievir satisfac teacher: He was : beginnil behavio; pared ti and fou Studied flexibl dominat teacher about C nifican with 0t other t that th indirec adviCe perSOna 24 satisfaction, and that they had to feel capable of achieving the objectives of the district in order to gain satisfaction from their teaching. Nelson (1962) examined the induction of beginning teachers into the social system of an elementary school. He was interested in determining the relationship between beginning teachers' social interactions and their teaching behavior within the context of a social system. He com- pared the influence of the principal to that of the faculty and found that the principal of the particular school studied had the most interactions with beginning teachers. The principal favored subtle pupil control and a flexible approach while older teachers favored overt domination. Nelson reported that the three beginning teachers in the school favored the principal's sentiments about control of pupil behavior and that the least sig- nificant interactions in the induction process were those with other teachers. He indicated that interactions with other teachers were friendly at a superficial level and that the induction activities of older teachers were indirect such as joking, lunch time discussions, and giving advice if asked. McCracken (1965) investigated beginning teacher personality, classroom behavior and attitude changes and compared them to experienced teachers. He studied 38 beginning and 42 experienced teachers measuring: — ”-15 as personal Schedule vation R Teacher; factors but the similar changes the clas He also teachers teaching Workers, ally rev Only SeC Innovati leadersh rather t. to the de 25 personality factors by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, classroom behavior rated on the Classroom Obser— vation Record, by principals, and attitudes by the Minnisota Teacher Attitude Inventory. McCracken found personality factors of beginning teachers not changing significantly but the changes were in the direction of becoming more similar to experienced teachers. He found significant changes in classroom behavior representing movement toward the classroom behavior pattern of experienced co-workers. He also found that the attitudes expressed by beginning teachers tended to change during the initial year of teaching toward the attitudes expressed by experienced co- workers, not toward other groups of teachers. Diffusion and innovation studies in schools gener- ally reveal that: Generalization #7. System effects are considered only secondarily and in a residual capacity in diffusion and innovation studies in education. Generalization #8. Characteristics of individuals, leadership styles or climatic dimensions are considered rather than the effects of types of organizations on individual members in educational studies. Dependent Variables The following section reviews literature pertaining to the dependent variables even though the studies do not bear directly on the hypotheses. The primary focus of the review w showing function relaxed, one's so faction areas as quality situatio more spe equity 0 COHStrai; Perceive. attitude; ception < ] within a role enac role eXpe PectatiOr I innovativ None‘the- 26 review will be on the clarification of definitions and showing the importance of each dependent variable to system functioning. Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction is the consequence of feeling relaxed, secure and of experiencing pleasure as a member of one's social system. Kirkpatrick (1962) defines job satis- faction in a multidimensional manner including such general areas as: formal relations with the administration, quality of leadership, the job situation and the work situation. Kirkpatrick broke the general areas down to more specific personal perceptions including: perceived equity of status distribution, job security, perceived constraint, perceived opportunity for self-expression, perceived attitude of administration toward the teacher, attitudes toward fellow teachers and the school and per- ception of congruence of values with the system. Lonsdale (1964) points out that the satisfaction within a social system is a measure of effectiveness in role enactment, of congruence between role perceptions and role expectations, and of congruence between role ex- pectations and need-dispositions. Literature pertaining to the job satisfaction of innovative or non-innovative employees is non-existent. None-the-less, there is evidence that job satisfaction may stem from systemic origins. C organizat teaching 5 recogniti teacher j peers, sci factors w} 11 achievemei itself, a1 Satisfact- Cc Was shown Climate, a job. W E t° 3“ indi Setting as Ka- feedback are to rea (1932) ind. 27 Cited earlier, Lingel's (1965) study, showed organizational factors causing the loss of elementary teaching personnel. Sergiovanni (1966) reports that achievement and recognition are factors which contribute predominately to teacher job satisfaction while interpersonal relations with peers, school policy, administration, and unfairness were factors which contributed to teacher dissatisfaction. In his study of 415 teachers Johnson (1967) found achievement, interpersonal relations, recognition, the work itself, and responsibility significantly affecting teacher satisfaction. Collins (1965) reported that individual personality was shown to have an impact upon a teacher's perception of climate, and on the satisfaction level he reported with his job. Performance Feedback Performance feedback is a message from a receiver to an individual regarding his effectiveness in the job setting as perceived by the receiver. Katz and Kahn (1966) stress the importance of feedback through discussion and involvement if organizations are to realize their potential while Trowbridge and Cason (1932) indicate that the more precise the feedback to subjects, the more rapidly they learned. ‘ 'WA“ Eggs S ship of f as interp overall t Chesler a on teache change. for indiV gain peer "the grow ProceSSes velopment Professic faculty t need for System i: experime] for feed] are des i: l 13 grOUp; Problems feedback accurate they beg; acCUracY fective 1 28 Several researchers have investigated the relation- ship of feedback to performance. Call (1962) reports that as interpersonal interaction within groups increases, overall teaching efficiency also tends to increase. Chesler and Fox (1967:26) summarized a number of studies on teacher-peer support and its relation to acceptance of change. They stressed the importance of developing ways for individual teachers to share ideas and practices and gain peer support for worthy innovations. They state that "the growing body of research findings about change processes in the schools makes clear . . . that the de- velopment of an Open and supportive climate of personal and professional relationships among the members of the school faculty carried high priority." Clark (1960) discussed the need for interaction opportunity and feedback if the social system is to be productive. Jenkins' (1948) feedback experiments with small groups led him to emphasize the need for feedback if efficiency and an effective producing unit are desired. Pryer and Bass (1959) gave knowledge of results to 13 groups following attempts to solve ten independent problems in succession. Thirteen other groups received no feedback. The groups receiving feedback reached more accurate group decisions concerning each problem, although they began each new problem initially without any greater accuracy. In addition to learning how to make more ef- fective use of the group's resources to solve new problems, those giV‘ problem 5 to become I and group He indice when prof Levy (195 group pe] pride in motivatic cePtion < gators fc motivatn the defer quently 1 and his ‘- feedback in reduc; ficiehey (1955) n 29 those given feedback seemed more interested in their problem solving while the groups without feedback tended to become bored. Positive feedback caused individual performance and group performance to improve according to Zojonc (1961). He indicates that this finding is even more significant when problems encountered are difficult. Berkowitz and Levy (1956) found that work groups which have high pride in group performance are highly productive. In turn, this pride in the group was associated with high group task motivation and was believed to result from member per— ception of high group performance efficiency. The investi- gators found that favorable feedback produced high task motivation. The type or kind of feedback also has an effect on the defensiveness of individual system members and conse— quently the potential openness of the social system. Lott and his associates (1955) suggested the importance of feedback of feelings as opposed to task-oriented feedback in reducing defensive feelings and increasing task ef- ficiency in small problem-solving groups. Gibb gt_al. (1955) reported that positive feedback produced signifi- cantly less defensive feelings than negative feedback. Leavitt and Mueller (1951) have also shown how systemic relationships may affect feedback. They concluded from results of an experiment that "free feedback" was an aid to accuracy in interpersonal communication, and that the presence receiver accompan feedback Robert ( teachers favorabl parents . extent 5 one who ; lationsh; given neg jUdge's I "the Qree kind of I behavior SYstem fe Vidual be the eXPe< to indivj cases. I indiVidua “View t} PEOP] to it. suCce are n 30 presence or absence of feedback affected the sender- receiver relationship. They found that no feedback was accompanied by low confidence and hostility while free feedback was accompanied by high confidence and amity. Robert (1964) indicated that beginning elementary school teachers experienced satisfaction when they received favorable comments from other teachers, principals and parents. In an autokinetic situation to study effects on the extent subjects changed their judgments in the presence of one who judged differently, Kelman (1950) reports a re- lationship between feedback and influence. Subjects given negative feedback showed change toward the other judge's judgments. Havelock (1969:5-11) indicated that "the greater the social support of peers for a particular kind of behavior the greater the likelihood that the behavior will be performed." It seems likely that social system feedback might be lacking or negative when indi— vidual behavior is incongruent with system norms. However, the expectations implicit in the feedback from the system to individual members may be even more important in some cases. Regarding the affect of others expectations on the individual Brickman (1966:38) concludes from his literature review that: People who expect someone else to fail are more likely to induce him to fail even when they intend him to succeed. If the other individual does do well, they are more likely to discount the evidence of his succes: less a' Otl expectatio viduals, n Jacobsen's Unified Sc at random tential fo pupils sho their clas randomly s resPonded. W If Efliiii is Stated and Most indi( 31 success. If he does succeed, they are likely to be less attracted to him. Other studies also document the importance of expectations held by others for the performance of indi- viduals, not the least of which would be Rosenthal and Jacobsen's (1967) research conducted in the San Francisco Unified School District. The researchers selected pupils at random and told teachers these pupils had great po- tential for academic growth. Eight months later these same pupils showed significantly greater I.Q. score gains than their classmates. The teachers expectations for the randomly selected students had changed and the students responded. Expectations probably do influence the kinds of performance feedback one gets. Acceptance of Education Beliefs If one's beliefs were known to the social system, how would he be accepted? Acceptance of educational beliefs is a favorable attitude toward an individual's stated and unstated beliefs and feelings about education. Most individuals hold certain beliefs they may or may not divulge to peers or to the social system generally. The researcher believes that many individuals privately have some insight into how their reference group or social system might accept their beliefs if they were fully known to the group or system and that this insight affects his behavior. Asch's (1956) study lends ‘_._i consider naive su were obv placed i say that lumself differen judgment Subjects conforme however, did not and Smit encounte system x group C< greater SOci w VidUal : COlleag‘ might be SYStem I gatherix attract 32 considerable support to this notion. In his experiment, naive subjects were shown slides representing lines which were obviously different in length. The subject was placed in a room with a group of stooges who were told to say that the lines were equal in size. The subject found himself in a conflict situation where his judgment of the different sized lines was contrary to the unanimous judgment of what he thought was a group of fellow naive subjects. In 35 per cent of the cases, the naive subject conformed to the stooges. The important point to note, however, is that many of the subjects who publicly conformed did not privately change their beliefs or judgments. Janis and Smith (1965) point to the difficulty individuals may encounter when their beliefs do not conform to social system norms. They discovered that the more closely the group consensus approaches unanimity on a given issue, the greater the resistance of individual members to communi— cation contrary to the norm on the particular issue. Social Acceptance Social acceptance is the degree to which an indi- vidual is invited or involved in social activities with colleagues outside the work setting. Social acceptance might be exemplified by friendly gatherings of social system members after working hours. It is felt that such gatherings will in some part account for the mutual attraction of members of a given system, the individual's lbw cohesiven: the systel The nu of co: and t] cati01 commu: of in: c. are strom greatly i: norms of - the likel. indicates a“Other: i: threatenec more recel % Centra \IH StUdies in variables individual individual 33 cohesiveness with the system and one's open acceptance by the system. Festinger (1950:167) indicates that The more intimate the friendship, the greater the range of content which flows through communication channels and the lower the restraining forces against communi- cation. The opening of such active channels of communication thus means that there will be a sharing of information, opinions, attitudes, values. Cartwright (1959) pointed out that individuals who are strongly attracted to other members of a group will be greatly influenced by the norms of the group. If the norms of the group are congruent with influence attempts, the likelihood of acceptance is great. Seashore (1954) indicates that the attraction a group member has for another is the extent to which individuals feel secure or threatened by the system. According to Walker (1962), more recent research has shown that the relationship between cohesiveness-attraction and conformity of indi- vidual members to the group's norms is a function of the feelings of acceptance by the person. Critique l. Althgugh a number of studies mentioned system effects in one way or another! few focused on them as the central problem of the research. Diffusion and innovation studies in education, particularly, concentrated on other variables pertaining to characteristics or qualities of individuals who adopt innovations, characteristics of individuals who are members of innovative institutions, or communicat tutions. systems he 2. (1965) anc‘ characteri- not conce: with indi‘ 3 the effec individua \ 34 communication and systemic qualities of innovative insti- tutions. No studies concentrated on the effects social systems have on the innovativeness of individual members. 2. Although previous studies such as Lingel (1965) and McCracken (1965) investigated organizational characteristics and their influence on teachers, they did not concern themselves with determining if effects differ with individuals who conform or deviate from system norms. 3. No literature was discovered which focused on the effects of educational social system innovativeness of individual members over time. Th effects of individual Chapter II non-innova SEIected_ System eff nitions an last Porti C011ecti0n CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Introduction The purpose of the present study is to examine the effects of innovative and non-innovative social systems on individual beginning teachers. The first portion of Chapter III will describe how the sample of innovative and non-innovative schools, and beginning teachers, was selected. The second portion of the chapter will deal with system effects, the dependent variables, hypotheses, defi- nitions and measures, and, instrument development. The last portions of the chapter describe the methods of data- collection and data-analysis employed. Selecting the Sample Schools An innovative school is an educational organization known to be an earlier adopter of innovations. The defi— nition stated is not unlike Rogers' (1962:19) definition of innovativeness as ”the degree to which an individual is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than other members 35 of his soci W vations. For innovative more innove Curricular in the same Operational innovative geographica Inr riCular PIE earlier in system Of t In a desire tc defined reg had refisona time, to e): them to im; the regiOn) EXPOSUre tc somawhat S _ l 36 of his social system." A non-innovative school is an edu- cational organization known to be slower to adopt inno- vations. For purposes of operationalizing the concept, an innovative school is a social system which is utilizing more innovative curricular practices as measured by the Curricular Practices Poll (Appendix A) than other schools in the same geographical region. A non—innovative school, operationally, is a social system which is utilizing fewer innovative curricular practices as measured by the Cur- ricular Practices Poll than other schools in the same geographical region. Innovative schools utilizing more innovative cur- ricular practices than others in their region are relatively earlier in ad0pting newer ideas than the other social system of their respective region. In keeping with the definitions cited, there was a desire to locate several schools (social systems) in a defined regional area of the state of Michigan: (a) which had reasonably equal opportunities, in a given period of time, to experience input activities designed to encourage them to implement innovative practices (practices new to the region), (b) which had previously experienced limited exposure to innovative practices, and (c) which were somewhat similar with regard to size, state equalized valuation per pupil and the nature of the communities being served. The taken in S] Michigan D« of solicit. receiving 1 Elementary designed t vative sch consultant included a Which prev PraCtices, Planned in develOping In adminiStra Purp05e of assistanCe was immedi schools, ~ innomtiVG list, a pa project 0f schools as w 2 desifilmed 2 37 The initial step in locating the present sample was taken in Spring, 1969. Conversations were held with Michigan Department of Education employees for the purpose of soliciting assistance in locating regions in the state receiving money for input activities from Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (a federal act designed to create projects for the encouragement of inno- vative school practices). State Department Title III consultants were able to identify one project: (a) which included a seven county area having several school systems which previously had used rather traditional school practices, and (b) which had as a Project objective, planned input activities to facilitate local schools in developing more innovative practices. In June of 1969, the seven county Title III Project administrators and coordinators were contacted. The purpose of the study was explained, their permission and assistance in gathering data was requested. Cooperation was immediate and they submitted a list of Project area schools, subjectively ranked in order from most to least innovative. In an attempt to validate the rank-ordered list, a panel of experts from the regional Title III Project office, who had considerable contact with the area schools as consultants, utilized the Curricular Practices Poll2 to designate the number of innovative practices 2A checklist of 25 innovative curricular practices designed by the investigator. being U‘ to usin« panel 0 additio school of 11 i all cas systems as eith facilit in part region SChOOls non-inn Pupils. for inr non‘inr School: in the diSCus: from ee COHSiS. School: 38 being utilized by each of the local schools. In addition to using the curricular practices checklist instrument, the panel of expert-consultants was asked to describe any additional reasons for their innovative or non-innovative school selections. The process resulted in the nomination of 11 innovative and 9 non-innovative school systems.3 In all cases the panel described non-innovative schools as systems not utilizing innovative curricular practices and as either unwilling to be involved with innovation- facilitating input activities or as much less cooperative in participating in such activities. All schools in the sample were in a seven county region in the northern lower half of Michigan. Innovative schools ranged in size from 445 to 1,839 pupils, while non-innovative schools ranged in size from 225 to 2,436 pupils. The average state equalized valuation per pupil for innovative schools was $13,141 while the average for non-innovative schools was $13,213 (Appendix B). The decision to validate the categorizing of schools further by utilizing the Curricular Practices Poll in the field at the time the data were gathered. As discussed later in this chapter, a social system member from each of the schools in the study was asked to check 3The number constituting the sample ultimately consisted of five innovative and seven non-innovative schools. the number school . Teachers Sin beginning t beginners c conducted f effects dur Michigan Un graduate we and open me to tell the accepted. one to eig insight, e being Stud' rESPGCtive or influim illustrate ”I Used to Flinn-1m. not differ on me.“ I \ , 4 his first}: 39 the number of curricular practices being utilized in his school. Teachers Since the study dealt with system effects on beginning teachers,4 the next task was to determine if beginners could recognize system effects. A pretest was conducted for checking teachers' abilities to recognize effects during the Spring Semester of 1969 at Central Michigan University. Twenty teachers doing part-time graduate work were asked to list and describe both subtle and open messages from their social systems which seemed to tell them what one should do or be like in order to be accepted. The descriptions from these teachers, having one to eight years of experience, gave considerable insight, even though subjective in nature, to the problem being studied. The longer the teacher had been with his respective system, the less able he was to describe effects or influences the system had on him. This was graphically illustrated by one teacher of long service when he stated "I used to be too permissive but now I am a tough disci- plinarian. Our teachers like tough disciplinarians. I'm not different from the others or aware of their influence on me." In other cases, it was consistently observed that 4A beginning teacher is an individual involved in his first year of full—time teaching. I: acmmu r ”'4"- the longer vague were influencing tenure app: how their 1 were aware messages C1 beginning systems ha Du 1969, lett and princi These loca been SElec asked if t their Schc all beginr Careers ir Schools Cc SChOols re per Ceht c 40 the longer the teacher had been with his system, the more vague were his descriptions of how the system might be influencing him. On the other hand, teachers with less tenure appeared to write more descriptive illustrations of how their systems were attempting to influence them. They were aware of and in some cases uncomfortable with the messages coming their way. It was judged therefore, that beginning teachers would be able to recognize the effects systems have on individual members. During the weeks of late July and early August, 1969, letters (Appendix C) were written to superintendents and principals of the schools nominated for the study. These local administrators were told that their schools had been selected for a study of beginning teachers and were asked if they would allow the study to be conducted in their schools. There were also asked to submit a list of all beginning teachers, K-12, starting their teaching careers in their system in Fall, 1969. Of the twenty schools contacted, 50 per cent replied. Non-innovative schools replied at a rate of 55 per cent, while only 45 per cent of the innovative schools sent lists of beginning teachers. Second and third follow-up letters were sent at ten day intervals, netting responses from all but three of the twenty school systems. The result was a 100 per cent return from innovative schools and a 66 per cent return from non-innovative schools. Phone calls to all three non-responding non-innovative schools resulted in one F -¢d ‘1‘... additional . Finally, pe the coopera schools. F indicating the school and cutting non-innovat for the sta 0f non-inn: sPonses inc available j Schools, 5 than eXPeC‘ to one‘thij many 0f th 9 growing availalble teachers w case with discoverec tumoVer " D, by the 10 COOperate 41 additional school submitting a list of beginning teachers. Finally, personal visits in early September of 1969, gained the cooperation of the remaining two non-innovative schools. Four of the 11 innovative school systems responded indicating that they had not hired beginning teachers for the school year, 1969-70, eliminating them from the sample and cutting the number of innovative schools to seven. One non-innovative school reported having no beginning teachers for the start of the next school year, bringing the total of non-innovative schools to eight. These original re- sponses indicated that 30 beginning teachers were to be available in the innovative schools and 37 in non-innovative schools. This potential list of 67 subjects was smaller than expected. Many schools often experience turn—overs up to one-third of the faculty, but this was not the case with many of the schools studied. Perhaps this is explained by a growing teacher surplus, combined with fewer new positions available resulting in several school systems hiring teachers with experience instead of beginners, as was the case with several schools in the sample. It was also discovered that two of the most innovative schools had no turnover at all. During the third week of September, 1969, letters (Appendix D) were issued to all beginning teachers listed by the local administrators. These teachers were asked to cooperate with the study and indicate their willingness to ”034: via" ‘ participatf the Educati enclosed st the teacher had in tea: nomination ten-day in1 innovative a 93 per ce from innova experience and 26 inn< were made 1 chapter, a( and 37 in 1 e W teaChers ir in educatic for puPils, All beginnj indicating on a me: p IESPOnded t 42 participate by returning a one page.questionnaire called the Educational Ideas and Practices Poll (Appendix E) in an enclosed stamped envelope. The questionnaire also asked the teacher to indicate the number of years experience he had in teaching, to validate the administrators' original nomination of them. Two follow-up letters were sent at ten-day intervals netting a total response from 28 and 31 innovative and non-innovative teachers, respectively, for a 93 per cent and 84 per cent return. Of the 28 teachers from innovative schools, eight had previous teaching experience. The total usable sample was decreased to 20 and 26 innovative and non-innovative teachers. When visits were made to the schools, as discussed later in this chapter, additional subjects were located, making the final teacher sample 21 beginning teachers in innovative schools and 37 in non-innovative schools Educational Ideas and Practices Poll.--The Egg: cational Ideas and Practices Poll sent to the beginning teachers in September, 1970, listed 16 ideas and practices in education such as flexible scheduling, unscheduled time for pupils, programmed learning and small group seminars. All beginning teachers responded to the instrument by indicating their agreement or disagreement with each item on a four point forced choice scale. Strong agreement was reSponded to by indicating ”agree and willing to take b ‘I‘FW‘W’R ‘3' a lead" in a' was voiced Th testing be innovative versity an what they Thirty-one choice res Th tested duz were giver. undergradt The studer then Were their innc making SUE: was Conduc bottom thj reWriting second ins to anOther Finally, ] betWEEn th the t0tal on the ins in the fin 43 lead" in adopting the practice while strong disagreement was voiced by those who checked "disagree and resist." The instrument was developed by the researcher for testing beginning teachers' inclinations toward several innovative practices. In the early stages, several uni- versity and public school educators were asked to nominate what they considered to be innovative ideas and practices. Thirty—one practices were written as stems with forced choice responses and pre-tested. The Educational Ideas and Practices Poll was pre- tested during the summer of 1969. The original 31 items were given to a summer school class of graduate and undergraduate students at Central Michigan University. The students checked responses for each of the 16 items and then were told that the instrument was designed to test their innovativeness. Participants discussed each item, making suggestions and raising questions. An item analysis was conducted by dividing the total group into top and bottom thirds (Appendix F). This analysis required the rewriting of some items and the rejection of others. A second instrument of 21 items resulted and was submitted to another class and again item analyzed (Appendix G). Finally, 16 items were selected which discriminated best between those who scored high and those who scored low on the total instrument. Further item analysis was conducted on the instrument to facilitate data analysis as discussed in the final section of this chapter. l Rheummvnu In ideas and I designed a; the innova Th as indicat innovative systems re nition.s and in man to several innovative resists th In levels of levels of Panel of c PractiCes divided ir. thGir agre EduCat' - W Th 0f the var 5s n _. 0h lnnOVa 44 In brief, the poll consisted of 16 innovative ideas and practices, nominated by educators. It was designed and pre-tested by the researcher for determining the innovative inclinations of beginning teachers. The Educational Ideas and Practices Poll was used as indicated, to select the most innovative and least innovative beginning teachers in the two kinds of school systems resulting in the operationalizing of the defi- nition.5 An innovative beginning teacher strongly agrees and in many cases is willing to take the lead with regard to several practices and ideas in education. The non- innovative beginning teacher disagrees and in several cases resists these practices and ideas in education. In summary, the sample constitutes schools at two levels of innovativeness and beginning teachers at two levels of innovativeness. Schools were selected by a panel of consultant-experts using a checklist of curricular practices while beginning teachers in the schools were divided into innovative and non-innovative categories by their agreement or disagreement with practices on the Educational Ideas and Practices Poll. Instrumentation The following paragraphs discuss the measurement of the variables involved in the hypotheses. 5See Chapter I for definitions of innovative and non-innovative beginning teachers. 4S Curricular Practices Poll The Curricular Practices Poll was administered at each school visited. Results from the checklists were tabulated for purposes of validating earlier checklists, on the same schools, completed by the consultant-experts. It was discovered that one low-scoring innovative school and one high-scoring non-innovative school had identical scores, both clustered at the mean for all schools. These schools and their respective beginning teachers were eliminated from the study. Educational Ideas and Practices Poll In order to differentiate more precisely between innovative and non-innovative subjects, an item analysis of the Educational Ideas and Practices Poll was conducted. To determine which items discriminated between innovative and non-innovative subjects, scores were divided into upper and lower thirds. The upper third consisted of the most inno- vative scores while the lower third constituted the least innovative scores. Items which showed weakest discrimi- natory powers were eliminated (Appendix H). Nine of the 16 items were used to discriminate between innovative and non—innovative teachers in each of the two kinds of school social systems. flu .y”§!. . .‘Hlfl' 46 Determining Innovative and Non- Innovative Beginning Teachers All beginning teacher pre-test scores from inno- vative schools were grouped and all pre—test scores from non-innovative schools were grouped together. A frequency distribution and median was calculated for beginning teachers in innovative school and one for non-innovative schools. The median for scores in innovative schools was 27.6 while the median score for non-innovative schools was 26.2 (Appendix I). Teachers' scores above the median were considered innovative and teachers' scores below the median were considered non-innovative. A t-test for independent samples was applied to determine if innovative teachers, as a group, were sig— nificantly more innovative than non-innovative teachers as a group in both social system groupings. Results indi- cated that innovativeness scores for beginning teachers in innovative schools and in non-innovative schools were significantly greater for those called innovative teachers than those called non-innovative. Differences between the mean in innovative and non-innovative schools were sig- nificant at the .10 level. Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction is the consequence of feeling relaxed, secure and of experiencing pleasure as a member of one's social system. Seven test items (Appendix J) for determining job satisfaction were developed by Lin et al. 47 (1966:114-116). The items measure job satisfaction as a consequence of feeling relaxed, secure and of experiencing pleasure as a member of a school social system. Items were responded to on an agree-disagree seven point scale with a low score of seven and a high satisfaction score of 49. Performance Feedback Performance feedback is a message from a receiver to an individual regarding his effectiveness in the job setting as perceived by the receiver. Thirteen items (Appendix J) which operationalize the concept to deal with the attitudes and beliefs held by colleagues and the principal toward the teaching effectiveness of the be— ginning teacher as perceived by the beginner were selected from the study conducted by Lin e£_gl. (1966:120-121). The items were responded to on an agree-disagree seven point scale with a score of 91. Acceptance of Educational Beliefs Acceptance of educational beliefs is a favorable attitude toward an individual's stated and unstated beliefs and feelings about education. The researcher developed eight items (Appendix J) using the format and style of the above items. The items were responded to on an agree- disagree seven point scale with a score range of eight to 56. 48 Social Acceptance Social acceptance is the degree to which one is invited or involved in social activities with colleagues outside the work setting. Six test items (Appendix J) were developed by the researcher on a seven point scale measuring degree of social involvement or opportunity for involvement from much activity to none. The score range was from six for little or no involvement to a highest possible score of 42. The test items for social acceptance measure the degree to which the beginning teacher is invited or involved in out of school social activities with the school faculty compared to other social system members of the same tenure. Data Collection Pre-testing of the Instrument Since some items were newly devised and those utilized by Lin et_§l. (1966) reported no validity or reliability scores, pre-testing of the measures for the dependent variables seemed in order. The entire instrument of 34 items was given to a graduate class of teachers at Central Michigan University. Their scores were compared to their stated levels of job satisfaction, performance, feedback, acceptance of beliefs and social acceptance. Those who said they were more satisfied, had higher satisfaction scores. A similar is in 49 consistency existed between the measure of performance feedback and teacher statements. Discussion of the instrument measuring acceptance of educational beliefs and social acceptance led to the develOpment of an open ended questionnaire to determine how respondents might complete a given stem. Once this was completed by the group, responses on a seven point scale were again written and administered. This time responses on the test instrument were consistent with stated feelings with regard to acceptance of beliefs and social acceptance. The entire instrument was then administered to a second graduate group of students, all of whom were teaching in public schools. These teachers were told what the items measured after completing them and indicated that their scores were consistent with their judgment of their level of satisfaction and acceptance. January 17, 1970, letters were sent to all super- intendents and beginning teachers in the sample. The administrators (Appendix K) were asked to determine times the researcher could best administer the questionnaire and interview beginning teachers. Beginning teachers (Ap- pendix L), were told of the letter to their superintendent and informed that a follow-up telephone call would be forthcoming to set a visitation time and date. During the month of February, 1970, and the first ten days of March, 1970, all schools and beginning teachers in the sample were visited. Teachers were asked to complete 50 a second Educational Ideas and Practices P011 to facilitate analysis of possible changes in their innovativeness over time. They were asked to complete a questionnaire con- sisting of 34 items designed to measure job satisfaction, performance feedback, acceptance of educational beliefs and social acceptance. At least one administrator and one teacher in each system was asked to check the number of curricular practices on the Curricular Practices Poll for validation of the school's innovativeness. After each teacher completed the questionnaires, a brief interview was conducted by the researcher. This rather unstructured discussion focused on: how the teacher perceived himself adjusting to his new job, if and how he saw himself changing, if and how he felt influence by the system and his general feelings of acceptance by the system. Since no preliminary questionnaires were scored until June, 1970, the interviewer, was unaware of the beginning teacher's status regarding innovativeness, system conformity or deviancy. Changes in the Sample The collection of data caused a final revision of the sample studied. Field work uncovered several ad- ditional beginning teachers in non-innovative schools. In one instance, one non-innovative school had nine beginning teachers they had failed to report when the request was made in the summer of 1969. Another non-innovative school 51 had two additional beginning teachers while a third had one. One beginning teacher in a non-innovative school feared that her responses would be reported back to her school and refused to participate in the final data gathering. The 12 additional beginning teachers and one, loss brought the final number of beginning teachers in non-innovative schools to 37. One additional teacher was found in innovative schools making that list total 21. Hypotheses to be Tested In order to discuss dependent variables and hy- potheses, three preliminary explanations should be made. First, it was felt that innovativeness of beginning teachers would be affected by the system over time. Secondly, it was believed that innovative norms6 of systems would have an effect on individuals having innovative qualities different from the system. In short, it was felt that norm-conformers and norm-deviants would be affected differently by the two kinds of social systems. Therefore, teachers were divided into conformer and deviant groups (see Table 1) operationally defined as follows: A gg£m_ conformer is an innovative teacher in an innovative system or a non-innovative teacher in a non-innovative system. A norm-deviant is a non-innovative teacher in an innovative 6Norms are the most frequently occurring patterns of beliefs and behaviors of members of particular social systems. 52 TABLE l.-—Norm-conformers and norm-deviants. Teachers Innov. N—Innov. Norm Norm Innov. Conformer Deviant Schools Norm Norm N Innov. Deviant Conformer system or an innovative teacher in a non-innovative system. Third, it was believed that teachers in innovative schools would be affected differently than teachers from non- innovative schools. Dependent Variables and Hypotheses It was felt that innovative and non-innovative systems have different effects on individual members. These effects are in the form of four dependent variables noted in the hypotheses which follow. H1: Norm-conforming beginning teachers experience greater job satisfaction than norm-deViant beginning teachers. It is believed that conformers, having beliefs and behaviors more congruent with their respective social systems, would experience greater satisfaction with their jobs than deviants who experience less congruence with their respective social systems. HlA: Beginning teachers in innovative schools experience greater job satisfaction than beginning teachers in non-innovative schools. 53 It is believed that innovative social systems have qualities which cause beginning teachers to feel secure, at home with the faculty and more satisfied than non— innovative social systems. Seven sub-hypotheses follow. They are parallel to the sub-hypotheses for the remaining three dependent vari- ables and are diagrammed in Figure l. Sub-hypothesis, Hla’ tests the relationship between cells #1 and #3, which is . . u . the same in H2a’ H3a' and H4a and is shown as a 1n the diagram. Teachers Innov. N-Innov. Cell #1 Cell #2 Innov :flr—CE T f e Schools I! ti N-Innov. j: Q. d _____9 \l/ Cell #3 I Cell #4 819 = (cell #1 + cell #4) vs. (cell #2 + cell #3) Figure l.--Relationships tested in sub-hypotheses Hla: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools experience greater job satis- faction than norm-deviants in non-innovative schools. Hlb: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in non- innovative schools experience greater job satisfaction than norm-deviant beginning teachers in innovative schools. 1c: 1d: 1e: 1f: 54 Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools experience greater job satis- faction than norm-deviants in non-innovative schools. Norm-conforming beginning teachers in non- innovative schools experience greater job satisfaction than norm-deviants in non- innovative schools. Norm-deviant beginning teachers in innovative schools experience greater job satisfaction than norm-deviants in non-innovative schools. Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools experience greater job satis- faction than norm-deviants. Norm-conforming beginning teachers perceive more acceptable performance feedback than norm-deviants. It is believed that conformers would perform in more congruent ways with their respective social systems and thereby perceive more acceptable performance feedback than norm-deviants. HZA: Beginning teachers in innovative schools perceive more acceptable performance feedback than teachers in non-innovative schools. It is felt that innovative social systems would be more tolerant of differences in performance than non- innovative schools and would encourage innovative social system members to perceive more acceptance of their per- formance. H23: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools perceive more acceptable performance feedback than norm-deviants in non-innovative schools. Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools perceive more acceptable performance feedback than norm-deviants in innovative schools. 55 Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno— vative schools perceive more acceptable performance feedback than norm-deviants in innovative schools. Norm-conforming beginning teachers in non- innovative schools perceive more acceptable performance feedback than norm-deviants in non-innovative schools. Norm-deviant beginning teachers in innovative schools perceive more acceptable performance feedback than norm-deviants in non-innovative schools. Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools perceive more acceptable performance feedback than norm-conformers in non-innovative schools. Norm-conforming beginning teachers perceive more acceptable performance feedback than norm-deviants. A trend indicates that conforming beginning teachers perceive more acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm-deviants. It is believed that conformers would have beliefs more congruent with their respective social systems and thereby perceive more acceptance of their beliefs than norm-deviants. H 3A: 3a: 3b: Beginning teachers in innovative schools perceive more acceptance of their educational beliefs than beginning teachers in non- innovative schools. Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno— vative schools perceive more acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm-deviants in non-innovative schools. Norm-conforming beginning teachers in non- innovative schools perceive more acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm- deviants in innovative schools. 56 H3c: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools perceive more acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm—deviants in innovative schools. 3d: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in non- innovative schools perceive more acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm- deviants in non-innovative schools. H3e: Norm-deviant beginning teachers in innovative schools perceive more acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm-deviants in non-innovative schools. 3f: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools perceive more acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm-conformers in non-innovative schools. H : Norm-conforming beginning teachers perceive more acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm-deviants. H4: A trend indicates that norm-conforming be- ginning teachers experience greater social acceptance than norm-deviants. It is believed that conformers would be looked upon more favorably by their respective social systems than deviants and therefore conformers would experience more social acceptance. H4A: Beginning teachers in innovative schools experience greater social acceptance than teachers in non-innovative schools. It is believed that innovative schools would be tolerant and accepting of individuals with differing views and practices to a greater degree than non-innovative social systems. In addition, innovative social systems would include beginners socially, encouraging them to experience greater social acceptance in innovative than in non-innovative social systems. 4a: 4b: 4c: 4d: 4e: 4f: 49 57 Norm—conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools experience greater social acceptance than norm-deviants in non- innovative schools. Norm-conforming beginning teachers in non- innovative schools experience greater social acceptance than norm-deviants in innovative schools. Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools experience greater social acceptance than norm-deviants in innovative schools. Norm-conforming beginning teachers in non- innovative schools experience greater social acceptance than norm-deviants in non- innovative. Norm-deviant beginning teachers in innovative schools experience greater social acceptance than norm-deviants in non-innovative schools. Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno— vative schools experience greater social acceptance than norm-conformers in non- innovative schools. Norm-conforming beginning teachers experience greater social acceptance than norm-deviants. Norm-deviants in innovative and non-innovative schools change in innovativeness toward system norms, whereas norm-conformers will not change in innovativeness over time. Additional questions will be analyzed. They evolved from the data analysis and appeared pertinent to the study. They are written as research questions because they emerged after the data was gathered. It should be noted that no test of significance is available. Any trend in the expected direction will constitute the cri- terion for acceptance. The relationships to be studied, 58 using the four dependent variables, are illustrated in Table 2. TABLE 2.--Innovative teachers vs. non-innovative teachers in innovative social syStems and in non-innovative social system. Teachers Innov. N—Innov. Difference Cell #1 Cell #2 #1 — #2 Innov. <7 4) Schools Cell #3 Cell #4 _ N-Innov. <%* > #4 #3 Research Question #1: Research Question #2: Research Question #3: Research Question #4: How do job satisfaction differences between innovative and non—innovative teachers in innovative social systems, compare to differences between innovative and non-innovative teachers in non-innovative social systems? How do perceived acceptable per- formance feedback differences between innovative and non—innovative teachers in innovative social systems, compare to differences between innovative and non-innovative teachers in non-innovative social systems? How do perceived acceptance of edu— cational beliefs differences between innovative and non-innovative teachers in innovative social systems compare to differences between inno- vative and non-innovative teachers in non-innovative social systems? How do social acceptance differences between innovative and non-innovative teachers in innovative social systems, compare to differences 59 between innovative and non-innovative teachers in non-innovative social systems? It is felt that innovative social systems would be more open to a variety of beliefs about education than non-innovative schools and would encourage innovative social system members to perceive more acceptance of their educational beliefs. Data Analysis Testing Hypotheses Raw scores for the four dependent variables were fed into the computer which was programmed to compute t-scores for independent samples for each hypothesis posed (earlier in this chapter). The change in innovativeness of beginning teachers in innovative and non-innovative social systems, between pre- and post-tests was determined by a t-test for correlated means. Sub-hypotheses were accepted if they reached the .10 level of significance. The first general hypotheses (H1, H2, H3 and H4) were accepted if four of the six sub-hypotheses (a, b, c, d, f, g) were accepted. If fewer than four sub-hypotheses were accepted the respective general hypothesis was rejected. The second general hypotheses (HA1, HA2, HA3' and HA4) were accepted if two of the three sub-hypotheses 60 (a, e, f) were accepted. If less than two sub—hypotheses were accepted the respective general hypothesis was rejected. The fifth hypothesis was accepted if three or more of the categories examined met expected predictions. The criterion for accepting research question findings constitutes any trend in the expected direction. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS Findings will be presented in five major sections in this chapter, the first four being: effects of job satisfaction, acceptable performance feedback, acceptance of educational beliefs, and social acceptance. Each major section will present the first general hypothesis, followed by related sub-hypotheses (a, b, c, d and 9) used to determine acceptance or rejection of the general hypothesis. The next division of each section will present the second general hypothesis followed by related sub-hypotheses (a, e, f) used to determine its acceptance or rejection. The final division of each section will deal with findings regarding the research question. The fifth major section is a brief report on changes in innovativeness in innovative and non-innovative beginning teachers in innovative and non—innovative school social systems, over time. For each section, 2x2 Tables (3, 7, 11 and 15) with numbered cells will illustrate mean scores for the dependent variable. Figure l, in the previous chapter, 61 62 illustrates relationships studied for all sub-hypotheses to be presented. Job Satisfaction Conformers vs. Deviants H1: Norm-conforming beginning teachers experience greater job satisfaction than norm-deviant beginning teachers. Acceptance of three of the following five hy- potheses (a, b, c, d, g) will determine whether H1 is accepted or rejected. TABLE 3.--Mean scores on job satisfaction. Teachers Innov. Non-Innov. #1 #2 Innov. 37.90 39.27 N=10 N=1l Schools #3 #4 Non-Innov. 31.88 34.35 N=l7 N=20 Hla: Norm—conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools experience greater job satisfaction than norm-deviants in non— innovative schools. The hypothesis was accepted at the .10 level of significance. Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools (cell #1) experienced greater job satis- faction than norm-deviants in non-innovative schools (cell #3). 63 file: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in non- innovative schools experience greater job satisfaction than norm-deviant beginning teachers in innovative schools. Norm-conforming teachers in non-innovative schools (cell #4), were not more satisfied with their jobs than norm—deviants in innovative schools (cell #2), rejecting the hypothesis.7 ch: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools experience greater job satisfaction than norm-deviants in innovative schools. No statistically significant relationship was found between the job satisfaction of conformers (cell #1) and deviants (cell #2) in innovative schools, rejecting the hypothesis. Hld: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in non- innovative schools experience greater job satisfaction than norm-deviants in non- innovative schools. The hypothesis was rejected. Norm-conformers (cell #4) in non-innovative schools were not significantly more satisfied than their deviant counter-parts (cell #3): H1 : Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- g vative schools experience greater job satisfaction than norm-deviants. No significant relationship was found between means for norm-conformers and norm-deviants; thus the hypothesis 7 o e o e Norm-deViants in innovative schools were more satisfied than non—innovative school norm-conformers. This relationship was significant at the .10 level, indicating that innovative schools affect the job satisfaction of non- innovative teachers significantly more than non-innovative schools. 64 was rejected. Norm-conformers, as a group (cells 1 and 4), did not experience greater job satisfaction than norm- deviants (cells 2 and 3). Table 4 summarizes the differences in sub-hypotheses dealing with job satisfaction between conforming and deviant beginning teachers in innovative and non-innovative schools. These sub-hypotheses determine the acceptance or rejection of H1. TABLE 4.--A summary of relationships on job satisfaction between norm-conformers and norm-deviants in innovative and non-innovative schools. Hypothesis Hypothesis Difference Dependent Accepted Between Cells Variable or Rejected Hla (1) vs. (3) Job Satisfaction Accepted H1b (4) vs. (2) Rejected file (1) vs. (2) Rejected H1d (4) vs. (3) Rejected ng (1&3) vs. (2&4) Rejected One of the five sub-hypotheses was accepted, rejecting the first general hypothesis, H1. Beginning Teachers in Innovative vs. Non-Innovative Schools H - Beginning teachers in innovative schools 1A experience greater job satisfaction than beginning teachers in non-innovative schools. 65 Acceptance of two of the three following hypotheses (a, e, f) will determine whether H1A is accepted or re— jected. Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools experience greater job satisfaction than norm-deviants in non— innovative schools. la: The hypothesis was accepted at the .10 level of significance. Innovative beginning teachers experience greater job satisfaction in innovative (cell #1) than in non-innovative (cell #3) schools. H Norm-deviant beginning teachers in innovative schools experience greater job satisfaction than norm-deviants in non-innovative schools. la: The hypothesis was accepted at the .10 level of significance. Norm-deviants experience greater job satis— faction in innovative (cell #2) than in non-innovative schools (cell #3). Elf: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools experience greater job satisfaction than norm-conformers in non- innovative schools. The hypothesis was accepted at the .10 level of significance. Conforming beginning teachers experience greater job satisfaction in innovative (cell #1) than in non-innovative (cell #4) schools. Table 5 summarizes the differences in sub- hypotheses dealing with job satisfaction of beginning teachers in innovative vs. non-innovative schools. 66 TABLE 5.--A summary of relationships on job satisfaction between beginning teachers in innovative and non-innovative social systems. . Hypothesis . Difference Dependent HypotheSis . Accepted Between Cells Variable or Rejected‘ H1a (1) vs. (3) Job Satisfaction Accepted file (2) vs. (3) Accepted H1f (1) vs. (4) ' Accepted All three sub-hypotheses were accepted, accepting HlA. Relating the Research QuestiBn Question: How do job satisfaction differences between innovative and non-innovative teachers in innovative social systems, compare to differences between innovative and non-innovative teachers in non- innovative social systems? Table 6 shows relationships between members in each social system. The job satisfaction difference between innovative and non-innovative teachers in non-innovative social systems is greater than in innovative systems. Acceptable Performance Feedback Conformers vs. Deviants H2: Norm-conforming beginning teachers experience greater job satisfaction than norm-deviant beginning teachers. 67 TABLE 6.--Job satisfaction differences between teachers in innovative social systems compared to differences between teachers in non-innovative social systems. Teachers Innov. N-Innov. Difference #1 #2 Innov. Schools #3 #4 N-Innov. 31.88 -“--34.35 +2.47 Acceptance of three of the following five hy- is potheses (a, b, c, d, 9) will determine whether H2 accepted or rejected. TABLE 7.--Mean scores on acceptable performance feedback. Teachers Innov. N-Innov. #1 #2 Innov. 54.30 54.72 N=10 N=11 Schools #3 #4 N-Innov. 48.82 54.30 N=l7 N=20 H2a: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools perceive more acceptable performance feedback than norm-deviants in non-innovative schools. A relationship at the .10 level of significance resulted in the acceptance of hypothesis H2a' 68 Norm-conformers in innovative schools (cell #1) perceived more acceptable performance feedback than norm-deviants in non-innovative schools (cell #3). HZb: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in non- innovative schools perceive more acceptable performance feedback than norm-deviants in innovative schools. No significant relationship (cells #2-#4) existed causing the hypothesis to be rejected. HZC: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools perceive more acceptable performance feedback than norm-deviants in innovative schools. Hypothesis H2C was also rejected. Conformers in innovative schools (cell #1) did not perceive more ac- ceptable performance feedback than deviants (cell #2) in innovative schools. HZd: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in non- innovative schools perceive more acceptable performance feedback than norm-deviants in non-innovative schools. The hypothesis was accepted at the .10 level of significance. Norm-conformers (cell #4) perceive more acceptable performance feedback than norm deviants (cell #3) in non-innovative schools. H2 : Norm-conforming beginning teachers perceive more acceptable performance feedback than norm-deviants. A slight but statistically insignificant relation- ship existed between norm-conforming beginning teachers (cells #1 and #4) and norm-deviants (cells #2 and #3) with regard to perceived acceptable performance feedback. 69 Norm-conformers, as a group, did not perceive greater acceptance of performance than norm-deviants. The hy- pothesis was rejected. Table 8 summarizes the differences in sub- hypotheses dealing with acceptable performance feedback between conforming and deviant beginning teachers in inno— vative and non-innovative schools. These sub-hypotheses determine the acceptance or rejection of H2. TABLE 8.--A summary of relationships on acceptable per- formance feedback between norm-conformers and norm-deviants in innovative and non-innovative schools. . Hypothesis . Difference Dependent HypotheSis . Accepted Between Cells Variable or Rejected H26‘ (1) vs. (3) Acceptable Accepted Performance H2b (4) vs. (2) Feedback Rejected H2C (1) vs. (2) Rejected HZd (4) vs. (3) Rejected H29 (1&3) vs. (2&4) Rejected Only one of the five hypotheses was accepted, rejecting the second general hypothesis, H2. Beginning Teachers in Innovative vs. Non-Innovative Schools 32A: Beginning teachers in innovative schools perceive more acceptable performance feedback than beginning teachers in non-innovative schools. F 70 Acceptance of two of the three following hypotheses (a, e, f) determine whether H2A is accepted or rejected. HZa: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno— vative schools will perceive more acceptable performance feedback than norm-deviants in non-innovative schools. The hypothesis was accepted. Conformers in inno- vative schools perceived greater acceptance of their performance than deviants in non-innovative schools. H2e: Norm-deviant beginning teachers in innovative schools perceive more acceptable performance feedback than norm-deviants in non-innovative schools. The hypothesis was accepted at the .10 level of significance. Deviants perceive their performance as more acceptable in innovative than in non-innovative schools. Hzf: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools perceive more acceptable performance feedback than norm-conformers in non-innovative schools. The hypothesis was rejected. Differences did not exist between conformers of innovative and non-innovative schools, regarding perceptions of acceptable performance feedback. Table 9 summarizes the differences in sub-hypotheses dealing with acceptable performance feedback perceived by beginning teachers in innovative vs. non-innovative schools. Two of the three sub-hypotheses related to H were 2A accepted, accepting HZA' 71 TABLE 9.--A summary of relationships on acceptable per- formance feedback between beginning teachers in innovative and non-innovative social systems. . Hypothesis . Difference Dependent HYPOth351S Between Cells Variable ACCGPted or Rejected H2a (1) vs. (3) Acceptable Accepted Performance H2e (2) vs. (3) Feedback Accepted H2f (1) vs. (4) Rejected Relating the Research Question Question: How do perceived acceptable performance feedback differences between innovative and non-innovative teachers in innovative social systems, compare to differences between innovative and non-innovative teachers in non-innovative social systems? Table 10 shows relationships between members in each social system. TABLE 10.--Perceived acceptable performance feedback differ- ences between teachers in innovative social systems com- pared to differences between teachers in non-innovative social systems. Teachers Innov. N-Innov. Difference #1 #2 Innov. 54.30 ___——54e72 -042 Schools #3 #4 N-Innov. lag? ‘EEl 72 The perceived acceptable performance feedback difference between innovative and non-innovative teachers in non-innovative social systems is greater than in inno- vative systems. Acceptance of Educational Beliefs 3? Conformers vs. Deviants _pa— H3: Norm-conforming beginning teachers perceive more acceptance of their educational beliefs than deviant beginning teachers. Acceptance of three of the following five hy- is potheses (a, b, c, d, 9) will determine whether H3 accepted or rejected. TABLE ll.-—Mean scores on acceptance of educational beliefs. Teachers Innov. N-Innov. #1 #2 Innov. 41.30 44.00 N=10 N=ll Schools #3 #4 N-Innov. 34.41 41.80 N=l7 N=20 H33: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools perceive more acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm-deviants in non-innovative schools. A relationship existed at the .10 level of signi- ficance causing acceptance of the hypothesis. Conforming teachers (cell #1) perceived greater acceptance of their 73 educational beliefs while deviants in non-innovative systems (cell #3) perceived less acceptance of their edu- cational beliefs. H3b: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in non- innovative schools perceive more acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm- deviants in innovative schools. Hypothesis 3b was rejected. Norm—conformers in non-innovative (cell #4) schools perceived no greater I "7 E J |* acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm-deviants (cell #2) in innovative schools. é H3c: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools perceive more acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm-deviants in innovative schools. This hypothesis was also rejected. Norm-conformers in innovative schools (cell #1) perceived no greater acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm-deviants (cell #2). H3d: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in non- innovative schools perceive more acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm- deviants in non-innovative schools. The hypothesis was accepted at the .10 level of significance. Norm-conformers (cell #4) perceived more acceptance than norm-deviants (cell #3) in non-innovative schools. H3 : Norm-conforming beginning teachers perceive g more acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm-deviants. The hypothesis was accepted at the .10 level of significance. Conformers (cells #1 and #4) perceived 74 greater acceptance of their educational beliefs than deviants (cells #2 and #3). Table 12 summarizes the differences in sub- hypotheses dealing with acceptance of educational beliefs between conforming and deviant beginning teachers in inno- vative and non-innovative schools. The sub-hypotheses determine the acceptance or rejection of H3. TABLE 12.--A summary of relationships on acceptance of educational beliefs between norm-conformers and norm- deviants in innovative and non-innovative schools. . Hypothesis . Difference Dependent HypotheSis . Accepted Between Cells Variable or Rejected H3a (1) vs. (3) Acceptance of Accepted Educational H3b (4) vs. (2) Beliefs Rejected H3C (1) vs. (2) Rejected H3d (4) vs. (3) Accepted H3g (1&3) vs. (2&4) Accepted Three of the five sub-hypotheses were accepted, accepting the third general hypothesis, H3. Beginning Teachers in Innovative vs. Non-Innovative Schools H3A: Beginning teachers in innovative schools perceive more acceptance of their educational beliefs than beginning teaChers in non- innovative schools. 75 Acceptance of two of the three following hypotheses (a, e, f) will determine whether H is accepted or re- 3A jected. H3a: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools perceive more acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm-deviants in non-innovative schools. The hypothesis was accepted at the .10 level of significance. Norm-conformers (cell #1) in innovative schools perceived greater acceptance of their beliefs than norm-deviants (cell #3) in non-innovative schools. H3e: Norm-deviant beginning teachers in innovative schools perceive more acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm-deviants in non-innovative schools. The hypothesis was accepted at the .10 level of significance. Norm-deviants (cell #2) in innovative schools perceived greater acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm-deviants (cell #3) in non-innovative schools. H3f: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools perceive more acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm- conformers in non-innovative schools. The hypothesis was rejected. Norm-conformers (cell #1) in innovative schools, did not perceive more acceptance than norm-conformers (cell #4) in non-innovative schools. Table 13 summarizes the differences in sub- hypotheses dealing with acceptance of educational beliefs in innovative vs. non-innovative schools. . “- 76 TABLE 13.--A summary of relationships on perceived ac- ceptance of educational beliefs between beginning teachers in innovative and non-innovative social systems. . Hypothesis . Difference Dependent HypotheSis . Accepted Between Cells Variable or Rejected H3a (1) vs. (3) Acceptance of Accepted F Educational 1% H3e (2) vs. (3) Beliefs Accepted 1 H3f (1) vs. (4) Rejected Two of the three sub-hypotheses were accepted, 9 accepting H3A' Relating the Research Question Question: How do perceived acceptance of edu— cational beliefs differences between innovative and non—innovative teachers in innovative social systems compare to differences between innovative and non- innovative teachers in non-innovative social systems? Table 14 shows relationships between members in each social system. The perceived acceptance of educational beliefs difference between innovative and non-innovative teachers in non-innovative social systems is greater than in inno- vative systems. 77 TABLE l4.-—Perceived acceptance of educational beliefs differences between teachers in innovative social systems compared to differences between teachers in non-innovative social systems. Teachers Innov. N-Innov. Difference #l #2 Innov. Schools #3 #4 N-Innov. 34.41 '——‘—'41.80 +7.39 Social Acceptance Conformers vs. Deviants H4: Norm-conforming beginning teachers experience greater social acceptance than deviant beginning teachers. Acceptance of three of the following five hy— potheses (a, b, c, d, g) will determine whether H4 is accepted or rejected. TABLE 15.--Mean scores on social acceptance. Teachers Innov. N-Innov. #1 #2 Innov. 24.40 25.00 N=10 N=1l Schools #3 #4 N=l7 N=20 78 4a: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools experience greater social acceptance than norm-deviants in non- innovative schools. A statistical level of significance was not es- tablished for H4a causing its' rejection. The finding indicated that innovative school social systems did not contribute to greater social acceptance of innovative is? beginning teachers (cell #1) than did non-innovative school social systems (cell #3). innovative schools experience greater social acceptance than norm-deviants in innovative schools. H 4b: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in non- d Hypothesis 4b was rejected. Norm-conformers (cell #4) in non-innovative schools did not experience greater social acceptance than norm-deviants (cell #2) in innovative schools. H4c: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools experience greater social acceptance than norm-deviants in innovative schools. The hypothesis was rejected. Norm-conformers (cell #1) in innovative schools did not experience greater social acceptance than norm-deviants (cell #2) in inno- vative schools. H4d: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in non- innovative schools experience greater social acceptance than norm-deviants in non- innovative. Hypothesis H4d was accepted at the .10 level of significance. Norm-conformers (cell #4) in non-innovative 79 schools experienced greater social acceptance than norm- deviants (cell #3) in non-innovative schools. H4 : Norm-conforming beginning teachers experience greater social acceptance than norm-deviants. The hypothesis was rejected. Conformers (cells #1 and #4) did not experience greater social acceptance than norm—deviants (cell #2 and #3). E3 Table 16 summarizes the differences in sub- ' hypotheses dealing with social acceptance between conform- ing and deviant beginning teachers in innovative and non- U innovative schools. The sub-hypotheses determine the acceptance or rejection of H4. TABLE 16.--A summary of relationships on social acceptance between norm-conformers and norm-deviants in innovative and non-innovative schools. . Hypothesis . Difference Dependent Hypothesis . Accepted Between Cells Variable or Rejected H4a (1) vs. (3) Social Rejected Acceptance H (4) vs. (2) Rejected 4b H4c (1) vs. (2) Rejected H4d (4) vs. (3) Accepted H4g (1&3) vs. (2&4) Rejected Only one of the five sub-hypotheses was accepted, rejecting the fourth general hypothesis, H4. 80 Beginning Teachers in Innovative vs. Non-Innovative Schools HIA: Beginning teachers in innovative schools experience greater social acceptance than beginning teachers in non-innovative schools. Acceptance of two of the three following hypotheses (a, e, f) will determine whether H1A is accepted or re- jected. H4a: Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools experience greater social acceptance than norm-deviants in non- innovative schools. The hypothesis was rejected. Norm-conformers (cell #1) in innovative schools did not experienCe greater social acceptance than norm-deviants (cell #3) in non- innovative schools. H : 4e Norm-deviant beginning teachers in innovative schools experience greater social acceptance than norm-deviants in non-innovative schools. The hypothesis was rejected. Norm-deviants (cell #2) in innovative schools did not experience greater social acceptance than norm-deviants (cell #3) in non- innovative schools. H 0 4f. Norm-conforming beginning teachers in inno- vative schools experience greater social acceptance than norm-conformers in non- innovative schools. The hypothesis was rejected. Norm-conforming (cell #1) teachers in innovative did not experience greater social acceptance than norm-conformers (cell #4) in non-innovative schools. 81 Table 17 summarizes the differences in sub- hypotheses dealing with social acceptance in innovative vs. non—innovative schools. TABLE l7.--A summary of relationships on social acceptance between beginning teachers in innovative and non-innovative social systems. . Hypothesis . Difference Dependent Hypothesis . Accepted Between Cells Variable or Rejected H4 (1) vs. (3) Social Rejected a Acceptance H4e (2) vs. (3) Rejected H4f (1) vs. (4) Rejected None of the sub-hypotheses related to H3 were A accepted, rejecting the hypothesis. Relating the Research Question Question: How do social acceptance differences between innovative and non-innovative teachers in innovative social systems compare to differences between inno- vative and non-innovative teachers in non-innovative social systems? Table 18 shows relationships between members in each social system. The social acceptance difference between innovative and non-innovative teachers in non-innovative social systems is greater than in innovative social systems. 82 TABLE l8.--Socia1 acceptance differences between teachers in innovative social systems compared to differences between teachers in non-innovative social systems. Teachers Innov. N-Innov. Difference #1 ' #2 Innov. 24.40 25.09 -.69 Schools #3 #4 N-Innov. 22.88 25.45 +2.57 Change in Innovativeness H5: Norm-deviants in innovative and non—innovative schools change in innovativeness toward system norms, whereas norm—conformers will not change in innovativeness over time. Mean change scores from the pre- and post—test on innovativeness8 are presented in Table 19. Norm-deviants in innovative social systems changed significantly in the direction of system norms. These norm-deviants changed in the expected direction, becoming more innovative, at the .10 level of significance. Norm- deviants in non-innovative social systems changed slightly (but not significantly) in the opposite direction from that expected. 8Pre- and post-test scores for each individual in each cell were measured and computed from the Educational Ideas and Practices Poll and compared to determine signi- ficance of change using a t-test for correlated means. Criterion for acceptance was the .10 level of significance. 83 TABLE 19.--Mean change scores for innovative and non- innovative beginning teachers in innovative and non- innovative social systems. Teachers Innov. N-Innov. #1 #2 * Innov. 0 +2.27 Schools #3 #4 N-Innov. +.50 -.S8 *Statistically significant. As expected, norm-conformers in innovative social systems did not change. Norm-conformers in non-innovative social systems changed slightly (not significantly) toward becoming more innovative. The hypothesis was accepted. Summary 1. Norm-conformers did not differ from norm- deviants in job satisfaction, acceptable per- formance feedback and social acceptance. 2. Norm-conformers differed from norm-deviants in perceived acceptance of educational beliefs. 3. Beginning teachers in innovative social systems did not differ from beginning teachers in non- innovative social systems in social acceptance. 84 Beginning teachers in innovative social systems did differ from beginning teachers in non- innovative social systems in job satisfaction, perceived acceptance of performance feedback and perceived acceptance of educational beliefs. Job satisfaction, acceptable performance feedback, acceptance of educational beliefs and social acceptance differences between inno- vative and non-innovative beginning teachers were greatest in non-innovative social systems. Norm-conformers did not change in innovative— ness. Norm-deviants in non-innovative social systems did not change in innovativeness. Norm-deviants in innovative schools changed toward becoming more innovative. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The findings presented in the previous chapter lead one to draw certain conclusions regarding the effects of innovative and non-innovative social systems on indi- vidual members. Many educators are interested in fa- cilitating the development of more innovative school social systems and therefore desire insight into strategies for applied social system change. The chapter begins with a summary of the study. The conclusions are presented next, followed by reflections and recommendations. Summary_of the Study A major assumption in the study was that school social systems have formal and informal means of orienting beginning teachers to doing things the way the system does them and to believe as the system believes. Change strategists, curriculum leaders, teacher educators and teacher placement bureaus, interested in helping both teachers and school social systems become more innovative, should be concerned with effects that social systems have on newcomers. If beginners could be 85 86 looked upon as resources and valuable contributors to the pool of social system ideas instead of targets needing to be oriented or indoctrinated, they could possibly make a contribution to school social systems becoming more inno- vative. Change strategists and curriculum leaders might be interested to learn if beginners do in fact experience rejection when they differ from system norms. If this is the case, inservice programs might be designed to cope with the situation. Teacher placement bureaus could benefit if they were to learn of the importance of placing beginners in social systems which would accept them and use their personal resources. Teacher educators might wish to take a second look at preparation programs if they could see ideas and beliefs taught "coming undone," over time, as a result of system effects. The Source of Data Twelve schools, in a seven county Title III Elementary and Secondary EducationlAct Project in the northern half of the lower peninsula of Michigan, were selected for study. Project schools were categorized as leither innovative or non-innovative by their degree of prior adoption of 25 selected innovative curricular Ipractices. Five schools were categorized as innovative and seven as non-innovative. Fifty-eight teachers (21 in innovative schools and 137 in non-innovative schools) in their first year of 87 teaching and each employed by one of the 12 Project schools, were categorized as innovative or non-innovative beginning teachers. Beginners who agreed with or were "willing to take the lead" in the adoption of 16 selected innovative educational ideas and practices were categorized as inno- vative while those who disagreed or indicated resistance to the ideas and practices were categorized as non- innovative. Objectives of the Study The study examined the effects that innovative and non-innovative school social systems have on innovative and non-innovative beginning teachers. More specific objectives of the research were: 1. To determine if norm-conforming beginning teachers experienced greater job satisfaction, perceived more acceptable performance feedback, perceived more acceptance of their educational beliefs and experienced greater social acceptance than norm-deviant beginning teachers. 2. To determine if beginning teachers in inno- vative schools experienced greater job satisfaction, perceived more acceptable performance feedback, perceived more acceptance of their educational beliefs and experi- enced greater social acceptance than beginning teachers in non-innovative schools. 88 3. To determine if norm-deviant beginning teachers change in innovativeness toward system norms, over a period of time. Measures and Variables The independent variables consisted of innovative and non-innovative beginning teachers in innovative schools, and innovative and non-innovative beginning teachers in non-innovative schools. All beginning teachers responded to the Educational Ideas and Practices P011,9 in September, 1969, In Febru- ary, 1970, the beginners were asked to respond to the poll again to determine any changes in innovativeness. The beginning teachers also completed a questionnaire designed to measure the dependent variables: job satisfaction, perceived acceptable performance feedback, perceived acceptance of educational beliefs and social acceptance. Hypotheses which detailed the expected relation- ships between conformers and deviants, and beginners in innovative schools vs. beginners in non-innovative schools were computed using t-tests. The criterion for accepting hypotheses was set at the .10 level of significance. Changes in innovativeness from pre-tests to post-tests were computed using a t-test for correlated means. The 9A forced-choice instrument consisting of 16 inno- vative ideas and practices in education to determine innovativeness. 89 criterion for accepting changes in innovativeness was set at the .10 level of significance. Conclusions Job Satisfaction Conclusion #1: Norm-conforming beginning teachers did not experience greater job satisfaction than non- deviant beginning teachers. Conclusion #2: Beginning teachers in innovative social systems experienced greater job satisfaction than beginning teachers in non-innovative social systems. Conclusion #3: Job satisfaction is a stronger differentiating system effect in non-innovative social systems where innovative beginning teachers experience the least satisfaction. Beginning teachers in innovative schools felt more relaxed and secure in their work, a part of the faculty and at home with the faculty group. Faculty members felt that they got along well and were satisfied with their jobs. Norm-conformers, specifically, also felt that colleagues saw them as doing a good job and that their ideas and beliefs were acceptable to the social system (Table 6). Interviews revealed that almost all beginning teachers in innovative schools felt that their social system saw them as knowledgeable and worthy members of the staff. Several indicated they felt a part of the faculty and were happy with their jobs. 'Teachers from 90 non-innovative social systems experienced much less pleasure with their job situations. Acceptable Performance Feedback Conclusion #4: Norm-conformers did not perceive more acceptable performance feedback than norm—deviants. Conclusion #5: Beginning teachers in innovative social systems perceived more acceptable performance than beginning teachers in non-innovative social systems. Conclusion #6: Perceived acceptable performance feedback is a stronger differentiating system effect on individual members in non-innovative social systems where innovative beginning teachers perceive the least acceptable performance feedback. Beginning teachers received more acceptable feed- back on their performance in innovative schools. The individual who did not receive acceptance of performance was the innovative beginner in the non-innovative social system. Interview discussions revealed that most teachers in innovative schools were aware of feedback that seemed to encourage system members to try new or different ideas. One innovative beginning teacher indicated that his inno- vative school colleagues, as a total group, would not be shocked by his beliefs or ideas and would accept them. Several non-innovative teachers mentioned that they felt no pressure to try innovations. They did indicate, 91 however, that they were looking forward to testing some of their new ideas. Some innovative beginning teachers were troubled by what they perceived as a lack of innovativeness of innovative schools. Perhaps some innovative teachers were more innovative than their innovative schools. Almost all beginning teachers volunteered that their innovative social system saw them as knowledgeable members of the faculty with worthy ideas. Where members of innovative social systems indi- cated they were helped and supported, innovative members of non-innovative systems felt little or no support for their practices. Several deviant innovative beginning teachers described how they bid and compromised their practices and beliefs. One such deviant said she felt pressure to change her classroom management techniques toward having and enforcing more rules. Some of her colleagues would say in passing, "Oh, I see you have a noise problem," or a ". . . gum chewing problem." Her principle, on one occasion asked her down the hall to listen to her room through a pipe. Several other innovative teachers (deviants) said they desired more feedback relative to their performance. In contrast, innovative beginning members who were conformers enthusiastically described their practices, plans and beliefs and told of support and approval they were experiencing. 92 When one senses that his practices and beliefs are acceptable he probably will be more apt to share. Several innovative teachers in innovative schools mentioned, when interviewed, how they shared practices and beliefs and were encouraged to join discussions and share ideas with fellow faculty members. Once they discovered their ideas were acceptable, a degree of fear or threat was removed. The open sharing and acceptance of ideas may well encourage system members to take further risks in trying out their ideas. Acceptance of Educational Beliefs Conclusion #7: Norm-conformers perceived greater acceptance of educational beliefs than norm-deviants. Conclusion #8: Beginning teachers in innovative social systems perceived more acceptance of educational beliefs than beginning teachers in non-innovative social systems. Conclusion #9: Perceived acceptance of educational beliefs is a stronger differentiating system effect on individual system members in non-innovative social systems where innovative beginning teachers perceive the least acceptance of their educational beliefs. Conformers perceived more acceptance than deviants when their educational beliefs were considered. However, beginning teachers also experienced more acceptance of 93 their beliefs in innovative rather than non-innovative school social systems. Innovative teachers, in non-innovative social systems perceived rejection of their educational beliefs. Interview discussions supported the data, although several non-innovative beginners in innovative schools verbalized unhappiness with administrators, saying they were inflexible and not always agreeing with them. Several others were influenced by rumors which they had heard about administrators opposing ideas. On the other hand, many of the same norm-deviants indicated that they freely shared their problems with system members and received help. One innovative system deviant was influ- enced by two other beginning teachers she had a conference hour with. She indicated that they decided to eliminate grades for a common course they taught. Their proposal was accepted and implemented. Another non-innovative beginner suggested turning off the bells to her conference hour colleagues and was told the idea would not work. Many innovative teachers indicated that non- innovative system colleagues often "shot down" their ideas. Several said they were keeping quiet and not sharing practices and ideas as a result. One beginner indicated that the children needed her and kept her going but that ‘the school system could "care less" if she were to leave. CDn one occasion this innovative beginning teacher wanted 94 to let her students develop a school newspaper. Her elementary colleagues thought the activity required too much extra work and discouraged her. The administration refused the paper. She purchased the paper herself and the class secretly became newspaper workers anyway. Another innovative beginning teacher sensed that the non-innovative social system saw her as naive and inexperienced when she suggested eliminating A, B, C, marks. Still another individual said she got "funny looks? and that she was keeping her mouth shut to get a recommen— dation and get out of the system. In visiting one non-innovative school system it was learned that a beginning teacher who had taken the inno- vativeness pre-test, and scored high in innovativeness, had been fired. The beginner with the highest innovativeness score in non-innovative schools studied was described by her principal as "way out," too idealistic, but good at keeping slow learning boys out of his office. A subject in another non-innovative school indi— cated that if he made his beliefs fully known he would be excommunicated by the system. His superintendent volun- teered that they were concerned about him because he counseled students too much and they thought he should use more physical means of discipline. The beginning teacher involved indicated that his principal told him to try spanking the children. He followed his principal's advice 95 even though he didn't agree but indicated that spanking had little effect on hyperactive children. The same inno- vative beginning teacher indicated that his non-innovative school colleagues did not agree with several of his beliefs and that much of the disagreement was on a non-verbal level that be "sensed." A final observation of this inno- vative deviant teacher was most interesting. He voiced concern that teacher isolated themselves from each other and felt they were afraid to share their knowledge about children as well as their personal strengths and weaknesses. Another innovative teacher in a non-innovative school felt she was disapproved of and seen as a militant because she advocated a better master contract than the current one page document. Social Acceptance Conclusion #10: Norm-conformers did not experi— ence greater social acceptance than norm-deviants. Conclusion #11: Beginning teachers in innovative social systems did not experience greater social acceptance than beginning teachers in non-innovative social systems. Conclusion #12: Social acceptance is a stronger differentiating system effect on individual system members in non-innovative social systems where innovative beginning teachers experienced the least acceptance of their edu- cational beliefs. 96 One might conclude that social acceptance is not affected unless the individual is innovative and working in a non-innovative social system. Social activities outside the work setting were not often mentioned by beginning teachers. Many beginners were unmarried, indicating that this hampered socializing with colleagues. Several non-innovative teachers in inno- vative social systems described social activities they were included in such as faculty coffees, dinners, and swim parties. Innovativeness Conclusion #13: Non-innovative beginning teachers in innovative social systems became more innovative over time. Conclusion #14: Norm-deviants in non-innovative social system did not change in innovativeness over time. Conclusion #15: Norm-conforming beginning teachers did not change in innovativeness over time. Non-innovative beginning social system members in innovative schools, who as deviants were accepted by the social system, made significant changes in innovativeness. One might conclude that the multiple qualities of inno- vative social systems, including acceptance, caused deviant beginners to become more innovative over time. Innovative beginning teachers, in non-innovative Social systems who were rejected and felt less satisfied 97 with their jobs, did not change significantly in inno— vativeness over time. One might conclude that the qualities of non-innovative social systems, including rejection, discouraged deviants from conforming. In summary, norm-conformers only perceived greater acceptance of their educational beliefs than norm-deviants. On the other hand, innovative social systems were the places in which beginning teachers experienced more job satisfaction, perceived more acceptable performance feedback, and perceived more acceptance of their edu- cational beliefs. If a beginning teacher is apt to be a rebel or deviant, he would probably be happier in an innovative school. Innovative teachers in non-innovative social systems get turned off socially and professionally. Reflections Parallel to the field work and research findings, a brief and subjective reflection on innovative and non- innovative social systems seems appropriate. Social systems are people. Social system change must begin with the people who make them up and who eventually determine system norms. If social systems are to become more innovative, then attempts must be made to differentiate between the effects which distinguish inno- vative from non-innovative social systems. The findings and interview conversations resulting from the study encourage the derivation of syndromes depicting effects 1.1 98 and activities of non-innovative and innovative social systems. Perhaps the following syndromes will lead to insights for applied change. Paranoia--Encounter Syndrome Innovative school systems and their members tend to be accepting. Acceptance is the absence of value judgments which imply: good-bad, right-wrong, terrific- horrid. Members of innovative social systems appear to refrain from putting their values on others more suc- cessfully than non-innovative social system members. When one puts his values on another (judges), he runs the risk of rejecting the first ingredient or element of the paranoia syndrome of non-innovative schools. Accepting, an ingredient of the encounter syndrome, does not mean agreeing. One who accepts, may ask for clarification or he may disagree, but he tends not to make value judgments making the receiver less thereby. Rejecting leads to fearing and acceptance leads to trusting. These second elements of the paranoia-encounter syndromes are costly and rewarding respectively as they lead quickly to the remaining elements of their syndromes. Beginning teachers in innovative schools trusted their colleagues and expanded communication channels to sharing and exchanging ideas and beliefs. Non-innovative beginning system members' fear encouraged them to resort to limiting <20mmunication and thus they hid and protected techniques. 99 The Controlling-Helping Syndromes Paranoia could easily lead to controlling while encounter leads to helping. When one cannot accept or trust and fears, he may feel the need to police. Several beginning teachers in non-innovative schools felt watched and policed; the first element of the controlling syndrome. On the other hand, those who felt accepted and trusted began sharing and thus the first element of the helping syndrome: facilitating. Members of innovative social systems referred many times to how others helped them with problems which led them to exploration, the next element. Policing, leads to little activity, especially when the nature of policing is limited to watching. The kind of policing in non-innovative schools was generally watchful and therefore led to the status-quo or not activity. Where exploratory activity leads to the social system saying "try" status quo behavior leads the non-innovative social system to saying, "don't try." Those who say "try" are also saying "there is hope, the idea might work." Non- innovative social systems say ”it won't work." A feeling of hopelessness seems to prevail in non-innovative systems while hope prevails in innovative systems. The syndromes for innovative and non-innovative social systems appear like this: 100 Non-Innovative Social Systems Innovative Social Systems Paranoia Syndrome Encounter Syndrome Rejection Accepting Fearing Trusting Protecting-hiding Sharing-exchanging Controlling Syndrome Helping Syndrome =Policing Facilitating Status-quo Exploration Won't Work Might Work (Hope) Don't Try Try Strategies for change should focus on eliminating the paranoia and controlling syndromes and should focus on bolstering the encounter and helping syndromes. Recommendations Recommendations For Action 1. Researchers should take steps to discover improved methods for measuringperformance feedback. Performance quality appears to be a well kept secret in most educational circles, hence feedback comes primarily ,as a result of what one says he does rather than being based on behavioral observations. Teachers are often uncertain of how other system members view their per- formance. Often performance feedback is based on behavior caused by a classroom disturbance which caused other system members to notice. All too often, as long as the system is not disturbed, performance goes unnoticed. Students are probably best qualified to give performance feedback and probably do. This would help validate feedback from teachers and determine if systems 101 which give feedback only on the basis of disturbance are truly accurate. Future studies might wish to broaden the definition of "social system” to include students as sources of feedback and acceptance. 2. Change strategists and curriculum leaders should seek means of altering_social system norms. In- service education programs which deal with people (an interpersonal focus) rather than "things" would lead toward altering norms. Examples include: a. Inservice for curriculum leaders, adminis- trators and change agents. Improving their interpersonal competence is important. Focus would center on effecting changes in values to allow human factors and feelings to be considered legitimate. Administrators, cur- riculum leaders and change agents should be helped to be living examples of accepting, trusting and sharing behavior. Their ability to facilitate, explore and encourage will play an important role in schools becoming inno- vative. b. Laboratory training for system members in an unstructured group setting should be made available. Allowing participants to examine interpersonal relationships and develOp im— proved means of conflict resolution rather than suppression, denial or rejection is important if schools are to become innovative. c. Inservice for system members which focuses on the organization and systemic relationships marked by interdependence, trust, and shared responsibility will facilitate social system innovativeness. d. Inservice which focuses on helping social system members learn problem-solving, and diagnostic skills for solving their own social system and classroom problems are also impor- tant to self-renewal and innovativeness. 102 3. Teacher placement bureaus interested in facilitating the innovativeness of social systems gpecial efforts to determine whether teacher candidates are inno- vative or non-innovative and attempg to place them in school social settings accordingly. 4. Administrators should take care in hiring beginning teachers who are accepting, open tgydiffering ideas, trusting rather than fearful and who appear to be open to sharing their ideas if innovative schools are desired. 5. Teacher educators wishing to help schools become more innovative should utilize testing devices and counselingytechniques to discover teacher candidates inclined to perpetuate non-innovative schools and make use i kt; of teaching techniques, similar to those noted under in- service, above. Recommendations for Future Study Several suggestions for further study have evolved out of the present research and data gathering activities. The suggestions follow: 1. Study turn—over effects of innovative and non- innovative school social systems. Several teachers inter- viewed mentioned plans to leave their respective schools. The number of beginning teachers in non-innovative schools out-numbered beginners in innovative schools causing one to raise several possible questions for research. L." .-. v‘ .. 103 a. Do innovative schools cause teachers to stay whereas non-innovative schools cause teachers to leave? b. Do norm-conformers stay whereas norm-deviants leave? c. Do those who perceive their ideas and beliefs about education as acceptable stay while those who perceive their beliefs rejected leave? d. Do innovative beginning teachers leave whereas non-innovative beginning teachers stay? 2. Study child-orientedness as a system effect of innovative and non-innovative social systems on innovative and non-innovative beginning_teachers. Visits to schools revealed that non-innovative social systems were quite concerned with beginning teachers being control-oriented. Beginning teachers in these systems indicated that they got much feedback regarding discipline methods. Innovative schools appeared to be more child-oriented and several beginners felt that new ideas would be accepted by the social system if value to pupils could be shown. A study concentrating on child-orientedness as a system effect might attempt to answer the following questions: a. Are innovative social systems more child- oriented than non-innovative social systems? b. Are innovative beginning teachers more child oriented than non-innovative teachers? 104 c. What influence does the building principal, in innovative and non-innovative social systems have on the child-orientedness of beginning teachers. d. What influence do opinion leaders in innovative and non-innovative social systems have on the child-orientedness of beginning teachers. 3. Study the personality effects innovative and non-innovative school social systems have on innovative and non-innovative beginners. Several beginning teachers indicated that their attitudes and outlooks had changed since they had worked in their respective schools. In addition, innovative social systems appeared to reveal personality syndromes different from non-innovative social systems. Such a study might make use of one or more personality tests to determine: a. The personality effects of innovative schools on deviants and conformers. b. The personality effects of non-innovative schools on deviants and conformers. c. If personality effects differ between inno- vative and non-innovative social system. 4. Study the need systems or personality charac- teristics as influences on innovativeness of norm—deviants in innovative and non-innovative schools. Norm-deviants in innovative schools, as a group, became more innovative over time while norm-deviants in non-innovative schools, 105 as a group, did not change. Such a study might raise the following questions: a. 5. What are the personality characteristics of norm-deviants in innovative social systems who conform as compared to those who do not conform? What are the personality characteristics in non-innovative social systems who conform as compared to those who do not conform? Study the effects innovative and non-innovative social systems have on open-closed—mindedness of individual members. Observations from the current study raise the following questions: a. 6. Do innovative social systems cause beginning teachers to become more open-minded? Do non-innovative social systems cause be— ginning teachers to become more closed- minded? What variables exist in innovative and non- innovative schools which might cause changes in open—mindedness? Study the influenceypatterns of innovative and non-innovative schools social systems. As a result of visting with members of innovative and non-innovative schools social systems one might pose these questions: a. Are influence patterns narrow and confined in non-innovative schools? 106 b. Are influence patterns Open and multiple in innovative schools? c. Are conformers in innovative schools influenced by multiple sources whereas deviants in both systems and conformers in non—innovative systems are restricted to narrow influence patterns? -.3 d. Can influence patterns be explained by the quantity of feedback one receives? e. Can influence patterns be explained by the j psychological qualities of organizations? it 7. Study the influence building administrators have on the innovativeness (and other variables) 9£_bef ginningyteachers in innovative and non-innovative schools as related to the awareness the administrator has of his influence_potential. Several building administrators seemed either to negate the importance of their influence or were unaware of their potential influence on beginning teachers. This observation leads to the following questions for research: a. Are principals of innovative schools more aware of their influence potential on beginning teachers than principals of non-innovative schools? 8. 107 Do beginning teachers in innovative schools perceive more principal influence (feedback) than beginning teachers of non—innovative schools? Do principals of innovative and non-innovative schools with high awareness of potential . i . ' ”21*. 0.1;.‘" .. ‘1 .. WALL—ID influence cause conformers to perceive greater principal influence than norm-deviants? Do principals of innovative and non-innovative “b schools with low awareness of potential influ— I‘rr ence cause deviants to perceive greater principal influence than norm-conformers? Study the effects of innovative and non- innovative social systems on the readiness-to-change of beginning innovative and non—innovative beginning teachers. Research questions for such a study might include: a. Do innovative social systems cause beginning teachers to be more ready to change than non- innovative social systems? Are norm-deviants more ready to change than norm-conformers? Are beginning teachers who perceive more acceptance of their educational beliefs more ready to change than beginners who experience rejection of their educational beliefs? Are beginning teachers who perceive more acceptable performance feedback more ready to 108 change than beginning teachers who experience less favorable performance feedback? e. Are beginning teachers who are satisfied with their jobs more ready to change than beginning teachers who are not satisfied with their jobs? f. Are beginning teachers who are socially accepted more ready to change than beginning teachers who are not socially accepted? 9. Are teachers who favor innovativeness more ready to change than teachers who do not favor innovations? 9. Study norm-altering treatments on innovative and non-innovative social pystems. After determining system effects on teachers, utilize one or more inservice education strategies, i.e., encounter groups, to study applied change strategy effects in altering group norms. Finale In broad terms, the innovative beginning teacher in the non-innovative social system is the individual faced with the most difficulty in finding peace and acceptance in his worksetting. The non—innovative beginning teacher in the innovative social system is the individual who changed the most, becoming more innovative. Much creative endeavor is needed to gain further insights into the effects of social systems on individual 109 members. If school social systems are to become more inno- vative, more comprehensive and far-reaching studies are needed. I BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Cited References Andrews, John H. M., and Greenfield, T. Barr. Winter, 1966-67. "Organizationl Themes Relevant to Change in Schools," Ontario Journal of Educational Re— search, 8:81-99. Asch, S. E. 1956. "Studies of Independence and Con- formity: A Minority of One Against an Unanimous Majority." Psychological Monographs, 70:9. Becker, Selwyu A., and Stafford, Frank. 1967. "Some Determinants of Organizational Success." Journal of Business, 40:511-18. Berelson, Bernard, and others. 1954. Voting: A Study of ' .' -T‘YI gpinion Formation in a Presidential Campaig_. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Berkowitz, L., and Levy. B. 1956. "Pride in Group Per- formance and Group Task Motivation." American Psychology, 11:395. Blau, Peter M. 1960. "Structural Effects." American Sociological Review, 25:2, 178-93. Brickman, Philip. December, 1966. "Performance Expec- tations and Performance." Ann Arbor: Research Center for Group Dynamics, University of Michigan. (Mimeographed.) Brown, Alan F., and House, John. October, 1967. "The Organizational Component in Education." Review of Educational Research, 37:4, 399-445. Call, John R. 1962. "Perceptions of Teaching Efficiency as a Function of Interpersonal Interaction." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Stanford Uni- versity. 110 111 Carlson, Richard O. 1965. Adoption of Education Inno- vations. Eugene: Center for the Study of Edu- cational Administration, University of Oregon. Cartwright, Darwin. 1959. "Achieving Change in People: Some Applications of Group Dynamics Theory." Readings in Human Relations. New York: McGraw- Hill, pp. 219-31. Chesler, Mark A., and Fox. Robert. May, 1967. "Teacher- Peer Relations and Educational Change." NEA Journal, 56:5, 25-26. I- Childs, John W. 1965. "A Study of the Belief Systems of Administrators and Teachers in Innovative and Non- Innovative School Districts." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University. ."r Clark, James V. Winter, 1960-61. "Motivation in Work Groups: A Tenative View." Human Organization, XIX:4, 199—208. In-.- '1‘ Clausen, John A., and others. 1954. "Parent Attitudes Toward Participation of Their Children in Polio Vaccine Trails." American Journal of Public Health, 44:1526-36. Coleman, James, and others. 1966. Doctors and New Drugs. Indianapolis: Bobbs, Merrill. Collins, James A. 1965. "Individual Personality and Organizational Climate." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Claremont College. Crawley, Harold. 1970. "Secondary School Practices in Michigan." (Mimeographed study, Central Michigan University.) Davis, Burl E. 1968. "System Variables and Agricultural Innovativeness in Eastern Nigeria." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University. Davis, James, and others. 1961. "A Technique for Analysing the Effects of Group Composition." American Sociological Review, 26:2, 215-25. Davis, Richard H. 1965. "Personal and Organizational Variables Related to the Adoption of Education Innovations in a Liberal Arts College." Un- published Doctor's dissertation, University of Chicago. 112 Dubin, Robert. 1962. "Leadership in Union-Management Relations as an Intergroup System." M. Sherif, ed., Intergroup Relations and Leadership. New York: J John Wiley and Sons, p. 70. Duncan, James, and others. 1954. "Selected Cultural Characteristics and the Acceptance of Educational Programs and Practices." Rural Sociology, 19: 349-57. Durkheim, Emile. 1897. Suicide. Translated by Spaulding and Simpson, 1951. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press. Paris, Robert E. L. 1962. "Interacting Levels and Inter- group Relations." M. Sherif, ed., Intergroup Relations and Leadership. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 30-31, 39. , and Dunham, H. W. 1939. Mental Disorders in Urban Areas. Chicago: University ofiChicago Press, pp. 101-23. Festinger, Leon, and others. 1950. Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing. Calif.: Stanford University Press. Flinn, William L. 1963. "Community Norms in Predicting Innovativeness." Ohio State University. Paper presented at Rural Sociological Society Meeting, August 24, 1963, San Fernando Valley State College. Flizak, Christopher W. 1967. "The Relationship of Teachers' Psychological, Sociological and Edu- cational Role Orientation to the Length of Service in More and Less Structured School Settings." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Wisconsin. Gibb, J. R., and others. 1955. "Effects of Positive and Negative Feedback Upon Defensive Behavior in Small Problem-Solving Groups." American Psychology, 10:335. Glasser, Melvin. 1958. "A Study of the Publics Acceptance of the Salk Vaccine Program." American Journal of Public Health, 28:141-46. Groves, Ernest R., and Ogburn, F. 1928. American Marriage and Family Relationships. New York: Henry Holt and Co., pp. 193-205. 113 Havelock, Ronald G. 1969. Planning for Innovation Through Dissemination and Utilization of Knowledge. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, pp. 5-11. Hughes, Larry W. 1965. "The Organizational Climate Found in Central Administrative Offices of Selected Highly Innovative and Non-Innovative School Districts in the State of Ohio." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, The Ohio State University. Janis, I. L., and Smith, M. B. 1965. "Effects of Edu— cation and Persuasion on National and International Images." H. Kelman, ed., International Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Jenkins, D. H. 1948. "Feedback and Group Self-Evaluation." Journal of Social Issues, 3:4, 50-60. Johnson, Eldon D. 1967. "An Analysis of Factors Related to Teacher Satisfaction." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Auburn University. Katz, Daniel, and Kahn, Robert. 1966. The Social Pey- chology of Organizations. New York: Wiley. Kelman, H. C. 1950. "Effects of Success and Failure on 'Suggestibility' in the Autokinetic Situation." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 45: 267-85. Kirkpatrick, Robert N. 1962. "The Relationship of Job Satisfaction to Perceived Staff Promotional Policies." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Stanford University. Klingenberg, Allen. 1966. "A Study of Selected Adminis— trative Behaviors Among Administrators From Inno- vative and Non-Innovative Public School Districts." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University. Leavitt, H. J., and Mueller, R. A. H. 1951. "Some Effects of Feedback on Communication." Human Relations, 4:401-100 Lin, Nan, and others. 1966. The Diffusion of an Inno- vation in Three Michigan High Schools: Institution Building Through Change. East Lansing: Institute for International Studies in Education and De- partment of Communication, Michigan State University. 114 Lingell, John J. 1965. “Organizational Factors in Losses of Elementary Teaching Personnel." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles. Lipset, S. M., and others. 1956. Union Democracy. Glen- coe: The Free Press, pp. 163-71. Lonsdale, Richard C. 1964. "Maintaining the Organization in Dynamic Equilibrium." NSSE Yearbook, Part II, The Society's Committee on Behavioral Science and Educational Administration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 429. Lott, A. J., and others. 1955. "Effects of Feeling Oriented and Task Oriented Feedback Upon Defensive Behavior in Small Problem-Solving Groups." American Psychology, 10:335. Marsh, C. Paul, and Coleman, A. L. 1954. "The Relation of the Neighborhood of Residence to Adoption of Recommended Farm Practices." Rural Sociology, 19:385—90. McCracken, Oliver, Jr. 1965. "Changes in the Personality, Attitudes and Classroom Behavior of Beginning Elementary Teachers in Niles Township Schools." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Missouri. Merei, F. 1941. "Group Leadership in Institutionali- zation." Human Relations, 2:23-39. Miles, Mathew B., and others. 1965. "Planned Change and Organizational Health: Figure and Ground." Change Processes in the Public Schools. Eugene: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 2:11-34. Mort, Paul R., and Cornell, Francis. 1938. Adoptability of Public School Systems. New York: Teachers College Bureau of Publications, Columbia Uni- versity. Nelson, Frankie Beth. 1962. "Beginning Teachers' In- duction Into the Social System of an Elementary School." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Columbia University. Newcomb, T. M. 1943. Personality and Social Change. New York: Dryden. 115 Pryer, M. W., and Bass, B. M. 1959. "Some Effects of Feedback on Behavior in Groups." Sociometgy, Qadir, Syed Abdul. 1966. "Adoption of Technological Change in the Rural Philippines--an Analysis of Compositional Effects." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Cornell University. Robert, James G. 1964. "A Study of the Induction of Beginning Elementary School Teachers." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Oregon. ye? i' Rogers, Everett M. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe: The Free Press. , and Burdge, Rabel J. 1961. Community Norms, Opinion Leadership, and Innovativeness Among Truck _h Growers. Wooster, Ohio: Agricultural Experiment ' Station Research Bulletin #912. 1 Rosenthal, R., and Jacobsen, L. 1968. Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Sapolsky, Harvey M. 1967. "Organizational Structure and Innovation." Journal of Business, 40:297-510. Saxena, Anant P. 1968. "System Effects on Innovativeness Among Indian Farmers." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University. Seashore, Stanley E. 1954. Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research. Sergiovanni, Thomas J. 1966. "Investigation of Factors Which Affect Job Satisfaction and Job Dissatis- faction of Teachers." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of Rochester. Shaw, C. R. 1938. Brothers in Crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. . 1939, The Jack Roller. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shepard, Herbert A. 1967. "Innovation-Resisting and Innovation-Producing Organizations." Journal of Business, 40:470-77. 116 Siegel, A., and Siegel, S. 1959. "Reference Groups, Membership Groups and Attitude Change." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55(3):360—64. Stojanovic, Elizabeth, and others. 1961. "Acceptance of a New Hill-Burton Hospital by Residants of a Northwest Mississippi County." Mississippi Farm Research, 24:4, pp. 6-8. Stouffer, S. A., and others. 1949. "Studies in Social Psychology in World War II." The American Soldier During Army Life, Volume 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Thrasher, F. M. 1927. The Gang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Trowbridge, M. H., and Cason, H. 1932. "An Experimental Study of Thorndike's Theory of Learning." Journal of Genetic Psychology, 7:245-60. Van den Ban, Anne W. 1960. "Locality Group Differences in the Adoption of New Farm Practices." Rural Sociology, 25:308-20. Walker, Russell L. 1962. "Factors Within the School Systems of Oklahoma Which Cause Teachers to Leave the Profession." Unpublished Doctor's disser- tation, University of Arkansas. Whyte, W. E. 1943. Street Corner Sociepy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wilson, A. B. 1959. "Residential Segregation of Social Classes and Aspirations of High School Boys." American Sociological Review, 24:836-45. Young, James N., and Coleman, A. L. 1959. "Neighborhood Norms and the Adoption of Farm Practices." Rural Sociology, 24:372-83. Zojonc, R. B. 1961. "The Effects of Feedback and Group Task Difficulty on Individual and Group Per- formance." Technical report #15, University of Michigan. Zorbaugh, H. W. 1929. The Gold Coast and the Slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 117 General References Bass, Bernard M. 1960. Leadership, Psychology and Oggan- izational Theogy, New York: Harper and Brothers. Bennis, Warren, and others. 1969. The Planning of Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Blau, Peter M. 1957. "Formal Organization: Dimensions of Analysis." American Journal of Sociology, 63:63. Briggs, Richard C. 1962. "The Socialization Experience #3 of Elementary Teachers." Unpublished Doctor's I i dissertation, University of Connecticut. Carlson, Richard O., and others. 1965. Change Processes , in the Public Schools, Eugene: University of 3 Oregon Press. Coughenour, C. Milton. 1964. "The Rate of Technological Diffusion Among Locality Groups." American Journal of Sociology, 69:325-39. Eidell, Terry, and Kitchel, J. 1968. Knowlegge Production and Utilization in Educational Administration. Eugene: University of Oregon Press. Evans, William A., and Black, G. 1967. "Innovation in Business Organizations: Some Factors with Success or Failure of Staff Proposals." The Journal of Business, 40:519-30. Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston: Row, Peterson and Co. . 1964. Conflict, Decision and Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press. , and others. 1950. Social Pressures in Informal Groups. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Griffiths, Daniel B.,-editor. 1964. NSSE Yearbook. Behavioral Science and Educational Administration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gullahorn, John T. 1955-56. "Measuring Role Conflict." American Journal of Sociology, LXI:229. Haven, Nels H. 1963. "The Relationships of Organizational Aspects and Personal Characteristics to Teacher Job Satisfaction.” Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Stanford University. 118 Hyman, H. H., and Singer, E., editors. 1968. Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research. New York: The Free Press. Katz, Daniel, and Kahn, R. 1966. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: JohnWiiey and Sons. Keuscher, Robert E. 1968. "An Appraisal of Some Di- mensions of Systems Theory as Indicators of the Tendency to Innovate in Selected Public Junior Colleges." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University of California at Los Angeles. Klein, Donald C. 1967. "Some Notes on the Dynamics of Resistance." Concepts for Social Changy. Wash- ington, D.C.: NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science. Kleinman, Lou. 1959. "The Relationship Between Job Satis- faction by Beginning Teachers and Subsequent Teacher Adjustment," Unpublished Doctor's disser— tation, New York University. Lippett, Ronald. 1966. "Processes of Curriculum Change." Curriculum Change: Direction and Process. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Plant, Ralph E., Jr. 1966. "An Investigation of Some Correlates of Teacher Job Satisfaction." Un- published Doctor's dissertation, Cornell University. Rosenfeld, V. M. 1969. "Possible Influences of Student Teachers on Their Cooperating Teachers." Journal of Teacher Education, 20:40-43. Snyder, Clinton A. 1963. "Variations in Expectations for the Teacher Role: As Related to General and Specific Roles, Expectation Categories, and Social Distance." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State University. Tannenbaum, Arnold S. 1966. Social Psychology of the Work Organization. Belmont, Caiif.: Wadsworth Publish- ing Co. APPENDICES APPENDIX A CURRICULAR PRACTICES POLL APPENDIX A Curricular Practices Poll School Level Dist. Please check the practices in use in your school. independent study computer scheduling open labs programmed learning unscheduled time for new math pupils B.S.C.S. seminar groups P.S.S.C. non-graded Project English no A, B, C, grades year-round school schedule modifications 1ang.-exp. approach to team teaching lang. arts large group in- outdoor education struction programs and facilities core or unified curr. Federal curriculum project multiage grouping (Other) multiage tutoring (Other) pupil-teacher planning (Other) role playing or mock teaching (Other) simulation (Other) 119 APPENDIX B COMPARATIVE DATA ON SCHOOLS STUDIED TABLE B-l.--Comparative data on schools studied. Innovative No. of S.E.V. Extra Voted Total Schools Pupils per Pupil Millage Millage A 604 $12,304 5.50 14.50 B 445 10,913 10.00 23.10 C 1,839 14,324 8.00 20.50 D 739 15,308 14.00 23.40 E 805 12,957 12.00 23.00 Average 886 13,141 9.90 20.90 Non-Innovative Schools F 1,060 8,905 14.00 21.00 G 225 7,896 3.00 11.00 H 1,274 13,582 3.00 14.30 I 2,436 10,795 10.00 23.30 J 2,178 12,747 3.70 12.00 K 655 10,302 9.00 20.90 L 946 28,269 7.00 15.25 Average 1,253 13,213 7.10 16.82 120 'TI‘ APPENDIX C FIRST LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS AND PRINCIPALS APPENDIX C First Letter to Superintendents and Principals Dear During the next few months I will be conducting a study of Central-Northern Michigan beginning teachers, their beliefs about education and their adjustment to their profession. Impact 7 staff members have indicated that you could be of assistance to me for the study. I would appreciate a list of the names and addresses of new teachers you have employed to begin their careers with the . They will in turn to invited to cooperate with the study. The data to be collected will not reflect on your school system nor will the name of your system appear in any research report. Your cooperation and assistance is vital to our learning more about beginning teachers, their beliefs and adjustment as well as give insight into teacher preparation programs. Enclosed, please find an address sheet and return envelope. Your immediate attention will be most appreciated. Sincerely, William R. Force Assistant Professor College of Education 121 APPENDIX D LETTER TO BEGINNING TEACHERS 4 APPENDIX D Letter to Beginning Teachers Dear We are conducting a study of beginning teachers in Michi- gan and their educational beliefs and their feelings about teaching. You have been selected as one of the teachers for the study. We are requesting your cooperation in two ways: return the enclosed brief questionnaire, and participate in a brief interview about two months from now. Your cooperation is vital to our learning more about beginning teachers, and to the improvement of state-wide teacher preparation programs. An administrator in your district has given his okay for the study. The information you provide this study will be confidential. Your responses will not be seen by your fellow teachers or by your administrators. The research report will not use participants' names but we do need your name at this point for follow-up interview purposes. Enclosed is the questionnaire. Please take a moment to give your reaction to the items on it and return it in the enclosed envelope. Thank you. Sincerely, William R. Force Assistant Professor College of Education WRF:fm Enc 2 122 APPENDIX E EDUCATIONAL IDEAS AND PRACTICES POLL APPENDIX E Educational Ideas and Practices Poll Name Years of Experience School District DIRECTIONS: There is a lot of talk about educational ideas and practices these days. We are interested in your feelings about several such notions listed below. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be as frank and honest as you can in giving your opinion to each of the following as it applies to you and your situation. 1. Educational practice needs a major face-lifting ___Agree and willing to take lead __;Agree ' ___Disagree ___Disagree and resist 2. Team Teaching Agree and willing to take lead Agree Disagree Disagree and resist U . Role playing or mock teaching Agree and willing to take lead Agree Disagree Disagree and resist 4. Small seminar discussion groups (with and without teachers) ___Agree and willing to take lead ___Agree Disagree Disagree and resist 5. Educational T.V. Agree and willing to take lead Agree Disagree Disagree and resist 6. Flexible scheduling or schedule modifications Agree and willing to take lead Agree Disagree Disagree and resist 123 124 7. No A, B, C, grades Agree and willing to take lead Agree Disagree Disagree and resist 8. Continuous Progress Schools (no grade-levels) Agree and willing to take lead Agree Disagree Disagree and resist 9. Pupil-group planning of learning activities Agree and willing to take lead Agree Disagree Disagree and resist H 0. Education must change Agree and willing to take lead Agree Disagree Disagree and resist ll. Inservice education for teachers Agree and willing to take lead Agree Disagree Disagree and resist 12. Core Curriculum or unified studies Agree and willing to take lead Agree Disagree Disagree and resist 13. Unscheduled time for pupils or open labs Agree and willing to take lead Agree Disagree Disagree and resist 14. Educational innovations are needed badly Agree and willing to take lead Agree Disagree Disagree and resist 125 15. Utilization of Federal money for educational inno- vations Agree and willing to take lead Agree Disagree Disagree and resist 16. Programmed learning Agree and willing to take lead Agree Disagree Disagree and resist APPENDIX F FIRST ITEM ANALYSIS OF THE EDUCATIONAL IDEAS AND PRACTICES POLL TABLE F-1.--First item analysis of the Educational Ideas and Practices Poll. % of 8 High % of 8 Low Item Scores--Scoring Scores--Scoring Decision High Low High Low 1 50 0 25 0 reject 2 37 0 50 0 reject 3 75 12 0 50 accept 4 50 0 12 25 accept 5 62 0 50 12 reject 6 37 12 12 0 reject 7 37 25 0 25 accept 8 25 12 12 62 accept 9 50 0 0 50 accept 10 37 12 0 62 accept ll 37 25 0 50 accept 12 50 0 0 25 accept 13 50 0 25 37 rewrite 14 12 37 0 50 reject 15 0 37 0 75 reject 16 50 0 0 62 accept 17 62 0 12 12 rewrite 18 37 12 12 37 rewrite 19 75 0 12 25 accept 20 87 0 12 37 accept 21 25 0 0 62 accept 22 0 37 12 50 reject 23 37 0 12 12 rewrite 24 50 0 12 25 accept 25 25 62 0 62 accept 26 37 25 0 25 accept 27 37 0 0 50 accept 28 62 12 12 25 rewrite 29 75 0 25 12 reject 30 12 12 12 50 reject 31 12 25 0 75 reject 126 ‘ — it." $.11... APPENDIX G SECOND ITEM ANALYSIS OF THE EDUCATIONAL IDEAS AND PRACTICES POLL TABLE G-1.--Second item analysis of the Educational Ideas and Practices Poll. % of 11 High % of 11 Low Item Scores--Scoring Scores--Scoring Decision High Low High Low 1 63 0 0 27 accept 2 74 0 27 0 reject 3 81 0 27 18 reject 4 37 0 9 37 accept 5 18 27 0 81 accept 6 45 18 9 27 accept 7 18 0 0 37 accept 8 18 54 0 91 accept 9 63 0 0 0 reject 10 54 18 0 81 accept ll 45 9 0 74 accept 12 37 18 0 27 accept 13 74 9 0 9 accept 14 45 0 9 9 reject 15 45 0 0 18 accept 16 45 18 9 37 accept 17 81 0 0 18 accept 18 18 45 0 100 accept 19 63 0 18 18 accept 20 9 45 0 54 reject 21 54 9 0 9 accept 127 APPENDIX H THIRD ITEM ANALYSIS OF THE EDUCATIONAL IDEAS AND PRACTICES POLL USING EXTREME HIGH, EXTREME LOW SCORES TABLE H-1.--Third item analysis of the Educational Ideas and Practices Poll using extreme high, extreme low scores. % of 17 High % of 17 Low Item Scores--Scoring Scores--Scoring Decision High Low High Low 1 53 0 17 29 accept 2 53 0 0 0 reject 3 29 ll 0 53 accept 4 64 1 ll 23 accept 5 23 11 1 47 reject 6 88 0 18 ll reject 7 70 ll 0 53 accept 8 53 0 0 29 accept 9 64 l l 29 accept 10 64 0 l 23 accept ll 41 0 l 11 reject 12 23 11 l 23 reject 13 64 11 l 47 accept 14 64 11 l 11 reject 15 58 1 ll 18 reject 16 29 ll 1 58 accept 128 APPENDIX I FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AND MEDIAN FOR BEGINNING TEACHERS IN INNOVATIVE AND NON-INNOVATIVE SCHOOLS TABLE I-1.--Frequency distribution and median for beginning teachers in innovative and non-innovative schools. Innovative Schools Non-Innovative Schools Interval Md.Pt. F Interval Md.Pt. F 36-38 37 0 36—38 37 1 33-35 34 0 33-35 34 1 30-32 31 g 30-32 31 5 27-29 28 4 27-39 28 19 24-26 25 5 24-26 25 13 21-23 22 3 21-23 22 4 18-20 19 1 18—20 19 2 N=21 N=37 Mdn = 27.6 Mdn = 26.2 129 APPENDIX J CONFIDENTIAL TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX J Confidential Teacher Questionnaire DIRECTIONS: Most teachers have feelings about their specific positions. The following statements ask for your agreement or disagreement with regard to your work situation. Please answer all of the items by circling the number which best describes your degree of agreement- disagreement for each item. example: 1. Agree Very Much 5. Disagree a Little 2. Agree on the Whole 6. Disagree on the Whole 3. Agree a Little 7. Disagree very Much 4. Don't know 1. Teaching can be trying and difficult at times 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 2. One learns more through experience in his first year of teaching than he gained in two or three previous years in college. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 3. I really don't feel secure and relaxed as a teacher in this school. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 4. Compared with an average teacher, I would say I get along well with other teachers. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 5. I really feel at home in this school as nothing makes me nervous or uneasy. l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 6. I feel I am really a part of this faculty. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 7. If I had a chance to do the same kind of teaching for the same pay in another school, I would consider moving. 1. 2. 43. 4. 5. 6. 7. 130 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 131 I like my teaching job in this school. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. I am far from satisfied with the school environment here. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Compared to the beliefs of other teachers in my teaching field (or level) most of the people in my school would think my educational beliefs are acceptable. '\ 1'2. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Compared to the beliefs of other teachers in my teaching field (or level) most of my faculty think my beliefs about learning are not worthy. l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The faculty and staff at my school would describe my beliefs about educational innovations as not acceptable. 14 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The faculty and staff at my school feel that my beliefs about grading procedures are sound. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Compared to the beliefs of other teachers in my school my colleagues feel that my beliefs about improving the curriculum are unacceptable. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Compared with other teacher's beliefs in my school my principal feels that my beliefs about educational innovations are worthy. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Compared with other teacher's at my school my colleagues think my beliefs about classroom manage- ment are not sound. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 17. 132 The faculty and staff at my school feel my private beliefs about teaching methods are acceptable. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. DIRECTIONS: Most teachers get feedback causing them to sense or know how their colleagues feel about their per- formance. Whether you agree or disagree with the feedback you get is not important here (for instance, you may be- lieve you are a good teacher while you may be getting negative feedback to the contrary). Please answer all items by circling the symbol which best describes the actual feedback you sense you get with regard to each of the following items. symbols: 0 - Outstanding A - Average AB - Among the best BA - Below Average G - Good AP - Among the poorest AA - Above Average 18. How would your teaching colleagues rate your teaching performance compared with other teachers at your level in general? 0 AB G AA A BA AP 19. Where would your teaching colleagues rank your ability to be a supervising teacher for a student teacher? 0 AB G AA A BA AP 20. How would your teaching colleagues rate your ability to get along with students compared with teachers in general? 0 AB G AA A BA AP 21. How would your teaching colleagues rate your ability to enrich instruction (go beyond the book) compared with teachers in general? 0 AB G AA A BA AP 22. Where would your principal rank your methods of teach- ing compared with other teachers at your level? 0 AB G AA A BA AP 133 23. Where would your colleagues rank your methods of teaching compared with other teachers at your level? 0 AB G AA A BA AP 24. Where would your teaching colleagues rank your class- room management performance compared with other secondary teachers? 0 AB G AA A BA AP 25. Where would your principal rank your methods of classroom discipline compared with other secondary teachers? 0 AB G AA A BA AP 26. How would your teaching colleagues rate you in ability to teach your major subject compared with other teachers of that subject? 0 AB G AA A BA AP 27. How would your principal rate you in ability to teach your major subject compared with other teachers of that subject? 0 AB G AA A BA AP 28. How would your teaching colleagues rate your potential performance in working with a gifted student? O AB G AA A BA AP 29. How would your teaching colleagues rate your potential performance in working with a class of slow learners? 0 AB G AA A BA AP 30. How would your principal rate your ability to teach a class of slow learners? 0 AB G AA A BA AP DIRECTIONS: Some teachers have some social contact with their colleagues. We are interested in the degree to which you are involved. Please respond to the following items. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 134 Compared with other teachers in your field or at your grade level, how often are you invited for coffee by staff members? a. twice as often e. slightly less b. much more often f. much less c. slightly more often 9. not invited d. as often as others How often have you been invited into faculty homes? a. no invitations e. 2 or 3 invitations from b. one invitation 2 or 3 staff members c. two or three invi- f. more than 3 invitations tations from one from 2 or 3 staff faculty member members d. one invitation from g. many invitations from 2 or 3 different many staff members staff members Compared with other young teachers at school how included in faculty social activities are you? 1. not included 5. slightly more often 2. much less 6. much more often 3. slightly less 7. twice as often 4. about like others Compared with other teachers in your building, how often have you visited your fellow faculty-staff members at their homes? 1. many homes many 5. one home 2 or 3 times times 6. one home one time 2. 2 or 3 homes many 7. no visits times 3. 2 or 3 homes, 1 or 2 times 4. one home many times How often are you invited to social faculty get- togethers compared with other teachers who have the same number of years of teaching experience? a. twice as often e. slightly less b. much more than f. much less others 9. not invited to date c. slightly more d. as often 1' 36. 135 When you think of all the faculty-staff members in your school how many would really want you to join them in a social get-together? 1. no one 5. 3/4 of the faculty 2. one or two 6. all but one or two 3. about 1/4 the faculty members faculty 7. Everyone 4. about 1/2 the faculty APPENDIX K LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENT APPENDIX K Letter to Superintendent Dear Early this past fall I wrote you requesting your permission and assistance in identifying beginning teachers in your system for a study on their adjustment to teaching. You gave your permission and the names of the beginners in your system. We appreciate your help. We are now ready to do our follow—up interviews with the beginning teachers as indicated in our earlier letter to you. I will call you next week to learn if and when the teachers noted below have a conference hour or what hours of the day would be most convenient for conducting the interview. Weather conditions and scheduling difficulties make establishing a specific day nearly impossible. Knowing the time of day teachers will be available will help planning. We will check with the teacher and school at least a day in advance of our visit there. Again, we appreciate your assistance. Sincerely yours, William R. Force Assistant Professor College of Education 136 APPENDIX L LETTERS TO TEACHERS APPENDIX L Letters to Teachers Dear We appreciate the assistance you gave in completing the Educational Practices Questionnaire last fall. In an earlier communication we indicated that your help is also needed for a follow-up to complete the study. We have written your superintendent informing him again of these plans. We will be calling him in the next few days asking when or if you have a conference hour or what hours would be most convenient for conducting the interview With you. If you have a preference as to time of day would you please let him know? Weather conditions and scheduling difficulties make es— tablishing specific dates near impossible. Knowing the time of day you might have available will assist in planning. We will call you or your school at least one day in advance to clear our visit with you. We look forward to visiting with you in the near future. Sincerely, William R. Force Assistant Professor College of Education 137 "Illlllll'lllllllilli