BEHAVIORS cs TEACHERS new TO A BUILDING IN RELATION to me CLIMATE OF THE SCHOOL AND THE DOGMAT-ISM 05 THE TEACHER Thesis §or {II-Io Degree of Ed. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY TREVA B. KIRK 196.5 WIN\IUHIIIUIIIIWWWWIWHHIHWZIIIII ' 3 1293 10444 328 This is to certify that the thesis entitled BEHAVIORS OF TEACHERS NEW TO A BUILDING IN RELATION TO THE CLIMATE OF THE SCHOOL AND THE DOGMATISM OF THE TEACHER presented by TREVA B. KIRK has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M. degree in W / 3,5) /~~ . _. 4/ «(Z/JZQAd/Ca/(Zmu 0-169 L [B R A R Y Michigan State Univeréity .l ABSTRACT BEHAVIORS OF TEACHERS NEW TO A BUILDING IN RELATION TO THE CLIMATE OF THE SCHOOL I ' AND THE DOGMATISM OF THE [IIIU'U‘I‘IER ‘ By Treva B. Kirk PEEK“ of the Study The major purpose of this study was to relate the behaviors ' of teachers new to an elementary building to the organizational cli- l mate of the school and to the dogmatism of the teachers in order to discover the significant differences among various groups of teachers _; :5: their levels of concern, their satisfactions in selected aspects 0! teaching, and their frequency of contact with professional peOple ‘ _ ”with whom they could discuss their concerns. Further, their problems, . patisfactions, and frequency of contact with professional people vere 1. :gtudied vith reference to the variables of sex, age, training, teach- ".1385 experience, experience in the system, size of school, and number L' m teachers per building. This study was limited in scope to 73 elementary schools that .‘Iwi‘lling to participate in the study and also had one or more : new to the building. In September, the principal and teachers - ‘11 Climate Descrition 9 estionnaire. From these, schools , fied as relatively open and relatively closed. Teachers "”huilding evere given an Qpinion Survey which included the N 2 TREVA B. KIRK Qggagtism Scale. From the scores on the Dogmatism Scale were se- lected two groups of teachers: one relatively open and, the other, relatively closed. In May, new teachers were asked to answer a Situation Survey, to find specific incidents they had actually felt were problems, the level of their concern about each occurrence, and where they sought help in resolving the situation. The §E£XSZ also asked teachers to designate the degree of satisfaction with selected aspects of teach- ing, and how frequent had been their contacts with professional people to discuss their concerns. , The final selection was made of 18 teachers in each of four groups: open schools—open teachers; open schools-closed teachers; closed schools-open teachers; and closed schools-closed teachers. The materials were studied by the two-way analysis of vari- ance for differences among the means of these four groups attribu- table to either climate or dogmatism, both climate and dogmatism, or the interaction between the two in the level of concern, the expressed ( Initisfactions with selected aspects of teaching, and the frequency of I I seentact with professional people to discuss their concerns. The clas- “Sifdcations of the teachers by the variables of sex, age, training, 7 'iiaching experience, experience in the system, size of school, and Vfip:p .of new teachers.per building were studied for significant dif- 3 TREVA B. KIRK Findings 0f the ten areas of concern, six showed significant differ- ences in relation to the dogmatism of the teacher among the four groups. Not one of the problem areas showed differences related to climate, or to the interaction between the two. Discipline was the number one concern for all four groups of teachers. In the 19 areas of satisfaction, five were significant re— lating to climate. Two of these five also had a significant relation— ship to the dogmatism of the teacher. There was no interaction be- tween climate and dogmatism. Salary compared to that of other pro— geasions was the least satisfactory area for all four groups of teachers. Frequency of contact with teachers of the same grade and in the same building showed significant differences among the groups at the .01 level of confidence for both climate and dogmatism, each acting independently. Contact with teachers in another building was related to dogmatism. 0f the five professional people mentioned, the principal ranked third in the frequency of being contacted to discuss concerns, with the teacher of the same grade, same building, ranking I first. " Of the 238 analyses in reference to the seven variables, 15h flicked significant relationships. In the significant concern areas, .mhnd age accounted for 13 of the 21. Not one concern was related I. TREVA B. KIRK Ehlchcrs, in their comments about being new to the building, «‘to the difficulties of the unwritten rules, the unwillingness teachers to listen to any new ideas, and the inability to Fe chance to discuss their concerns with their principal. BEHAVIORS 0F TEACHERS NEW TO A BUILDING IN RELATION TO THE CLIMATE OF THE SCHOOL AND THE DOGMATISM OF THE TEACHER 4‘ by x° «“73 L!“ - Treva B . Kirk 1 I _ I a . C5 "‘7’ A THESIS fit" I t f . ,_ .. Submitted to .A :3“ 3‘ ‘ ‘ Michigan State University _‘ Z. in partial fulfillment of the requirements ,-,$' j“ ' for the degree of x; 1'54 -.r:.-: V Dacron or EDUCATION ‘F 'm g‘?" H'- 4 I ' ffl!’ L‘.’ ‘ ‘~ I . ‘. 1‘ :- 1 . . 6 - I “illol'~'?tif’l“z - a, , 3‘ : "a , , . ‘2' “' I} N‘L‘ """ t..'-}“"1 .I i , _ I’, If: ; ‘- . I" , ll, ‘ ‘u i ‘ Ch;_ of wuumm and Educational Service-u we ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to ll; the many people who have contributed to this project by their encour- agement, suggestions, special knowledge, and guidance during the time I; I , of its planning and execution. tél Grateful appreciation is extended: To Dr. Fred V. Vescolani, advisor and chairman of my doctoral committee, for his unfailing confidence and interest during my entire program at Michigan State University; To the other members of my doctoral committee, Dr. Clyde M. Campbell, Dr. Carl M. Gross, and Dr. John Useem, for their suggestions, advice, and guidance; To Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover, for his helpful suggestions in the plans for the research design, for his continued interest and under- standing during every phase of the project through to its completion, and especially for his help and moral support when the paper was pre- sented at the American Educational Research Association in Chicago; To Mr. William Darnell, Mrs. Natalie Sproull, and Mr. Percy ‘Britner, for their help with data treatment, statistical analysis, L and computer programs; 1 ’ 1 To the supervisors, elementary principals, and teachers, es- iwicielly those new to the building, who cooperated by answering the {II stionnaires for this project. , .. ;_ Special acknowledgement is due: ; _: in Dr. Halpin and Dr. Croft for their help with the m, " 11 . . g o 45% Dr. Rokeach for his help with the Dogmgtism Scale, and to Dr. ...;:H g - and Central Michigan University for the use of the files on ' I the beginning teacher; \ To many faculty members at Michigan State University who gave “11113eg of their time and energy to provide motivation, insight, and :nnderstanding for this work. . l . A LION-1 family for their sympathetic understanding and constant encour- Finally, great appreciation is extended to the author's per- ‘ sgement which made this study possible. ‘ mg, .. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page AMMEDGEMENTS s s e e s a s e s e a s e s a e s a e s e s s i i EST OF TABLES s s e e e s e s s e s s s o a a s o o c e . . . v11 Chapter I 0 THE PROBLm e e e e I e s e s I e a e s e e o e e e e 1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Scope and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Problems and the Usual Sources of Help. . . Personality and Characteristics of Teachers Climate of Schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . Adjustment and Identification . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N 0\ III. DESIGNOFTHESTUDY................. so Organizational Climate. . . Dogmatism . . . . . . . . . Situation Survey. . . . . . Selection of Groups . . . . dOrganizing the Material from the S s e 0 0 \II M tuation Surveys 57 e e e 0 Fine s s e Jationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 _ Hypotheses. . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . 60 d, Analyses-sees... as 0 sees... 62 4' Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6h ANALYSIS OF RESULTS. 0 e s e e l A e e e e e e e e e 66 Results-ooiio......'.......... 66 Levels of Concern. . . . . . . . . .‘. . . . . 66 Satisfactions. . . . . . . . . . . 69 Frequency of Contact with Other Professionals. 73 Interaction of Organizational Climate ~Dogmatism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7? Levels of Concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 VI. VII. Concerns. . . . . . . Interaction of Dogmatism Climate . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . VARIABLES Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . e . . . . . . . . . . . . Training. . . . . . . . . . Teaching Experience . . . . Previous Experience in System Size of School. . . . . . . Number of Teachers Per School Conclusion. . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . Satisfactions. . . . . . . Frequency of Contact to Discuss Professional and s e e e e e Organizational [BE OF Ell-P s e e e e e e e e e e s s e e s e e e 0 Where Did New Teachers Get Help? Assistance From Four Sources Listed . . . . . Help From "Others". . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion. . . . . Sources of Help with Multiple Choices Included. summary . . . . . . . . . . COMMENTS 0 e s e e e e s e e s O f e e e e I e e 0 Offers of Help. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Teachers. . . . . Socializing with Co-Workers Out of School Advice and Help vs. Problems. . . . Major Difficulties in Working in This Building . . . . Major Difficulties in Working Principal in This Building . Sm ' O I O O I O O C O 0 summer. AND CONCLUSIONS. . . .. Summary . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . Discussion. . . . . . Other Findings Unanticipated. Implications for Further Researc with the with Teachers h ‘ :IIW BIBIIIOGRAPHY O 0 e s e e e s e e I e O I O I e l e 3 Tum I l 0 e o I e I s o s f e s s l O O I s Page 79 83 87 87 90 101 107 113 119 125 130 132 137 M A... .. ’an, “we-M. I: ’ Cir“ . ”‘1': e 7 5 u. 2 5 P 2 2 .4 QIBSTIONHAI RES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CODING SHEETS . LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1 Summary of Schools and New Teachers in Project . . . . 53 3.2 Summary of Distribution of Schools and New Teachers in First and Fourth Quartlies of Openness- Closedness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5h h.l Rank Order of Concerns of New Teachers in Sample . . . 67 h.2 Rank Order of Mean Levels of Concern of Teachers by the Four Different Teacher-School Groups. . . . . . 68 h.3 Rank Order of the Satisfactions of the New Teachers in the Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 5.” Rank Order of Mean Satisfaction with Selected Aspects of Teaching by the Four Teacher-School Groups . . . 72 h.5 Rank Order of Frequency of Contact with Professional People to Discuss Concerns. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7h h.6 Rank Order of Mean Frequency of Contact to Discuss Professional Concerns by Groups . . . . . . . . . . 75 E. h.7 Summary of Differences Between Means of Schools and .y, 1 Teachers on Satisfaction with Supervision . . . . . 81 .A a ”.8 Summary of Differences Between Means of Schools and Teachers in Satisfaction with Fairness in Distribution of Duties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 h.9 Differences of Means in Frequency of Contact with Professional People to Discuss Their Concerns g of the Four Teacher-School Groups . . . . . . . . . 8h f' Distribution of Public School Teachers by Sex. . . . . 91 1 Rank Order of Mean Levels of Concern by Sex. . . . . . 92 i Rank Order of Mean Satisfactions by Sex. . . . . . . . 93 Rank Order of Sex of Mean Frequencies of Contact with Professional People to Discuss Their Concerns . . . 9“ Distribution of New Teachers According to Age. . . . . 96 vii Table Page 5.6 Means of Various Age Groups in the Levels of Concern . 97 5.? Means of Various Age Groups in Satisfactions . . . . . 98 5.8 Means of Various Age Groups in Frequency of Contact with Professional People to Discuss Their Concerns. 99 5.9 Distribution of New Teachers According to Training . - 101 5.10 Means of Various Groups in Training in Relation to Concems C I I I I I I I I I I I C I I I I I I I I I 102 5.11 Means of Various Groups in Training in Relation to Satisfactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 5.12 Means of Various Training Groups of New Teachers in Relation to Frequency of Contact to Discuss Their Concerns I I I I I I I I I O I I I I I O I I I O I 0 10h 5.13 Means and F Statistics of Selected Categories When New Teachers are Classified by Training . . . . . . 106 5.1h Distribution of New Teachers According to Teaching Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 5.15 Means of Various Experience Groups of New Teachers on Concerns I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O I I O 0 I 109 5.16 Means of Various Experience Groups of New Teachers in Satisfactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 5-17 Means of Various Experience Groups of New Teachers 9 in Frequency of Contact with Professional People to Discuss Their Concerns. . . . . . . . . . 111 5.18 Distribution of New Teachers Classified by Number of Years Previously Taught in the System. . . . . . 113 5-19 Means of Various Groups of New Teachers Classified by Years of Experience in the Same System in Relation to Concerns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11h 5'20 Means of Various Groups of New Teachers Classified by Years of Experience in Same System in ‘ Relation to Satisfactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 1; 5.21 Means- of Various Groups of New Teachers Classified ,' by Years of Experience in Same System in Relation J: to Frequency of Contact to Discuss Their Concerns . 116 5'22 Distribution of New Teachers According to School 8126 I I I I I s I p I I I I I o o I I I I I s I I O 119 viii 5.23 5.2h 5-25 5.26 5.27 5.28 5.29 5.30 5.31 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.h 6.5 6.6 6.7 Means of VariousiGrohps”of New Teachers When Classi— fied as to Size of School in Relation to Concerns . Means of Various Groups of New Teachers When Classi— fied as to Size of School in Relation to Satis- factions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means of Various Groups of New Teachers When Classi- fied as to Size of School in Relation to Frequency of Contact with Professional People to Discuss Their Concerns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Numbers of Regular Teachers and New Teachers in the Four Different Teacher-School Groups.“. . . . . . . Distribution of New Teachers According to Number Per Building. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means of the Concerns Given by Various Groups of New Teachers When Classified as to the Number Per Building. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means of the Satisfactions Given by New Teachers Classified as to Number Per Building. . . . . . . . Means of the Frequency of Contact with Professional People Given by New Teachers Classified as to Number Per Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Significant Areas in Relation to the Seven Variables . Chi Square Table for Seeking Help from Principal in Teacher-Parent Relationships. . . . . . . . . . . . Chi Square Table for Seeking Help from the Principal in Teacher-Community Relationships. . . . . . . . . Chi Square Table for Seeking Help From Other Teachers in Teacher-Principal Relationships. . . . . . . . . Number of New Teachers Seeking Help from "Others" and Making Multiple Choices Two or More Times . . . . . Number of Times "Other" was Mentioned as Source of Help I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Number of Times Selected "Others" were Mentioned as a Source of Help by New Teachers in Each of Four Grow 8 I o o I I I o s I I I I I I I I o I I I I I I N“3|er of New Teachers in Each Group Mentioning Listed Sources of Help. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix 120 121 122 12h 126 127 128 129 131 1&0 11.1 11.1 1h2 'lhh 1h5 11.6 g..-” .a‘.;._;.:.._. a- Table Page 6.8 Number of Multiple Choices Made by Each of the Four Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1h? 6.9 Total Number of Choices of Four Sources of Help For All Ten Categories of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . 1h8 7.1 Number of Teachers New Teachers Reported "Liking to WorkWith"..................... 156 7.2 Ranking of Importance of Advice and Difficulties by Number of Times Expressed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 7.3 Comparison of Help Given and Problems Mentioned by Each of Four Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 8.1 Significant Areas in Relation to Climate, Dogmatism, and Other Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 8.2 Rank Order of Mean Satisfaction with Selected Aspects of Teaching by the Four Teacher-School Groups . . . 183 A.l Summary of Distribution of Schools and New Teachers by Quartiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 A.2 Schools Ranked by Scores on OCDQ and Their New Teachers Classified as Open, Middle, and Closed by Scores on D Seale I C I O O O O C O O O O I C C C O I I I O O 199 A-3 Rank Order of Schools on OCQQ with Information on Number of Returning Teachers, New Teachers, and Sex of Principal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20h A-h F Statistics for Climate, Dogmatism, and Interaction in Relation to Concerns of the Four Groups of New Teachers from the Two-Way Analysis of Variance. . . 206 A-S F Statistics for Climate, Dogmatism, and Interaction in Relation to Satisfactions of the Four Groups of New Teachers from the Two-Way Analysis of Variance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 A.6 F Statistics for Climate, Dogmatism, and Interaction in Relation to Frequency of Contact with Profes— sional People of the Four Groups of New Teachers . from the Two—Way Analysis of Variance . . . . . . . 208 A'7 F Statistics for Variable Sex of New Teachers in Re- 1 r lation to Concerns, Satisfactions, and Frequency i of cont‘ct I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 209 ‘ II: A.8 F Statistics for Variable Age of New Teachers in Re- lation to Concerns, Satisfactions, and Frequency 0: Contact I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I g I 210 X A.9 A.10 A.11 A.12 A.13 A.17 A.18 F Statistics for Variable Training of New Teachers in Relation to Concerns, Satisfactions, and Frequency of Contact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F Statistics for Variable Experience of New Teachers in Relation to Concerns, Satisfactions, and Frequency of Contact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F Statistics for Variable Experience in System of New Teachers in Relation to Concerns, Satisfactions, and Frequency of Contact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . F Statistics for Variable Size of School of New Teachers in Relation to Concerns, Satisfactions, and Frequency of Contact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . F Statistics for Variable Number of New Teachers Per Building in Relation to Concerns, Satisfactions, and Frequency of Contact. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of the Number of Cases in Each Category of the Seven Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Significant Areas in Relation to Climate, Dogmatism, and Other Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Times Principal was Selected as Source of Help (Multiple Choices Included). . . . . . . . . . Number of Times Other Teachers Were Selected as Source of Help (Multiple Choices Included). . . . . Number of Times Observation of Others was Selected as Source of Help (Multiple Choices Included) . . . Number of Times "Using Own Judgment" was Selected as Source of Help (Multiple Choices Included). . . . . Number of New Teachers in Each of Four Teacher-School Groups Seeking Help Two or More Times from the PrinCipal O O O O 0 O C A O O O I I I C I I I O I 0 Number of New Teachers in Each of Four Teacher-School Groups Seeking Help from Other Teacher(s) Two or mre Tim 8 C . D I I I C . D C C U Q . C U . U I U I Number of New Teachers in Each of Four Teacher-School Groups Seeking Help by Observing Others Two or More Times I O I O . I O O C I O O O C l 0 O O C I Number of New Teachers in Each of Four Teacher-School Groups Resolving Their Problems by Using 0'3 Judgment Two or More Times. . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Page 211 212 213 21h 216 218 219 220 221 222 223 22h 225 226 f became evident that some teachers developed‘an'interest in the edu- ‘ .w" how or other were not "with the Job." Educators refer to the first , 9 N ' I . I ' I. . I . ‘ . . 5 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM The increasing interest in the problems of new teachers stems ._ back to the 1930's when less than .half the fully-certified teachers secured Jobs, when the kindergarten teacher in the school "went crazy" V at the end ofthe first three weeks of school, and~when teacher after ‘ 5 j teacher would not remain to teach a full year as she eitheryms' dise satisfied with the school or was giving unsatisfactory service. It "cational processes and felt a definite commitment to the profession. k". ‘Others seemed to be goingthrough the motions of teaching, but some- "; as 3005 morale; to the second as disengagement, or use the sociolo- ' I: , dat's term, snomie or alienation. ; ‘ ‘ The unanswered questions were, "How-does 'it happen that each x 't . ‘ teacher adjusts to teaching in such widely different degrees of com-3 '-’_ "fitment! What are the factors that bear on this adjustment? Are ‘_ these factors wholly'within the teacher's own personality structure, A #O‘f'inthe school situation itself, or a combination of both factors an“ , . ,. firming degrees?" ‘ _, The specific problem treated by this thesis-is a part of the ., goblam- of- teacher adjustment. f This study is concerned with 2 what happens to teachers within the School building. What do teachers hare to learn in a school building the first year? What facilities are available from which they can learn and which ones do they choose? What are the maJor Job satisfactions and dissatisfactions? Which other teachers help most? How do new teachers learn roles they are expected to play in the building? Primarily this is an exploratory project to discover what re- lationships may exist among teachers new to a building when the or- ganizational climate, the school situations, and the openness and closedness of the teacher's personality structure are considered. Specifically, this study.tries to discover whether new teach— ers in a school building having one type of school organization might differ from new teachers in another school building having another kind of school climate in terms of their concerns and degrees of con- cern, contacts with adult personnel, and Job.satisfactions or dis- satisfactions. This study is also concerned with the question as to whether new teachers with different kinds of personality structure, as meas- ured on the Dogmatism Scale, might also differ in their concerns, contacts with adult personnel for help, Job satisfactions and dis- satisfactions. The working problem of this dissertation is: does a certain combination of school.climate and personality structure of the new teacher result in a different set of concerns, contacts with adults, ‘nd 30b satisfactions from those of other.combinations? ‘ The normative study will attempt to discover what happened during the course of one year, l963-6h, to teachers new to the build- ‘138 in certain selected areas, and to determine if either the climate 3 of the school, the personality structure of the teacher, or both, might have some bearing on how the teacher reacted. The climate of the school and the personality of the "new" teachers are not the only factors that would have some influence on the behaviors; sex, age, training, previous experience, and other itmes may also have bearing. Nevertheless the major portion of the study will be devoted to the workings and interworkings of the two: climate and personality. For years colleges of education and professional organiza- tions have tried to improve the effectiveness of teacher preparation. The constant experimentation and evaluation have created many changes in preparation programs. Boards of Education and professional organ- izations, too, have encouraged in-service training PrOJGCtB. designed for teachers who need new ideas and methods for continued professional growth and for effective teaching. Few schools have concerned them- selves with the starting teacher, or with the teacher changing to a new building. ‘Many times the "new" teacher was expected to receive the least desirable room, the least desirable children, and to "learn the ropes" by trial and error method. Only recently have some larger school districts in Michigan assigned consultants available to help the "new" teachers, supplementing traditional orientation programs. As a result of teacher shortages, the demand for more effec- tive teaching, and increasing public concern with education, the "heel and community have become more interested in having the teacher make a successful adjustment to the building and to the Job. Thus, a one-year study of teachers new to a building (whether or not they 1.1“" had any previous teaching experience) may 'clarify what actually h“TE-‘Iiens during the first year, and help show how newcomers to the h {I «building learn, or fail to learn, their roles as teachers. Did these experiences help them to become adJusted and committed to teaching, or did they tend to alienate them from the main stream of education? chpg and Limitations Elementary sciools.and their teachers were selected for this project since the climate of an elementary school can be measured and ordered on degrees of openness by an instrument, the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire, pgpg. The study is limited to elementary schools (kindergarten 'through grade six) with these qualifications: 1. Willingness of the principal and the teachers to participate in the study. 2. The same full-time principal for the two pre- vious years, 1961-62, and 1962-63. 3. At least one teacher new to the building. It is further limited to schools of selected climates having '"new teachers" with certain scores on the Dogmatism Scale. Even though the formal and informal methods of help are being reported, most of the study is aimed toward the most generally knownr ways teachers have of knowing what to do. No attempt is made to {’f-XCV31Uflte the competence of the teacher. The concerns, satisfactions ,Ind frequency of contact with other professionals are the objectives of this study. This study is based on the following assumptions: ji‘ - First, the school is a social system in its own right. -. ~‘h 5*. 1“ ‘c' “.5I second, the organizational climate of the elementary school I” 3 ' 5 can be measured by the instrument proposed, the Organizational Climate Description.Qgestionnaire, and the.climates can be ordered on a con- tinuum from openness to closedness. Third, the Opinion Survey, which includes the Dogggtism Scale that measures the rigidity of the belief-disbelief structure of the teacher, gives a score that.can be ordered on a continuum from open- ness to closedness. Fourth, the report the teachers perceive of occurrences and contacts are actual experiences. Fifth, the organizational climate of the school and the dog- matism-score of the teacher are reasonably stable over the period of one year. 'Definitions In order to clarify pertinent terms for the reader and limit their interpretation to Just this study, the following definitions are presented: New Teacher-~an elementary teacher who had never taught in this building before, and may, or may not, have had pre- -vious teaching experience. Climate--The organizational personality of the school, as I measured by the Organizational Climate Description Qgestion- E. ggigg, QQQQ, describing the school primarily in terms of the I teacher-principal relationships. 'Dogggtism-IN closed way of thinking, an authoritarian out- ;‘ look on life, an intolerance toward those with opposing be— } 'liefs, a rigidity in the belief-disbelief system. “Qpen School--A school whose climate, measured on the OCQQ, 6 , rated on the open end of the continuum of openness— closedness. Closed School-A school whose climate, measured on the QQQQ, rated on the closed end.of the continuum of open- ness-closedness. Qpen Teacher-A teacher whose score on the Dogggtism Scale was at the end of the continuum showing openness of belief- disbelief system (low dogmatic group). ~ Closed Teacher-—A teacher whose score on the Dogggtism Scale was at the end of the continuum showing closedness of belief- disbelief system (high dogmatic group). 'Qpen-Qpen--A relatively open school, relatively open teacher. Qpen-Closed--A relatively open school, relatively closed teacher. Closed-Qpen-—A relatively closed school, relatively open teacher. Closed-Closed-—A relatively closed school, relatively closed teacher. Discipline--Behavior problems. Self-Autonogy—-Feeling of independence of the self in making choices. Grading--Evaluation a teacher has to make about the work of the student. Student Relations--Emotional and social problems of students a teacher may, or may not, feel as important, such as day- dreaming. OCIQ-Orggpizational Climate Description agestionnaire, by Halpin and Croft, a 6k item survey which can map the climate a .l‘ t .99: of the school. AD Seale--Dogggtism Scale, which measures the openness-closed- .ness of a person's belief-disbelief system. Situation Survgy--Instrument developed to find the degree of concern about certain experiences during the year, and also the degree of satisfaction and frequency of contact with pro- fessional people. Opinion Survey--Survey of teachers containing the Dogggtism Seam- F Scale-—Fascism Scale developed for the authoritarian per- sonality. gypgtheses There are several basic questions from which the hypotheses will be formulated in Chapter III: 1. Is there's relationship among the four groups of new teachers (open-open, open-closed, closed-open, closed-closed) in the level of concern expressed in the selected situations? 2. Is there a relationship among the four groups of rrmew teachers in the degree of satisfaction ex- pressed about the selected aspects of teaching? 3. pIs there a relationship among the four groups of new teachers in the frequency of contact with professional people to discuss their concerns? I. Is there an interaction between the organizational climate of the school and the dogmatism of the teacher in the concerns, the satisfactions and 8 the frequency of contact with professional people? In addition to the above basic questions of this thesis, the following questions will also be considered to see what information the answers to them may add to the problems faced by teachers new to the building: 5. Do sex, age, training, teaching experience, pre- vious experience in the system, size of the build- ing, and number of new teachers per building have any influence on the new teachers' concerns, satis- factions, and frequency of contact with professional people? 6. Are there any relationships among the four groups of new teachers (open-open, open-closed, closed-open, closed-closed) regarding what helps and procedures they employed in resolving the situations about which they were concerned? Overview This study is organized into eight chapters. Following this introductory chapter, a review of the literature is presented in Chapter II. Basic research about the problems of teachers, especially new ones; the rationale about dogmatism and its effect on behavior; "the theory involved in the Organizational Climate Description gpes- tionnaire; and the studies in adjustment to a Job or profession are reported. The hypotheses, the sample, the instruments, and the de- 'sign are presented in Chapter III. The differences among the four "groups of new teachers in relation to their concerns, satisfactions ' and frequency of contact with other professionals are analyzed and discussed in Chapter IV. The seven variables of sex, age, training, teaching exper- ience, previous experience in the system, size of school, and number of new teachers are studied and discussed in Chapter V in relation to the new teachers' concerns, satisfactions, and frequency of contact with other professionals. Chapter VI is devoted to the problem of where teachers sought help in resolving their problems, and the dif- ferences among the four groups. Chapter VII contains the various comments of new teachers regarding the school, their problems, other ‘teachers, and the principal. Chapter VIII presents an overall summary and conclusions of the study with implications for further research. This exploratory research is an attempt to discover what happens to teachers the first year in a building with the hope that it will fit into the wider, complex problem of total teacher adjust- ment. Linking these situations to organizational climate of the building and dogmatism of the teacher may be a way to study behaviors for the possible effects of these two variables. Even though the literature is replete with research about new teachers, the problem 'of adjustment is still a vital one. The search continues for the effects of organizational climate and dogmatism. This study is an attempt to.add its contribution to the field. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Since this is a study of the behavior of new teachers in re- lation to two factors, climate and personality, the literature was searched for studies in which these factors, together or separately, are significant. Important areas include beginning teacher problems, effective teaching, characteristics of teachers, training programs, climate studies of classrooms and buildings, and adjustment articles. What part do the teacher's own personality and characteristics play ' in the adjustment of the first year in a building? What part do en- vironment, teachers, students, principal have in this adjustment? The first report1 of the Committee on the Criteria for Teacher Effectiveness gave the impression that effectiveness is a permanent property of the teacher, such as characteristics and personality, but the second report2 of the committee changed to the idea that effec- 'tiveness is a "now you have it, now you don't" property of the teacher, depending on the situation. Ryan3 in his studies took the position 13. H. Remmers, Chairman, and others, "Report of the Committee on the Criteria of Teacher Effectiveness," Review of Educational Re- search, Vol. 22 (June, 1952), pp. 238-263. 2a. H. Remmers, Chairman, and others, "Second Report of the '-Committee on the Criteria of Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of Edn- cational Research, Vol. h6 (May, 1953), pp. 6&1-658. 3David G. Ryans, "Prediction of Teacher Effectiveness," Eng:- clgpgdia of Educational Research, Third Edition (New York: thmillan coo, 19 0 pp. 1 "90. 10 11 that effectiveness is partly dependent on the attributes of the teacher and partly on the teaching situation. It is the latter view that is the theory for this research. This chapter dealing with analysis of the literature is di- vided into four parts: (1) problems and the usual sources for help for new teachers; (2) studies regarding characteristics and person- alities of teachers; (3) studies regarding school climates; and (h) studies on the adjustment process. Problems and the Usual Sources of Help Experienced teachers who come into a new situation have some of the problems common to new teachers. Many of these problems exist in poor human relations with students (commonly called discipline), with teachers and principals (commonly called cooperation), and with parents and community (commonly called public relations). One source of information about concerns, problems, satis- factions of teachers was the records that Central Michigan University1 had accumulated from the 19h0's through 1958 about their graduates who were then teaching the first, second, or third year in schools in *their geographical area. In an effort to find out what problems they encountered and how the college could best help them and better pre— pare other teachers, teams of two to four professors visited the teachers and the school, and made a report of their findings. One of these reports in 19h5-19k6 suggested that the extern period should be six weeks instead of four. Another comment was: "There are certain 1Central Michigan University, Reports of Visitations and An- nual Report of the Follow-Up Committee on Teacher Training, l9h3-1958, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, (unpublished reports in the files of the Uni— versity). 12 schools where beginners should not be located," because of the lack of help available and the attitude of the principal and teachers to- ward new teachers. Another problem raised was that "most schools still consider a teacher good if she can keep the children quiet." Difficulties men- tioned often centered about the theme of discipline. Superintendents and grade supervisors emphasized the need for stressing public relations. Reports were made that teachers were critical of the town, that they criticized the parents and customs of the community, that they did not pay their bills in the town, that they were not courteous to visitors, and that they called the students "snobs." Another difficulty mentioned was the inability to work with the slow students, and with the gifted. A professor in lth-hs reported as follows: "Individuals doing poor work seem to have one character- istic in common—-emotional imbalance. This might be a cause or effect of failing, but it indicates a need to study the students' personal adjustments on campus to see whether we can help the teacher with these difficulties." Another professor commented: "I realize what a variety of situations we are preparing our people for. We need to teach our students how to get along with lots of ingenuity and an absolute minimum of ma— terials. We must find ways to help our teachers develop more personality." Throughout the pages of reports the same general problems of the new teacher recur: poor classroom control, poor discipline, can- -not handle the class, needs better understanding of students, and ‘lack of personality. Dr. John Osborne, Professor of Education at Central Michigan University, who has been one of the visitors for years, in 1960 re- ported the key problems the teachers he visited faced: discipline, -l3 lack of facilities, planning and evaluating, grading, parent confer- ences. He had observed that under the stress of everyday teaching, the new teachers forgot what they had been taught and did it any way to get it done. Teachers did not use new ideas because they feared to try something different and be ridiculed by other teachers. "They know what they learned usually. The how is the ques- ‘ tion." Specifically, many of their problems were how todo something; how do you give grades; how do you 'tell a mother that her child is be- low average; how do you motivate a slow learner with a defeatist at- titude; should you use the curve in grading; do you pass with a "C" those that can do the work, but don't; how do you plan and evaluate so you have time to do everything you are supposed to do; and how do you keep out of a squabble between teachers.1 0f the problems identified by Smith2 in her work with first and second year teachers, learning toplay the role of the teacher was the most difficult, since "she [the teacher] has to feel it with- in herself before the students will feel it. Pupil control is always 3 vezlt'y difficult area because the teacher doesn't feel like a teacher ’ 1'13 ide. All seem to need experience in handling children. Writing ma- carrying out plans, and knowing and using the materials avail- ) Able in the building are always difficult." She concluded that "pu- p11 control is closely allied to classroom organization," and that lea“filling to play the accepted role of the teacher was most difficult. \ C lInterview with John Osborne, Professor of Education, at entral Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, July 29, 1960. 81 2Interview with Mildred Smith, Consultant Supervisor for Be- lg‘éging Teachers, Flint Public Schools, Flint, Michigan, August 15, 1h In the research of Theunel, business teachers in their first year found their major concerns were: testing in all its phases, get- ting student cooperation and teacher cooperation, making plans, and selecting materials. Training for some of these had been lacking in the student teaching program. The comprehensive survey conducted by the Office of Education of the U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare entitled The Beginning Teacher: Status and Career Orientations, studied the problems of the beginning teachers, their sociological backgrounds, satisfactions, career commitment, salaries, training and other vari- ables. In this study Masone formulated 22 satisfaction items with reference to the analysis of the relational context of role orienta- tion that Parsons had suggested in his book, The Social System.3 Teachers ranked these four social relationships highest in satisfac- tion: fellow teachers, superiors, students, parents. Least satis- factory to the teachers was the salary when compared with that of other occupations in the area open to people with their level of edu— cation. Nineteen of these satisfaction items are used in the present Study. \ lWarren Stanley Theune, "Difficulties of First Year Business geachers and Relationship of these Difficulties to their Student eaching Experience" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan state University, 1960). 2Ward S. Mason, The Beginning Teacher: Status and Career \grieh‘tations, Final report on the Survey of New Teachers in Public ch9°13, 1956-57, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Ogahington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing t'1~::e, 1961), pp. 80-61. 1'1- 3Talcott Parsons, The Social S stem, (Glencoe, Illinois: . 9% Press, 1951). pp. 69-53. 15 In a study of elementary teachers, Turner and Fattul found significant differences between those who had completed a methods course and those who 'had not, those whohad an education degree and those who had a liberal arts degreepthose who ‘had one year of teach- ing experience and those 'who 'had' none, and those'who had three or more years of experience snd‘those'who ‘had’only one. Difference were in'favor of those with'greater professional knowledge. They also found that teachers| rated effectiveness increases rather rapidly with experience'at‘first, and then'levels off’at five years experience or beyond. The teacher may show little change in rated performance for the'next 20 years, after which, as in most occupations, there tends to be a decline. 'No particular differences were shown between 'men ~and'women teachers in their'effectiveness. Nor was there any ‘sigznificant relationship'in the attitude toward teachers and teaching. This study alsosuggested that the results of personality tests might Show more promise in finding significant differences among elementary tea~<=hers . In the book, The Newly Appointed-Teacher, which dealt with two basic problems of new teachers: security'and emotional adjustment, B-nd professional‘and technical'adjustment, Paul Mort2 suggested that t° ‘ improve professional and technical adjustment superior teachers be A a’8318ned to devote their entire'time to helping new teachers ' 1th ' ~ ~ at?» l 1R. L. Turner, and N. A. Fattu, Problem‘Solving Proficiency 0f ement Teachers: I: The Develo ment'of Criteria Monograph Ye 1The Institute of Educational“ Research Bloomingtonr Indiana Uni- 1‘Bity, May, 1960), 60 pp. (1'7 2Metropolitan Study-Council,“1’he Newly‘Apminted Teacher e» Yor : Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Uni- versity. 1950: 1.9 pp. 16 their problems. He emphasized security on the job much more than emo- tional adjustment. Eye and Lane1 wrote' their 'book, 'The' New Teacher‘Comes To School, impressingon administrators the"need:for induction :policies, with a hint that there‘are‘some"hidden" policies teachers should know, and that it was the responsibility of administrators tomake them known. Yauch and others2 listed the various problems that teachers faced in a new situation." The classification included "getting ac- quainted" or orientation,‘conununity relationships, parent' relationships, professional growth factors (teacher'relationships included), teaching ‘procedures, relations with ‘supervisorsypupil relations. The theme ' was that teachers “had‘to 'be closely‘ identified‘with‘the' world of re— ality, and yet be‘imbuediwith'the concept ofdesirabletidealism. This book‘on non-specificS'in the‘problem areas'hinted that human relations 1'38 the field full of'most pitfalls for teachers, be'they beginning or ' experienced. In these studiesof teachers, ‘poor maintenance of discipline and' lack'of cooperation tend to be {found as the'chief causes of fail- 111-e ‘- ‘Health, educational background, amount of preparation, age, and km~C>Tiledge of subject matter, on the other hand, appear to-be relatively u“iifllportant factors in'terms of teacher failure. The conclusion, reached by the editors 'of‘Who's A'Good Teacher? in 1961, seems to reinforce-the studiesalready reported--that many (I! lGlen Eye and Willard Lane, The New Teacher Comes To School, ew York: Harper and Brothers, 195 , 3 0 pp. "B. ‘2Wilbur A. Yauch, Martin H. Bartels,'and Emmet Morris, The ‘fie inning Teacher, (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1955), 339 pp. 17 problems of teaching are in the field of human relations with stu- dents, other teachers, principals, parents, and the community:L Hudson's research2 used a personality evaluation instrument, the Inventory of Adjustment and Values, to test the'perceptions new teachers had of orientation programsin‘their schools. The assump— ticn‘was that the perception-of the teacher was measured by the types of problems he perceived. Teachers found discipline problems; work- ing with all the pupils, including the gifted and retarded; and work- ing with other teachers and being accepted by them as their major problems. This group did—perceive the 'human relations field as a ‘problem area. He concluded‘that a teacher can learn-a new perception 'with‘ease'in warm interaction‘with personnel friendly to him. In many different forms and from'different' studies comes the V 'conclusion that problemsof‘beginning teachers, or those going into a. new situation, are primarily those of‘relations with people. Schools have~ sought tominimize'these difficulties by programs of orientation and. of professional help'in the classroom. Larsonality'and Characteristics of Teachers In assessing teacher effectiveness or teacher competence, since 2:031; research‘is aimed toward'improving teachers and teaching, some Studies look at the teachers' traits,‘attitudes, values and character— istics. A few studies will be reviewed. \ lAmerican Association of School Administrators, Department of clasBroom Teachers ‘of the NEA, National School Boards Assn. , Who's A acher‘I'Edited'by WilliamJ. 'Ellena, Margaret Stevenson, Harold G°°d Te ° Webb, (Washington, D.C.: National-Education Assn., 1961), p. 26. D1 2Joseph T. Hudson, "Orientation Programs in Selected School Testl‘icts and Their‘Relationship'to*the Perceptions’ of Beginning . achers," (unpublished doctoral-dissertation,Michigan State Uni- Vex-31W, 1959). 18 The work of Hudson, mentioned previously, included the Inven- tory of Adjustment and Values used to measure the perceptions of be- ginning teachersby the- problems they perceived. A similar study, without the use of a personality test or at- titude inventory," was done by Porter2 who asked student teachers, ranging in age from 17 to 26, how they' viewed problems like daydream- ing, talking back,‘ and'lack of effort, and what should be done for 'the situation. He found that'the older the student' teacher, the greater" the insight into' the problem. In a follow—up study-by Tate3 of'beginning elementary teachers, 'he :found that‘scores on'the‘ temperament'test', intelligence test, and grade‘point average were“ highly predictive of'their teaching effec- 'tiveness. Nagleh devised a Professional'Attitudes Measure‘Scale to mea- sure teachers' attitude toward pupils, other teachers, teaching, and s<311001-conm1unity relationships; 'When‘it was given at the beginning and at the end of the student teaching experiences, he found that groups who had an integrated program of teaching methods and mater- j73-3_s‘with student teaching gained more on the scale‘than those who ¥ ' lIbid. P 2Robert M. Porter, "Student Attitudes Toward Child Behavior probiems", Journal ‘of Educational ‘Research,‘Vol. 52 (May, 1959), o 3 9. E 3James Oliver'Tate, "'A Field- Follow-Up Study of Beginning Siementary Teachers" (unpublished'doctoral dissertation, North Texas ate College, 1961). tip hMarshall Nagle, "Some Effects of‘Student Teaching Patterns 52°11 Professional 'Attitudes",'Journal of EducationalPesearch, Vol. (May. 1959). p. 355. We. 'classroom atmosphere he willbe able to maintain. 19 had a two-hour a day student teaching program. On the assumption that teaching performance is‘dependent, to a. large extent, on the type of'rapport established in- the classroom, Standler and Popham:L found that the Minnesota Teacher Attitude In- ventog, in addition to the type of social atmosphere a teacher main- tains in the classroom, was an index of a teacher's effectiveness. ‘ The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory2 has been built to measure the attitudes of a teacher in-order to predict how well he will get along with pupils in interpersonal relationships, and, in— directly, how well satisfied he will be with teaching. The attitudes of the teacher are the key to the problem of predicting the type of Items in the In- ventog discriminate sharply between teacherswho do and teachers who do not have good rapport with pupils. Examination of the items in- dicates'that inferior teachers are essentially insecure socially. In the classroomzsituation(they seek security by (1) general hostility t30‘731-6 people and especially toward children, (2) adhering rigidly to conventional standards and punishing non-conforming students se— verely, (3) their submissiveness to authority,'but dominating attitude towGard subordinates, (A) vast knowledge of subject matter taught. These attitudes and their causes are‘explained more fully in the' book, The Authoritarian Personality3, a work of several researchers, \ I 1Lloyd Standler and James Popham, "Minnesota Teacher Attitude ave31‘l'.ory,‘as a Predictor of Over-All Teacher Effectiveness," Journal \°f Educational Research, Vol. 52 (April, 1959), p. 319. he 2Walter W. Cook, Carroll H. Leeds and Robert Callis, "The Min- c 8°tu'Teacher Attitude Inventory-Manual," (New York: The Psychologi- Corporation, 1951). PP. 3—h. 3T. W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, and R' l‘evitt' Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper "31m” 1950). 990 pp- ‘ "on g! ’n 0 “:5 ‘ ,‘lv 20 first into the subject of Nazism and its causes, but then developing into an analysis of prejudices and authoritarian personalities that made Nazism possible, along with its excessive punishment of non- Nazis. The authors first devised the Anti-Semitism Scale, to test feelings toward Jews.l Next they worked on the E Scale, Ethnocentric Scale, when research showed that Anti—Semitism was only one part of the rejection and hostility toward minority or "different" groups. The next step was the Politico—Economic Conservatism (PEC) Scale to measure conservatism and liberalism. The F (Fascism) Scale was the final test, arranged because it did not contain religious, minority, political or economic names. Those who tended toward the fascism end 'of the F Scale normally responded so that answers clustered about (1) reliance on middle class, conventional values, (2) excessive submis— sion to authorities of the in—group, (3) excessive aggression toward PeOple who violate conventions, (1:) opposition to ideas as impracti— cal . (5) disposition to think in rigid categories, (6) identification Vith power figures, (7) generalized hostility, and (8) outward projec— tioh of unconscious emotional impulses. During the 1950's several researchers began to criticize the L's-Seism Scale, because it was called‘the‘Authoritarian Personality S with the inference that it measured‘general authoritarianism. ._saesssa. critics argued that it was designed to measure right authoritarianism, but did not measure left authoritarianism. Rokeachz, in his research, felt that authoritarianism might be at any position on the continuum \ lIbid, pp. 255-256. i 2Milton Rokeach, The 0 en and'Closed Mind: Investi ations . “to the Nature'of Belief S stems and Personalit 'S stems (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 19 O , p. ”‘1“. ~. ‘ , by. 'V .u'P “ 9) v ‘t‘ “in “5"" in a": 'I‘u-u .- x": ”as ..“ ~‘. 1 \ ‘=;" 5"“.\ t 21 from right to left, that it might also be in theology, philosophy, science, and even education. He proceeded on the theory that the be- liefs themselves were not the "tell-tale" items (that is the content), but that the structure (the way he espouses his beliefs) would more clearly indicate a person's general authoritarianism. According to Rokeach the basic characteristic that defines the extent to which a person's system is open or closed is "the ex— tent to which a person can receive, evaluate, and act on relevant in- formation received from the outside on its own intrinsic merits, un- encumbered by irrelevant factors in the situation arising from within 1 The items in the Dogm_atism Scale wex‘e organized on (1) the belief-disbelief continuum, (2) the central- The corre— ‘bhe person or from the outside." Peripheral dimension, (3) the time perspective dimension. lat ion between scores on the Domtism Scale, the Fascism Scale, and the _POlitico—Economic Conservatism Scale are positive, even though some were low, lending evidence that the Doggtism Scale is measuring gen- Thus eral authoritarianism and intolerance without political overtones. the Dogmatism Scale as it was given to students distinguished among the belief-disbelief system, not beliefs or attitudes or traits. Persons called "open" have a low magnitude of rejection of be— liefs; have a sense of relevancy; perceive the small differences in the belief system; note the large differences in the disbelief system; think of the world as friendly; do not evaluate people as to whether they agree or disagree with them; have beliefs that are inter-related, not isolated; and have a relatively broad time perspective. The op- pOgilte description would be for "closed" persons. \ lI'bid. , p. 57. 22 A brief outline of open and closed belief systems follows: CHARACTERISTICS OF BELIEF SYSTEM A Belief System is: Open Closed To the Extent that 1.. Authority is seen in terms 1. Authority is seen as abso- of its cognitive correct- lute; ness and competency with reliable information about the world; 2?- people are positively 2. people are accepted and re- valued regardless of their jected because they agree beliefs; or disagree with one's be- . lief system; 3- the world is conceived as 3. the world is conceived as being a friendly place; being hostile and threaten- ins; 1‘- there is a rational concep- u. there is excessive concern tion of power and status; for power and status; 5" a person's anticipations 5. a person is uncertain and about the future are re- fearful of the future; alistically based upon an awareness of the past and present; (5" a person does not feel that 6. a person feels that man is man is alone, isolated, and alone, isolated and helpless; helpless; .T" the congitive need to know 7. the need to ward off threat is predominant and the need becomes stronger and the to ward off threat is absent. cognitive need to know be- comes weaker. Lewinl, in his book, A gygamic Theogy of Personality, Selected %, explains his hypothesis about the structure of "mind", in which \ 1; 1Kurt Lewin, A gygamic Theogy of Personality? Selected Papers, Ii1’3Unslated by Donald K. Adams and Karl E. Ziner New York: McGraw 111 Book Company, 1935), 320 pp. Illlllalll'. III-III]! iv in. 23 he uses the terms flexible and rigid to designate the open and closed systems of intellectual activity. The closed system has an "either— or" effect. Rokeachl developed a Dogmatism Scale (D) and the Opinionation Scale (0) which he checked against the F Scale (Authoritarian). He concluded that the F Scale measured essentially fascistic authoritar- ianism to the right, not to the left. The Dogmatism Scale was de— veloped to measure general authoritarianism as a pattern of thinking, whether to the right or to the left. The D Scale is useful as a mea- sure of individual differences in the personality structure, regard- less of political leanings. Solo- -W" -- These scales have important implications in education. M2, in his research on the Dogmatism Scale and F Scale, found that the group of people scoring as a rigid group could not utilize the elements of the scientific method, were rigid in solving arithmetic problems, and had narrow cognitive pattern structures. On the other hand, the non-rigid group could learn more from an experiment, recog- nize causal relationships, and had more comprehensive cognitive pat- tern structures. He concluded that the Domtism Scale tapped the getleralized mental rigidity that included solving arithmetic problems, 8<=’¢:I.sl problems, and patterns of thinking from the narrow and spe— cific to the wider and more general relationships. Many of the leadership roles of superintendents and Boards of 1*. 1Milton Rokeach, "Political and Religious Dogmatism: An Al- mernative to the Authoritarian Personality" (Psychological Bulletin, 9. has, No. 118, 1956). 2Marvin David Solomon, "The Personality Factor of Rigidity as an Element in the Teaching of the Scientific Method" (unpublished °ctora1 dissertation, Michigan State University, 1951). 216 Education were explored by Gross, Mason and McEachern. One conclu- sion regarding superintendents applies equally well to the teaching situation. "The more mandatory a superintendent (principal or teacher) expresses his expectations, the more it is possible for Board members (teachers or pupils) to disagree with him." There is demand for a certain amount of "social slippage", and a person who says 'absolutely must' or 'absolutely must not' will be one with whom it is difficult to maintain effective social relationships. This "social slippage" is somewhat comparable to what Rokeach is referring to in the high and low magnitude of rejection. An investigation by McCurdy and Eber2 on group problem solving With authoritarian and democratic groups and with democratic and auth— oritarian leaders utilized the Fascism Scale to identify the high and 10" scoring people. Among the four groups: (1) authoritarian leader w1th authoritarian followers, (2) authoritarian leader with democratic f.<>J-J.owers, (3) democratic leader with authoritarian followers, and (1" ) democratic leader with democratic followers, so few differences in problem solving were found that they were not discernible. If the F\Sc_a}£ identifies the beliefs and not the system, then it would be I"Oasihle that some of the left authoritarians remained in the sample as democratic. Lippitt3, however, in the University of Iowa Study, concluded lNeal Gross, Ward Mason, and Alexander W. McEachern, Explor- \e'tions in Role Analysis (New York: John Wiley 8: Sons, Inc., 1958 , 379 \ PP- 0 2Harold G. McCurdy and Herbert W. Eber, "Democratic vs. Auth- I‘1‘t.arian: A Further Investigation of Group Problem Solving," Journal ‘31" Personalit , Vol. 22, p. 258. Q Ronald Lippitt, "An Experimental Study of the Effect of Demo— I’a-‘liic and Authoritarian Group Atmosphere," Vol. 16 (University of 10%;, Child Welfare Department, 191:0). pp. 16-191.. .Vu ctr-l! I. "y 25 that more creative and constructive work products emerged from the higher unity of" democratic life with its greater amount of objecti- vity and cooperativeness of interpersonal relationship than in the authoritarian atmosphere. Ryansl conducted an extensive study of teacher behavior from which he concluded that there were three basic patterns of teacher behavior in the classroom: Pattern X. Understanding, friendly teacher behavior vs. aloof, egocentric behavior. Pattern Y. Systematic, responsible, businesslike be- havior vs. evading, unplanned, slipshod behavior. Pattern Z. Stimulating, imaginative behavior, vs. routine, dull behavior. His approach to the study of effectiveness of teaching would fc>llow in this order: (1) teacher behavior viewed in process, (2) a Product of teacher behavior-pupil progress, such as test scores, ( 3 ) concomitants of teacher behavior-characteristics and personality. coIlcomitants are secondary data, and usually are not acceptable when ‘11 I'ect measurements can be used. Teaching should be relevant to peI‘haps three major sets of conditions: (1) social and cultural ROI» in which the teacher operates, including social values which 1r‘t‘equently differ from person to person, community to community, cul- ture to culture, and time to time; (2) grade level and subject t‘ueht; and (3) intellectual and personal characteristics of pupils taught. While Ryans does not accept the criterion of teacher person- a‘zLi‘ty as being too valuable, he does accept the climate factor in “hich a teacher must work. \ "David G. Ryans, Characteristics of Teachers: Their Descri - tion C rison and A raisal A Research Stu (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 19.30, p. 323. (.1. 26 That it is advisable to fit the teacher to the school is a corollary to the proposition that it is advisable to fit the child to the teacher. Smithl discussed the research at a reading clinic at the University of Michigan where teachers found they were unable to make much progress until they first found out what kind of students they were trying to teach, such as sociable stable, unsociable stable, sociable unstable, and unsociable unstable. VanderMolenz, at Grand Rapids Junior College, proposed to design a flexibility-rigidity scale to help counselors place pupils in the Junior high according to flexibility-rigidity scores with teachers of like scores. _-_-v‘, Climate of Schools Throughout the literature are references that each school is ‘11 fferent; of the need to fit the teacher to the schoo; and of the need to fit the child to the teacher. Many suggest there should be a. systematic study of schools before teachers are placed. Professors from Central Michigan University reported, "There are certain schools where beginners should not be placed." One com- mented that "much of the success of the first year teacher depends “Den the right location of the teacher. An understanding principal can be of great help to the teacher. The college needs to know the 8Q‘hlcols well-~to help the students select the right locations. The ccDZLZlege might also be of help to the schools in analyzing their \ 8 1Donald Smith, "Fit Teaching Methods to the Personality tructure," High School Journal, Vol. 39 (Dec., 1955). p. 167. R. L. VanderMolen, "Student Placement by means of a Flexi- Metro- 2 b3~1:ity-Rigidity Score, A Design," Teachin Core (Detroit: litan Detroit Bureau of Social Studies (November, 1963). PP. 3-6. 27 supervisory programs . "1 One of the first references to organizational climate was made in 1955 by Cornell who defined it as "a delicate blending of interpre- tations (or perceptions as social psychologists would call it) by per— sons in the organization of their Jobs or roles in relationship to others and their interpretations of the roles of others in the organi- zation."2 Some early references to organizational climate pertained spe— cifically to the educational setting, while others were concerned with the more general context of social organizations. Assumptions arising from the earliest considerations included one that the existing cli- mate in a school had important effects on the performance of the school and that no two schools have exactly the same organizational climate. Various morale checklists, Leadership Behavior Questionnaire, and the ‘CO-llege Characteristics Index probably led to the development of the \orfianizational Climate Description fiesticnnaire. Although the Provo Code3 for the analysis of teaching was de- veloped in 1961 primarily to classify teaching behavior, and the ef- fects of teaching on pupils, it also suggested that if the teacher r‘lnctions predominantly in terms of closed structure and regulations, pupils are in quite a different situation than if the controlling \ 1Central Michigan University, Reports of Visitations and An- tthlal Report of the Follow-Up Committee, l9hh-h5, Mt. Pleasant, Michi- 3‘11, (unpublished reports in the files of the University). 2Francis G. Cornell, "Socially Perceptive Administration" \Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 36 (March, 1955). P. 222. 3Provo City Schools, "Patterns of Effective Teaching," Second Pl‘Ogress Report of the Merit Study of Provo City Schools (Provo, Utah: PrOVO City Schools, 1961), p. 118. 28 acts are minimal and largely open. Thus it was recognized that teachers behaved differently under different conditions (climate) and that perhaps these two factors of behavior and climate have some bearing on learning. While there were reports about differences in schools, there was no record that anyone had suggested how to assess a school cli- mate, except by looking at supervisory programs. That there was such a thing as school climate and that it did have a bearing on teacher success was admitted. The booklet, Who's A Good Teacher, while devoted to teacher effectiveness, recognized school climate and its variations. In dis- cussing the matter of determining what the actual Job is, the book concluded that the teacher function varied from school to school, ac— c=<>:I:'1w5 University of Missouri, February 1961), 96 pp. 2Hollis Loy Chalquist, "Procedures to Facilitate the Induction andAdjustment of New Teachers in Large City School Systems" (un- 13“blished doctoral dissertation, the university of Nebraska, 1957). ‘ 30 learn', they will say, 'that it doesn't pay to do all those extra things because nobody appreciates them. All the peOple here want is for you to keep the kids quiet and teach them the 3 R's.‘ Usually the young teacher in such an environment eventually loses all his drive toward doing things differently. Soon he is a routine teacher. It is unfortunate when beginning teachers find themselves so boxed in. Almost inevitably, they will be unhappy and unsuccessful. The same book hinted that the administrator was very important in the school climate and suggested how to secure an accurate picture of him. Sometimes a few judicious questions will give an accurate picture of the type of administrator. One cannot expect to learn much by asking if the principal is democratic or autocratic, en- couraging or discouraging. It is possible, though, to inquire if curriculum committees are at work; what is done at teachers' meetings; whether there is a course of study that has to be fol- lowed; how many reports are required; if field trips can be taken; whether parent-teacher conferences are held; and whether the principal visits rooms on a schedule or upon invitation. Teachers will usually answer such questions quite frankly. Their answers will give an accurate idea» as to the way the adminis— trators Operate in their school. This suggestion is somewhat similar to the procedure in a BtUdy in New Zealand made by John Watson for the New Zealand Council for Educational Research.3 His job was to see if seventh and eighth Grade students (our junior high) in New Zealand would have a poorer, a better, or just as good an education if they were sent to a separate school called an intermediate school, or if they attended theseltwo grades (forms) in places where the two grades were attached to a pri- nary school (K—6), or if the two grades were attached to a secondary k 1'1". M. Stinnett and Albert J. Huggett, Professional Problems W, 2nd Edition (New York: The Macmillan Company, Inc., 9 P- 9 2 Ibid., p. 107. ( 3John E. Watson, Intermediate Schooling in New Zealand hggllineton: New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 196M. PP- 31 school. Before he was too far along in his research, he discovered there were many things beside school location that made a difference in the education of students. While Watson did not map school cli- mates objectively, he did classify schools as Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma, on a continuum according to answers the staff, administrators, parents and community members gave to questions in interviews--stra- tegic questions that seemed to make the difference in the kind of education the children received. He found that in all schools there was a common core. All taught the fundamental skills, the cultural and material environment of their lives, good character, worthy citizenship, industriousness, perseverance, tenacity, thoroughness, and responsibility. In describing social patterns in schools, he found these were not significant factors: (1) building, (2) type of community, (3) age and experience of teaching staff, (h) number of years school has been established, (5) intellectual calibre of pupils, (6) scholastic standards as measured by tests, (7) size of enrollment, (8) presence or absence of organizational features as clubs, P.T.A.'s, school councils. Basically he asked 12 questions, four of them about the amount of involvement teachers felt in the school, four about how teachers involved children and gave them responsibilities, four about how much the teachers knew and cared about children. The twelve di- mensions were: Extent 0f knowledg: the teachers have if the pupils they teach. Frequency of teacher-parent contacts. Frequency of school's cooperative actions with other schools and educational institutions. 32 Number of pupils to whom identifiable responsi- bilities are extended. Number of teaChers to whom responsibilities are delegated. Degree of delegation of corporate responsibilities to teachers and pupils. Incidence of cooperative actions among staff members. Number of teachers undertaking pedagogical inquiries, research, experimentation, community or professional leadership. Extent of library services: size, circulation, method of operation. Provisions for maintaining continuity in scholastic work: e.g., one class level to the next, from one year to the next, among teachers, teachers and parents, etc. Quantitative assessments of the degree of balance achieved in attention given to all subjects of the curriculum. Degree of parent and community involvement in the school's programs and organization. He found the above factors could be ranked quantitatively and hence helped to classify the organizational tone of the school. The cdiclusion Watson reached was that different kinds of schools create different conditions for learning that are significant in JUdging the quality of education provided for children. Even th°u8h he further concluded that there are two kinds of related in- fOrnation: (l) organizational, (2) psychological, that had a bearing on school cohesion, consensus, and personal interaction found among the members, still there was no clear way of ascertainins the atmos- Phere of a school except by interviewing staff members and parents until a consensus of opinion could be reached. Even then, much of the consensus would be in the form of what an interviewer could per- c91Ve. 33 The four types of schools developed from Watson's data are as follows:1 1. Schools of the first type called innovative were dis- tinguished by a uniformly high level of achievement, both individual and corporate, by good fellowship and team spirit, and by common agreement upon objectives that the school was pursuing. Each of them placed a strong emphasis upon high and broad scholastic stan- dards, and there was very little divergence between aims and daily practice. Their headmasters all firmly believed that the responsibility for administering, organizing, and improving their schools should be dele- gated as widely as possible . . . All schools in the next group, called congenial, were pleasant, frank, modest, and good-humoured. Nearly every one of them was doing very fine work in some sphere, but all of them for one reason or another, showed some unevenness in their scholastic work, or allocation of corporate responsibilities, in the sense of purpose of their teachers, or their knowledge of their pupils, or in their relationships with parents, other schools, and so on. In these schools teachers worked more as individuals than as members of a well- knit team; they tended to adopt their objectives from official sources and put them into practice somewhat unevenly. . . . In some ways this group of schools, called apathetic, showed a similar unevenness to that of the previous group, but in every case to a very much greater degree. This was not their most striking characteristic, how- ever. At all points, for all associated with them (teachers, pupils, and parents) there was evidence of bewilderment, apathy, and confusion about what they ought to be doing with their communities, other schools, the inspectorate, ex-teachers, or administrators. . . In contrast, the aims and objectives of the fourth group of schools, called autocratic, were very clear indeed. The distinguishing feature in both the pri- mary and intermediate schools of this type was that these aims were laid down rigidly by the headmaster, and that teachers or other interested parties played very little part in reviewing them or in examining their meaning cooperatively. These schools also placed a high value on scholastic standards, but limited their concern in this reSpect rather narrowly to the basic subject . . . 1 Ibid., pp. 251-257. 3h Watson, since he published his volume, admitted that his way of deciding on school climate was tedious. He thought an instrument could be developed to assess the feel or tone of a school, but that he had not given thought to such an instrument. He intimated that the "totalness" of the school, the interactions, and the psychological tone should be assessed, since the school is a "going concern."1 An instrument to map the climate of a school was developed in 1963 by Halpin and Croft2, under a grant from the Cooperative Research Program of the U. 8. Education. "Climate" was construed as the or- ganizational "personality" of the school; "personality" is to the in- dividual what "climate" is to the organization. At first the authors planned to include numerous factors such as salary schedule, attitude of parents, personality characteristics of principal and teachers, and social interactions between principal and teachers. The instrument they developed was, however, limited to elementary school climate in terms of teacher-principal relationships. Halpin and Croft described four items under principal be- havior: aloofness, production emphasis, thrust, consideration; and four items for teacher behavior: disengagement, hindrance, esprit, intimacy. Teachers' Behavior3 1. Disengagement refers to the teachers' tendency to be "not with it." This dimension describes the group which is "going through the motions", a group that is "not in gear" with respect to the task at hand. It corresponds to the more general concept of anomie as described by Durkheim. . . 1Interview with John Watson, June 13, 1963. 2Andrew'W. Halpin, and Don B. Croft, Thefigrganizational Climate 2£_§9h°°18 (Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, University of Chicago. 1963), p. 1 31bid., pp. 29-33. 35 2. Hindrance refers to the teachers' feeling that the principal burdens them with routine duties, committee demands, and other requirements which the teachers construe as unnecessary busy-work. . . 3. Esprit refers to "morale." The teachers feel that their social needs are being satisfied, and that they are, at the same time, enjoying a senses of ac- complishment in their Job. h. Intimacy refers to the teachers' enjoyment of friendly social relations with each other. . . Principal's Behavior 5. Aloofness refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized as formal and impersonal. He "goes by the book" and prefers to be guided by rules and policies rather than to deal with the teachers in an informal, face-to-face situation. . . 6. Production emphasis refers to behavior by the princi- pal which is characterized by close supervision of the staff. . . 7. Thrust refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized by his evident effort in trying to "move the organization." "Thrust" behavior is marked not by close supervision, but by the principal's attempt to motivate the teachers through the example which he per- sonally sets. . . 8. Consideration refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized by an inclination to treat the teachers "humanly", to try to do a little something extra for them in human terms. The eight dimensions or subtests were used to make a climate Profile for each school. From the profiles, six different "organiza- tional climates" were named and ranked in order from "open" to "closed", with the open climate marked by functional flexibility and the closed climate distinguished by functional rigidity- The Qpen Climate1 The Open Climate depicts a situation in which the members en- JOY extremely high Esprit. The teachers work well together with- out bickering and griping (low Disengagement). They are not \ l Ibido, pp. 60-670 36 burdened by mountains of busy work or by routine reports; the principal's policies facilitate the teachers' accomplishment of their tasks (low Hindrance). 0n the whole, the group members en- joy friendly relations with each other, but they apparently feel no need for an extremely high degree of Intimacy. The teachers obtain considerable job satisfaction, and are sufficiently moti- vated to overcome difficulties and frustrations. They possess the incentive to work things out and to keep the organization "moving." Furthermore, the teachers are proud to be associated with their school. The behavior of the principal represents an appropriate in- tegration between his own personality and the role he is required to play as principal. In this respect his behavior can be viewed as "genuine." Not only does he set an example by working hard him, self (high Thrust) but, depending upon the situation, he can either criticize the actions of teachers or can, on the other hand, go out of his way to help a teacher (high Consideration). He possesses the personal flexibility to be "genuine" whether he be required to control and direct the activities of others or be required to show compassion in satisfying the social needs of individual teachers. He has integrity in that he is "all of a piece" and therefore can function well in either situation. He is not aloof, nor are the rules and procedures which he sets up inflexible and impersonal. Nonetheless, rules and regulations are adhered to, and through them, he provides subtle direction and control for the teachers. He does not have‘to emphasize production; nor does he need to monitor the teachers' activities closely, because the teachers do, indeed, pro- duce easily and freely. Nor does he do all the work himself; he has the ability to let appropriate leadership acts emerge from the teachers (low Production Emphasis). Withal, he is in full control of the situation, and he clearly provides leadership for the staff. The Autonomous Climate The distinguishing feature of this Organizational Climate is the almost complete freedom that the principal gives to teachers to provide their own structures for interaction, as well as to find ways within the group for satisfying their social needs. . . When the teachers are together in a task-oriented situation they are "engaged"; they achieve their goals easily and quickly (low Disengagement). There are few minority pressure groups, but whatever stratification does exist among the group members does not prevent the group as a whole from working well together. .The essential point is that the teachers do work well together and do accomplish the tasks of the organization. The teachers are not "hindered" by administrative paper work, and they do not gripe about the reports that they are required to submit. The principal has set up procedures and regulations to facilitate the teachers' task. A teacher does not have to run to the principal every time he needs supplies, books, projectors, etc.; adequate controls have been established to relieve the principal as well as the teachers of these details (low Hindrance). The 37 morale of the teachers is high but not as high as in the Open Climate. The high morale probably stems largely from the social- needs satisfaction which the teachers receive. (Esprit would probably be higher if greater task accomplishment also occurred within the organization.) The principal remains aloof from the teachers, for he runs the organization in a businesslike and a rather impersonal manner (high Aloofness). His leadership style favors the establishment of procedures and regulations which provide guidelines that the teachers can follow; he does not personally check to see that things are getting done. He does not force people to produce, nor does he say that "we should be working harder." Instead, he appears satisfied to let the teachers work at their own speed; he monitors their activities very little (low Production Emphasis). On the whole, he is considerate and he attempts to satisfy the social needs of the teachers as well as most principals do (aver- age Consideration). The principal provides Thrust for the organization by setting an example and by working hard himself. He has the personal flexi- bility both to maintain control and to look out for the personal welfare of the teachers. He is genuine and flexible, but his range of administrative behavior, as compared to that of the principal in the Open Climate is somewhat restricted. The Controlled Climate The Controlled Climate is marked above everything else by a press for achievement at the expense of social-needs satisfaction. Everyone "works hard" and there is little time for friendly rela- tions with others or for deviation from established controls and directives. This climate is over-weighted toward task-achievement and away from social-needs satisfaction. Nonetheless, since morale is high (Esprit), this climate can be classified as more "Opened" than "Closed". . . The Familiar Climate The main feature of this climate is the conspicuously friendly manner of both the principal and the teachers. Social-needs satis- faction is extremely high, while, contrariwise, little is done to control or direct the group's activities toward goal achievement. . The behavioral theme of the principal is essentially, "let's all be a nice happy family"; he evidently is reluctant to be any- thing other than considerate, lest he may, in his estimation, in- jure the "happy family" feeling (high Consideration). He wants everybody to know that he, too, is one of the group, that he is in no way different from anybody else. Yet his abdication of social control is accompanied, ironically enough, by high Disengagement on the part of the group. The principal is not aloof and not impersonal and official in his manner. Few rules and.regulations are established as guides 38 to suggest to the teachers how things "should be done" (low Aloof- ness). The principal does not emphasize production; nor does he do much personally to insure that the teachers are performing their tasks correctly. No one works to full capacity, yet no one is ever "wrong"; nor are the actions of members--at least in respect to task-accomplishment-—criticized (low Production Emphasis). In short, little is done either by direct or by indirect means to evaluate or direct the activities of the teachers. However, teachers do attribute Thrust to the principal. But in this con- text, this probably means that they regard him as a "good guy" who is interested in their welfare and who "looks out for them." The Paternal Climate The Paternal Climate is characterized by the "ineffective" at- tempt of the principal to control the teachers as well as to satis- fy their social needs. In our judgment, his behavior is "non- genuine" and is perceived by the teachers as non-motivating. This climate is, of course, a Closed one. . . The principal, on the other hand, is the very opposite of aloof; he is everywhere at once, scurrying here and there, checking, moni- toring and telling peOple how to do things. In fact, he is so non- aloof that he becomes intrusive. He must know everything that is going on. He is always emphasizing all the things that should be done (Production Emphasis), but somehow nothing does get done. The principal sets up schedules, class changes, etc., personally; he does not let the teachers perform any of these activities. His view is that "Daddy knows best." The school and his duties within it are the principal's main interest in life; he derives only minimal-social-needs satisfac— tion outside his professional role. He is considerate, but his Consideration appears to be a form of seductive over-solicitousness rather than a genuine concern for the social needs of others. In a sense, he uses this Consideration behavior to satisfy his own social-needs. Although he preserves an average degree of Thrust, as evidenced by his attempts to move the organization, he nonethe- less fails to motivate the teachers, primarily because he, as a human being, does not provide an example, or an ideal, which the teachers care to emulate. The Closed Climate The Closed Climate marks a situation in which the group mem- bers obtain little satisfaction in respect to either task-achieve- ment or social-needs. In short, the principal is ineffective in directing the activities of the teachers, and at the same time, he is not inclined to look out for their personal welfare. This :limate is the most closed and the least "genuine" climate iden- fied. The teachers are disengaged and do not work well together; con- sequently, group achievement is minimal (high Disengagement). To 39 secure some sense of achievement, the major outlet for the teachers is to complete a variety of reports and to attend to a host of "house-keeping" duties. The principal does not facilitate the task accomplishment of the teachers (high Hindrance). Esprit is at a nadir, reflecting low job satisfaction in respect to both job satisfaction and social-needs satisfaction. The salient bright spot that appears to keep the teachers in the school is that they do obtain satisfaction from their friendly relations with other teachers (average Intimacy). (We would speculate that the turnover rate for teachers in this climate would be very high, un- less, of course, the teachers are too old to move readily to another job, or have been "locked into the system" by the attractiveness of a retirement system.) ' The principal is highly aloof and impersonal in controlling and directing the activities of the teachers (high Aloofness). He emphasizes production and frequently says that "we should work harder." He sets up rules and regulations about how things should be done, and these rules are usually arbitrary (high Production Emphasis). But his words are hollow, because he, himself, possesses little Thrust and he does not motivate the teachers by setting a good personal example. Essentially, what he says and what he does are two different things. For this reason, he is not "genuine" in his actions. He is not concerned with the social needs of teachers; in fact, he can be depicted as inconsiderate (low Consideration). His cry of "let's work harder" actually means, "You work harder." He expects everyone else to take the initiative, yet does not give them the freedom required to perform whatever leadership acts are necessary. Moreover, he, himself, does not provide adequate lead- ership for the group. For this reason the teachers view him as not "genuine"; indeed, they regard him as a "phony." This climate characterizes an organization for which the best prescription is radical surgery. A study somewhat related to this one was reported by Bridgesl at the University of Chicago in l96h. Bridges classified elementary 8c1=l<'301.principals as open-minded and closed-minded according to their Score on the Rokeach Defltism Scale. Then he arranged a participation B<—‘—a.:l.e, measuring the level of participation teachers in each of the 8cklcols felt they had. Bridges also measured and classified the domi- nant behavior(s) each principal exhibited. The hypothesis of the study was that open-minded principals involved teachers in decision making to a greater extent than closed-minded principals. \ In. J'Edwin M. Bridges, "Teacher Participation in Decision Making: t°t§raction of Personal and Situational Variable" (unpublished doc- rag dissertation, University of Chicago, 1961:). ho Open-minded principals, contrary to the hypothesis, did not involve teachers in decision making to a greater extent than did closedpminded principals. The level of participation within the schools was related to the size of the school and age and experience of the principal. In large schools (20-32 teachers), teachers re- ported the least amount of participation. Participation in small schools (12-19 teachers) varied, with older experienced principals involving teachers to a greater extent than any other grouping of principals. Dominant behavior was not more characteristic of closed- minded principals than open-minded principals, but was most prevalent in large schools and correlated highly, but negatively, with parti- cipation. Dogmatism of the principal was not associated with dominance (ox-participation, but to teachers' attitude toward inexperienced prin- csipals. Inexperienced principals with closed minds were viewed least favorably by teachers while inexperienced open-minded principals most :1?¢Ivorably. McGeel conducted his study in l95h, using the Fascism Scale to <5L<=flbermine the authoritarian and democratic personality of 18h teachers, ‘SU‘Vierage age 25-30, in both elementary and secondary schools. These are the variables on the F Scale with a short definition or each: Conventionalism: Rigid adherence to conventional, middle-class values. Authoritarian Submission: Submissive, uncritical at- titude toward idealized moral authorities of the in- group. \ 35‘. ' 1Henry Morrison McGee, "Measurement of Authoritarianism and Its ‘Eilation to Teachers' Classroom Behavior" (unpublished doctoral dis- §§Ji‘tation, University of California, 1951:). kl Authoritarian Aggression: Tendency to be on the lookout for, and to condemn, reject, and punish people who violate conventional values. Anti—Intraception: Opposition to the subjective, the imaginative, the tender—minded. Superstition and Stereotypy: The belief in mysti- cal determinants of the individual's fate; the dis- position to think in rigid categories. Power and "Toughness": Preoccupation with the domi- nance-submission, strong-weak, leader-follower di- mension; identification with power figures; over- emphasis upon the conventional attributes of the ego; exaggerated assertion of strength and toughness. Destructiveness and Cynicism: Generalized hostility, vilification of the human. Projectivity: The disposition to believe that wild and dangerous things go on in the world; the projec- tion outwards of unconscious emotional impulses. McGee postulated that the authoritarian teacher would tend. to use his power in a hard, cruel fashion, in humiliating ways to inflict mental pain and corporal punishments. His goal would be come jplete domination. Contempt for the weak and unsuccessful students in" the class, ranking people in rigid categories, allowing "scapegoating" 'would be other characteristics. He, himself, would submit to strong authority for security, and usually refuse to make a decision so he ‘would not have to take his share of the responsibility. To him, kind- ness would be weakness; cruelty, strength. McGee, thereupon, made a glossary and a record for observation Of Classroom behavior of these teachers. Three observers checked their Observations and glossary to see if the same behaviors were called by the same names. An analysis of the behaviors in the class- room and scores on the F Scale did not show any significant differ- ences. McGee concluded that "what a teacher says on an anonymous 1+2 questionnaire (ideology in words) and what he does (ideology in ac- tion) are essentially the same stuff. The distinction between what a person says and what he does is to be seen only as a matter of conven- ience; both are essentially behavior samples." Four other studies using the M and/or the Rokeach Dogtism _S_c£l_g similarly deal with climate and teacher personality. Andrewsl, taking the m as a measure of leadership, judged the subtest scores might be as important as the total derived score. Thus, faculty and principals of 165 schools in Alberta replied to the 9% and three rating scales: (1) How satisfied are you with all aspects of your teaching situation; (2) How effective do you consider your principal to be in performing all the various functions which he should perform? (3) Compared with other schools known to you, how good a job do you Judge your school does in educating the students who come to it? Since this instrument was used in elementary, junior high, secondary, and combined (grade 1-12) schools, the evidence supported the conclusion that the 9% is just as valid for other schools as it is for the ele- mentary schools. He found four significant variables: median grade level of school, number of teachers, years of training, and percentage 01‘ males, all in the direction toward the positive side of school cli- mate (open end of the continuum). Years of teaching experience and age did not appear to have strong relationships to climate; there was a negative relationship between years in the present schools and the subtest score on Esprit. There were significant relationship between closed climate and large schools. There was found no overall relation- Ship between the principal's personality type and climate, but a strong \ lJohn H. M. Andrews, "Some Validity Studies of the 0029." Paper gead at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, ebruary 10, 1965. h3 positive relationship between teacher satisfaction and climate (as- suming order from open to closed), especially to the subtest Esprit. Teachers' ratings of School Effectiveness correlated highly with cli- mate and subtest Esprit, but there was no indication of a relationship between climate and the School Achievement Index (how high students scored in standardized achievement test). Working on the assumption that the behavior of the principal was a key to the organizational climate of the school, Anderson1 chose to study the personalities, values, and personal and professional background of the principal in determining school climate. He, too, found significant relationships between the eight climate dimensions of the QQQQ_and personality value factors. When the schools were di- Vided into three groups (most open, middle, most closed). five of the 22 variables on the 16 PF Questionnaire and the Study of Values were found to have significant values. Principals in closed climate schools ‘were more evasive, and more submissive than principals of the other 'bwo groups. Principals in open climate schools were more confident, Imore resourceful, and.more successful in productive organizational activities than were principals in the other schools. The biographical data failed to yield significant results in- sofar as the principal's age, sex, marital status, educational back- sround, experience, and number of teachers in the school were con- cerned. However, principals in middle climate schools desired to be- come elementary school directors or superintendents. Principals in open climate schools aspired to remain in their present position. 1Donald P. Anderson, "Relationships Between Organizational Climate of Elementary Schools and Personal Variables of Principles," Paper read before the meeting of the American Educational Research mention. Chicago, Illinois, February 10, 1965. bl: Principals in open climate schools attributed their success as prin- cipals to their knowledge of elementary education; principals in closed climate schools, to their ability to get along with their sub- ordinates. A research study conducted in 81 elementary schools selected at random in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul) was reported by Brown1 as verifying the pattern of factor weights in an analysis of the m items. That types of organizational climate can be identified through this instrument was the conclusion, but it is not possible to generalize about the exact nature of the specific climates. He found that principals tended to view the school climate in a more favorable light than teachers; that there was no clear-cut pattern of perceptual differences between males and females; that younger teachers tended to feel stronger social ties with other staff members than did the older teachers, but the older ones had a generally more favorable perception of the morale. While perceptions of climate tended to change with ex- Perience (up to a point), the direction of change was more likely to be positive than negative. Urick and Frymier2 discussed a study conducted by a graduate class at Ohio State University concerning the relationship of teachers' Personality structures and their willingness or lack of willingness to consider curriculum change. Teachers willing and unwilling to C 1Robert J. Brown, "Identifying and Classifying Organizational lilllate in Twin Cities Area Elementary Schools," paper read before the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Il- linois, February 10. 1965' 2Ronald Urick and Jack R. Frymier, "Personalities, Teachers, $1915. Curriculum Change," Educational Leadership, Vol.21 (November, 63,, pp.“ 107-111. hS consider curriculum change were first identified by the principals with a series of eleven paired criteria. The teachers selected re- plied with a personal data sheet, and a questionnaire containing the DoEtism Scale, the F Scale, and the Junior Index of Motivation. Only two factors on the personal data discriminated significantly be- tween the two groups of teachers beyond the .05 level of confidence-- holding a master's degree and having children of their own-~both groups being more willing to consider curriculum change than the other comparable group. For all practical purposes no significant differences were ob- served in the way the two groups responded to the one hundred items. The authors suggested that the dynamics of curriculum change might be understood only by probing deeply into the personal factors involved in the acceptance of, or resistance to, the notion of change. Agustment and Identification Becker and Carperl studied the steps involved in becoming identified with an occupation. Philosophy, physiology and mechanical engineering graduate students were interviewed to discover the prog- ress of their particular identification with the occupation. They found four phases: (1) a knowledge and understanding of the accum- ticnal title and its ideology; (2) a knowledge of what had to be done in order to fulfill the work of the title; (3) a commitment or loyalty to 8- particular institution or organization; (h) an understanding Of the 83181'lificance for the position in a larger society. Interestingly, Philosophy students who wanted to be teachers were less clear than \ t1 ' lHoward Becker and James Carper, "The Elements of Identifica- (Jon With an Occupation," American Sociological Review, Vol. 21 “‘19: 1956), pp. 3hl-3’46. 1:6 all the others in formulating their views. While Becker had mentioned four steps in becoming identified with an occupation, Davis and Olesenl suggested that in our society a high vocational commitment stemmed from attributes such as maleness, a middle- class achievement orientation, and Potential professional They thus examined the identity problems of young girls who In the adjust- status. entered a collegiate school of nursing from college. ment situation one of the three attributes for commitment was lack- ing: maleness. First. the fact that the males (medical students) ' noticed them as "the nurse” instead of pretty or college-educated cane Second, they were in an all female milieu. Third, as a surprise. they had to assume immediate responsibility for hospital patients, which, in itself, was a kind of reality shock. The adjustment process took the form of frequent protestations to the research team concerning their sense of inadequacy about be- coming a nurse. In addition, there was the return on week-ends to the campus and a homesickness for life there. There was a group depres- sion, starting six to eight weeks after their arrival and lasting un- t 11 their return from Christmas vacation, which had all the earmarks or collective unrest, something like the initial stages of a social n‘OVement. After the group returned from Christmas vacation, most sthdents adjusted to the stress. The real question is whether adjust- ment was unidimensional, or whether there were extra-occupational im- Ddiligements which determined whether a student finished the training and practiced the profession. \ f v ‘ I) J‘Il‘red Davis and Virginia L. Olesen, "Initiation Into a Woman's grofession: Identity Problems in the Status Transition of Coed to tudent Nurse," Sociometpy , Vol. 26, Ho. 1 (March, 1963). pp. 89-101. w h? For girls there definitely are extrapoccupational impingements that help determine their commitment--home and fhmdly—-work and career -—glamour-—community service. Do nurses learn their role better from doctors and nurse edu- cators or from co-workers? Sherlockl found that nurses in psychiatric hospitals incorporated the role behavior of the custodial maintenance workers where the trainee, patient, and ward worker interacted in- tensely, creating a favorable situation for the learning of_role exp pectations, rather than the role behavior expectations expressed‘by’ the doctors, psychiatrics and nurse educators, who were in the posi- tion of authority. Webb2 found that new teachers obtained the most help fram col— leagues. On the other hand, all close-contact teachers reported sup- Flying some help to new teachers, evaluating their adjustment, and. identifying factors which aided or hindered their adjustment. They' also had definite reactions to new teachers, both positive and nega- tive. Principals had different patterns and variations of help. Pup Pils often caused difficulty of adjustment, and sometimes so did the cimmunity . Believing that persons tending to accept authority would become more involved in the group situation when the group structure L " lBasil J..Sherlock, "Role Acquisition in a State Mental Hospi- tal (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, 1962). "Mildred Minnie webb, "Factors Identified by Personnel as In- fluencing Adjustments of Teachers New to Manhasset in 1955-57= A Study Of the Teachers Employed by the Manhasset, New York, Board of Education for 1956-57 to Determine What Factors Assist or Hinder the Adjustment gr Teachers New to a School System, and to Discover Implications for mproving the Orientation of New Staff Members" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, New York University, 1960). h8 is centralized and would perform relatively more efficiently than when the group structure is decentralized, Shawl conducted his experiment with persons high and low on acceptance of authority, identified through the F Scale (Authoritarianism). The conclusion corroborated the idea that those persons high on the acceptance of authority would function better in centralized group structures, while those low on the acceph tance of authority would function better in decentralized group struc- tures. Adjustment appeared to take place in all these as a kind of "reality shock." In all instances the co-workers and colleages seemed to be the ones from whom the most significant help comes. In the words of Walter Waller: "The significant people for the school teacher » are other teachers."2 §EEEEEI The literature about problems of teachers generally relates to beginning teachers. Much of this research tells that learning build- ing routines, getting along with other teachers, establishing disci- Pline and pupil control, and knowing exactly what is expected as a teacher in the school (their role) are frustrating to any teacher new to the building. The difficulties teachers have in learning their role suggest that the conditions in each school are different, and hence it is a new learning situation in each school. These conditions 9: "personality E lMarvin Shaw, "Acceptance of Authority Group Structure, and (ffectiveness of Small Groups," Journal of Personality, Vol. 27 June, 1959), p0 1960 'W 2Willard Waller, The Sociology of Teaching_(New York: John iley & Sons, Inc., l932),p. 389. l+9 of the school" are called the climate which is mapped by the Organi- zational Climate Description Questionnaire. The personality of each teacher is different and this further complicates the adjustment of teachers. Thus, in this study, we will take this into account by use of the Dogmatism Scale. Finally, studies about adjustment to the teaching role and nursing role give some indication as to what may happen in this study of new teachers, their concerns, their satisfactions, their contact with other professionals. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Since this research is about teachers new to the building, some of them beginning teachers, and their behaviors in reference to different kinds of organizational climates of schools and to the kinds of belief-disbelief systems the teachers have, two instruments mentioned in Chapter I were chosen for the project: Organizational Climate Description Qgestionnaire and the Dogggtism.$cale. Their use, the sample of schools and teachers selected, the survey of the prob_ lem, and the hypotheses are the subject of this chapter. Organizational Climate There is a saying among educators that each “1100-1 building they enter gives them a "feeling" of the kind of school it is. Teachers often recognize this "feeling", but cannot find words to exPress it. Even lay visitors to the building notice this feeling and comment about it. To study how new teachers react in different buildings and situations, it was first necessary to find out what kinds Of schools, or what kinds of climate, each building had. The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ)1, a 5h-item survey which principals and teachers can answer in about 30 minutes, was the instrument chosen to map the (=11the 0f the \_ 1 Andrew w. Halpin and Don B. Croft, "The Organizational Cli- Mate Of Schools" (Chicago: Midwest Administration Center, University or Chicago, 1963). 13c pp. 51 elementary school. Halpin and Croft developed it in 1963 as a proJect sponsored by the United States Office of Health, Education and Val- fare. They had used 71 schools in various parts of the united States fOr its standardization, and classified each school as having predom- inantLy one of these six climates: Open, Autonomous, Controlled, Familiar, Paternal, Closed. Chosen for this project were 73 elementary schools that had had the same full-time principal for the two previous years, and whose principal and teachers were willing to participate. Each of these schools had one or more teachers new to the building. Schools had varying numbers of teachers on the staff. In the sample were all the elementary schools of one city (about 100,000 people); all the elementary schools of a suburban area near a big metropolitan center in which the school size was much Smaller (6-10 teachers from former years); about half the elementary schools in an industrial city (representing a wide range of climate schools); all the schools in a town of 25,000 people; and several con- solidated elementary schools ranging in size from 500-900 pupils. The schools from the last two groups are called the out-state schools. At the beginning of the school year the principal and the teachers who had been in the school the year before answered the School Description Questionnaire, which contained the nggnizatiopglpglimate Description Questionnaire. At the same time the teachers who were new to the building answered the Opinion Survey, which contained the Qgg:_ W The two forms were administered in whatever way the principal desired, with the understanding that the answers would not be known to the principals or any supervisory personnel. and therefore could not be used for rating purposes- 52 The School Description Questionnaipgp_were sent to the Comp puter Center at the university of Utah, where the climate for each school was classified as one of six climates: Open, Autonomous, Fa- miliar, Controlled, Paternal, or Closed. Since a continuum of schools from Open to Closed was needed, it was necessary to use three of the subtest scores: Thrust, Esprit, and Disengagement. As mentioned in Chapter II, Thrust refers to the effort of the principal to "move the organization"; Esprit to the morale of the teachers; and Disen- gagement to the teachers' tendency to be "not with it", or a more general concept of "anomie." The score was found by the following formula: Thrust + Esprit - Disengagement=0penness-Closedness Score A high score showed high openness; a low score showed low openness. Then every school was ordered according to the degree of openness it possessed. The range of scores was 8h-lS--thus from the most open to the most closed was a difference of 69 points. The median score was 56, but the mean was 61. The final selection of the schools with ap- Propriate teachers for the study was the upper 35% range of 11 points ( 81:43), and the lower 35: range of 16 points (61-15) (See Table A.2). Dogggtism As mentioned before, while the principal and the teachers from the previous year in the selected schools were answering the School Description Questionnaire, the teachers new to the building were taking the Opinion Survey, which included the Dogmgtism.Scale,l a teSt from.which could be computed the degree of openness-closedness 0f the belief-disbelief system of the teacher. \ B lMilton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind (New York: Basic 00kg, Inc. , 1960) , “48 pp. 53 The scores on the test from the 250 new teachers had a range of 110 points from 206 (most open) to 96 (most closed). The distrie bution approximated the normal curve with the median at 155 and the mean at 15h. The final selection of teachers in the appropriate schools was in the upper 35% range of hh~points (206-162), and the lower 351 range of h? points (lh3-96). The four areas from which the elementary schools were selected had 73 schools, 22 of them in the suburban district with 2h.h1 of the new teachers; 16 of these schools were in the industrial city and had hl.6% of the new teachers. Table 3.1 shows the entire distribution. TABLE 3.1 SUMMARY OF SCHOOLS AND NEW TEACHERS IN PROJECT Schools New Teachers Area Number Per Cent Number rer Cent Suburban 22 30.1 61 2m City at 32 . 9 68 27 . 2 Industrial City 16 21.9 10b 1:1 .6 Outstate _ ;_1_ 15 . 1 11 6 . 8 Total 73 100.0 250 100.0 Table 3.2 explains that the area with a large percentage of relatively open schools did not have the proportionate percentage of relatively open teachers. The industrial city with 20% of the rela- tively open schools had h9.2% of the relatively open teachers, but about one-third of the relatively closed schools and closed teachers. 0n the other hand, the city system in the project had h0$ of the open Behools with 2h.6% of the open teachers, while it had only 16.7% of the relatively closed schools with h9.l% of the relatively closed teachers. Table A.1 gives the exact numbers of schools and teachers. 5h TABLE 3.2 SUMMARY OF DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOOLS AND NEW TEACHERS IN FIRST AND FOURTH QUARTILES OF OPENNESS-CLOSEDNESS First Quartile Fourth Quartile (Relatively Open) (Relatively Closed) Area 1 Schools 1 Teachers 1 Schools 1 Teachers Suburban 25.0 2h.6 27.8 10.2 City no.0 2h.6 16.7 19.1 Industrial City 20.0 19.2 33. 3 35 .2 Outstate 1 .0 1.6 22.2 2.1 Total 100.0 . 100.0 100.0 100.0 In our survey, the relatively open and relatively closed schools were not normally distributed in each of the four geographic areas. The city system had the greatest percentage of the schools in the entire sample classed as relatively open (AOZ), and about three times more open than closed schools in its systemt Even though the over-all distribution of 250 teachers had a normal range and curve, the new teachers were not distributed equally by place. For instance, the industrial city had h9.2$ of the relatively Open teachers and only 35.2% of the relatively closed. The city had 2h.6% of the rela- tiVEIF open teachers, but h9.1% of the relatively closed. The subur- ban areas had 2h.6$ of the relatively open teachers, but only 10.2% of the relatively closed. These facts are not noted to explain any findings. Whether they have some implication as to where one might be likely to find Open and closed schools, and open and closed teachers, is not clear. §ituation Survey The Situation Survey sought to determine the wide range of experiencesthat a teacher might have had during the year. The 55 teacher was asked to rate the amount of concern he experienced with each situation in the survey. He could indicate if it had not oc- curred. For the same situation the teacher then checked what he/she did for help in resolving the problemP-whether he went to the princi- pal, to another teacher, whether he looked to see what others did and followed the same procedure, or whether he used his own judgment, or sought other help. These situations, in essence, were centered about ten main categories, dealing mostly with the adult relationships in the school and the student relationships as they impinged upon the adult feel- ings. These ten categories were named through consensus of opinion with a group of educators, mostly elementary principals, who placed them in their respective groups. The entire list of 155 items had these categories: discipline (1h), student relations (21), grading (10), classroom instruction (21), building policies (17), principal relations (11), teacher-self autonomy (15), parent relations (13), community relations (5) and other teacher relations (28). Other parts of the survey asked them to assess their degree Of satisfaction with selected aspects of the job, to tell how fre- QUently they contacted professional people to discuss their concerns, and to explain in their own words their major difficulties in the building during the year. ‘ At the end of the school year, new teachers who were still at the school were asked to answer the Situation Survgy. Of 250 new teRehers in September, 38 had moved, left the system, were ill, or were student teachers back in college. Of the remaining 212, 176 .§1tuation Survey Questionnaires were returned answered, or 83% of 56 those criginally surveyed who were still teaching. Selection of Groups Since the schools and the teachers had been ordered on the continuum of most open to most closed, the next step was to find re- latively open new teachers in relatively open and closed schools, and relatively closed new teachers in relatively open and closed schools. The first decision was to use people and schools in the upper and lower quartiles, but that did not give us enough new teachers of the right classification for the study. Using the schools in the 'Upper and lower 35% bracket with most open and most closed teachers in the upper and lower 35% bracket yielded 18 people in each quadrant. IInformation from teachers whose scores fell in the middle bracket was not used, or from high and low scoring teachers in schools scoring in the middle brackets of the QQQQ. Table A.2 shows the rank and score of the schools in the con- ‘tinuum from most open to most closed with the scores on the open- ‘closed scale of new teachers in the school placed into the three categories--most open, middle, most closed. Starred are the teachers Chosen for the study. Of the schools chosen there was a difference <>f'15 points on the QQQQ_between the open climate and closed climate lschools, slightly more than the middle 30%. 0f the teachers chosen 1Zhe difference in scores on the ngmatism Scale (162-1h3) was 19 POints between the relatively closed and relatively open teachers, representing the middle 30%. Table A.3 shows the number of return- 1:13 and new teachers, and sex of the principal in reference to the rank order of schools on the OCQQ continuum. 57 We selected 18 new teachers with relatively "Open" minds, as measured on the Rokeach Dp_gm_atism Scale, who were in relatively "Open-"a schools, as measured by the 99%.: hereafter called "Open-Open"; 18. . new teachers with relatively "Closed" minds, as measured on the R0- - keach Mtism Scale, who were in relatively "Open" schools as mea— sured by the 9%, hereafter called "Open-Closed"; 18 new teachers.) with relatively "Open" minds in relatively "Closed" schools, hereafter called "Closed-Open"; and 18 new teachers with relatively "Closed" minds, who were in schools with relatively "Closed" scores on the OCQQ, hereafter called "Closed-Closed." _O_r_ga_nizipg the Material from the Situation Surveys The Situation Surveys for these 72 teachers were then studied. The«first part regarding the degree of concern the teacher exper- ' . ienced in the situation was checked for each of ten categories. The sum of their answers on the four point scale was divided by the number of situations that occurred in order to get anaverage to two decimal places, giving three digits to use in the Computer program. (If the teacher marked "5" [the situation did not occur] the item was not con- Sidered in figuring the average.) For example, Teacher Number 10 (Open-Open) in the Classroom Instruction Group, had a sum of 56 with 20 situations, one not occur- ring. The average was 1.80, the number used as the level of concern. The same procedure was followed for each category and for each teacher. Counted next in each category were the number of times the new teacher sought out the principal and other teachers, observed others in order to find out what to do, or used his own judgment about the 81‘t‘ouation. This information was analyzed by the Chi Square Test for 58 significance, using the number of people who used each procedure two or more times. In case the teacher used another resource not men- tioned as one of the four, the name was recorded in tie space marked "other". . 0n the Job Satisfaction, each aspect was coded as l, 2, 3, h, with one being Very Unsatisfactory and four Very Satisfactory. The frequency the new teacher used in discussing his/her pro- fessional concerns with the principal, other administrative leaders, teacher of same grade in building, teacher in another building or sys- tem, was coded as h--Dai1y, 3--Frequent1y, 2--Occasionally, l--Rare1y. The other comments on the paper, while they were not coded, loave been used as supportive evidence, in order to help people under- stand.what seems to be the problems of new teachers, as the comment: 'lAll offered me advice, and it was all different." IRationale IThe literature reviewed in Chapter II indicated that people ‘with closed belief-disbelief systems believed and acted in different Vays fran those with open belief-disbelief systems. It also indi- <2ated that elementary schools with predominantly closed organiza- 1tional climates would have different teacher and principal behavior, iirom those with predominantly closed climates. It was theorized then that teachers with closed belief-dis- '1>elief systems would tend to rely, without question, on authority, ‘31mch as a principal, or a policy book. They would be likely to ac- <=€npt or reject other teachers depending upon their agreement or dis- aegreement with their own belief-disbelief system, and hence would have £3<3m|er"close buddies", maybe belong to cliques, in the building. It S9 was felt that the need for this association with people of similar systems might go'beyond the school building. Since these teachers would have excessive concern for power and status, they would be sure that everyone, including other teachers and especially children, recognized this prestige and gave due respect. They would tend to be more concerned about their identity as an individual, feeling that the world was unfriendly and likely to be "pushing them around." They might hesitate to go to the principal with a 1331 problem, as constituting a threat. They would more likely go to another teacher, with a similar belief-disbelief system. In their need to ward off threats, they would hesitate to make comments that would suggest dif- ficulties or problems, especially those that would stem from their own actions, being more willing to blame others rather than look with- in themselves. In this sense, they would feel more at home with "things" than with people. The teachers with the open belief-disbe- lief systems would act in the opposite manner from those with the closed systems. Regarding the organizational climates, it was theorized that in predominantly closed climate schools, teachers would have low morale (Esprit) toward their job, not being very satisfied with sev- eral aspects of it, with very little sense of achievement and enjoy- ment. They would also be likely to be somewhat aloof from the en- thusiasm for teaching and for children, merely going through the mo- tions of the instructional process, leaving it up to the children to learn or not to learn. They would look to the principal as not very heILpful, as giving them too much busy work. In the faculty there wO‘uld be little good comradeship except among members of the clique. There might be bickering whenever the group wanted to do something 60 together. As for the principal, he would be thought as very formal and impersonal, with very precise rules and policies, with little humanity and consideration for others. He would ask teachers to work harder, but would not set a good personal example himself. In these schools teachers might tend to feel that there was unfairness, so far as the principal was concerned. Not knowing and abiding by the rules would be a major infraction. The elements in the ranking of schools for closedness were three: morale of the teachers low, thrust of the principal low, and disengagement of the teachers (like anomie) high. In predominantly open climate schools, the actions of teachers would be the opposite. Nothing was found in the reviewed literature about any inter- action between the organizational climate of the schools and the dog- Imatism of the teachers. However, the conjecture was that a closed climate might reinforce high dogmatism, or, as of opposites, a closed (climate counteract low dogmatism. In this manner, probably closed people in closed climates would be better satisfied than closed people :in open climates, and likewise open teachers in open schools would GEXpress the most satisfaction and be the least concerned, because of the interaction between the two factors. .Hzpotheses From the preceding rationale and the questions in Chapter I, 1the following major hypotheses were built: Al Null Hypothesis: No differences will be found among the four groups of new teachers (00, 0C, C0, CC) in the level of their concern in the selected as- pects of teaching. Alternate Hypothesis: The relatively closed groups of teachers (0C, CC) will show higher 61 A2 Null Hypothesis: Alternate Hypothesis: A3 Null Hypothesis: Alternate Hypothesis: Ah Null Hypothesis: Alternate Hypothesis: levels of concern in the selected aspects of teaching than the rela- tively open groups (00, CO). No differences will be found among the four groups of new teachers (00, OC, C0, CC) in the degree of satisfaction expressed on selected aspects of teaching. The new teachers in the relatively open climate schools (00, CO) will express greater satisfaction with selected aspects of teaching than those in relatively closed schools (OC, CC). No differences will be found among the four groups of new teachers (00, OC, CO, CC) in the frequency of contact with professional people to discuss their concern. The open school open teacher group of new teachers (00) will have the least frequent contacts with pro- fessional people to discuss their concerns. , No interaction will be found be- tween the factor of organizational climate and the factor of dogmatism when the levels of concern, the degree of satisfaction expressed, and the frequency of contact with professional people to discuss their concerns are considered in reference to the four groups of new teachers (00, OC, CO, CC). The closed-closed (CC) group and the open-open (00) group of new teachers will express higher de- grees of satisfaction than the other two groups (0C, CO). From the literature reviewed, and from questions 5 and 6 in chapter 1, the following two null hypotheses were built. The results will be reported in Chapters V and VI, not in the form of alternate Illurlpotheses, but in seeing which areas prove to have significant dif- ilr‘elrences in relation to the variables and sources of help. 62 B1 Null Hypothesis: No differences will be found in the levels of concern, degree of satis- faction expressed with selected aspects of teaching, and frequency of contact with professional people to discuss their concerns among the various groups of new teachers when they are classified by (1) sex, (2) age, (3) training, (h) teaching experience, (5) experience in the same system, (6) size of school, '(7) number of new teachers in the building. C Null Hypothesis: No differences will be found among ' the four groups of new teachers (00, OC, CO, CC) in the number of times the problems in the concerns of teaching are resolved by (1) ask- ing the principal, (2) asking other teachers, (3) observing others, (h) using own judgment. Hypotheses B1 and C1 are not major to the study, but the in- :fbrmation gained from these analyses may add some additicnal informa- 1hion to the study of new teachers, or corroborate what has been found in previous research . Annglysis All the information about new teachers--age, sex, training, 1beaching experience, previous experience in same system, size of school, number of new teachers, type of school (open or closed), type Of person (open or closed)--was coded and put on IBM cards, along ‘flfilth the coded material from the Situgtion Surveys. All the information about the level of concerns, satisfaction, Eilld.frequency of contact with personnel to discuss professional con— <3€Erns was analyzed by the two factorial analysis of variance by the Fortran Computer, using the program FACRAP, for the factors of climate, ‘<1<3£;matism, and their interaction among the four groups of teachers. The data cards for the 72 teachers were then used for the 63 computer program @9331, a one-way analysis of variance with unequal N's, which showed the differences of the means among the new teachers when they were grouped as to sex; age; teaching experience; exper- ience; experience in the same system; size of school (number of teachers returning to school from 1962-63); and the number of new teachers in the building in relation to the level of concern, job satisfaction, and frequency of contact with other professional per- sons. This program also computed the F statistic, which showed the degree of relationship from which significance was recognized. The Chi Square Test was used in analyzing the choice of helps, in the cells the number of teachers from each group (00, 0C, C0, CC) ‘that had used this particular help two or more times, such as asking ‘the principal. Some instances had so few numbers in each cell that 1bhe Table of Critical Values of D (or C) in the Fisher test was used. Since this is an exploratory project, the information such as problems, comments, advice, have not been analyzed statistically. lunch of it has been recorded; the frequency of a particular response <3r attitude counted. Chapter VII presents a summary of the comments. The level of significance chosen for this study was .05, mean- :izlg that there would be only five cases out of every 100 in which such *3. set of differences would occur by chance. Significance was recog- nized by the value of the F Statistic. The conclusions reached from this study are in no sense for the whole population of elementary schools and new teachers, but hold true only for the particular sample which is identified in the work. \ 1Table of Critical Values of D (or C) in the Fisher Test, £i"asapted from D. J. Finney, 19h8. The Fisher-Yates Test of Significance jill the 2x2 Contingency Tables, Biometrika, 35, pp. 1h9—15h. 6h stain-am The Qgganizational Climate Description Questionna_i_r_e_ (9%) was used to identify the climate of 73 elementary schools at the be- ginning of'the 1963-6h school year. The Rokeach Dowtism Scale was used to designate the degree of openness of the belief-disbelief sys- tem of the teachers new to these buildings. . I From the relatively open climate schools were selected 18 new teachers with relatively open minds, 18 with relatively closed minds. From the relatively closed 'climate schools were selected 18 new teachers with relatively open minds and 18 with relatively closed minds, giving a total of 72. In May, the new teachers answered a Situation Survey in which they expressed their concern about situations from ten categories (discipline, teacher-student relations, grading, classroom instruc- tion, building policies, teacher-principal relations, teacher-self- autonomy, teacher-parent relations, teacher-community relations, teacher-teacher relations); the help they chose when they needed it; their satisfactions about selected aspects of their job; how often they discussed their concerns with other professional people; and their assessment, in their own words, of the advice they received and the problems they encountered. The information from the four groups of teachers was analyzed by the two factorial analysis of variance to find significant differ- enoes among the four groups of new teachers for the factor of school climate and/or dogmatism, and/or the interaction between the two fac- tors in levels of concerns, satisfactions and frequency of contact with professional people to discuss their concerns. The variables of sex, age, training, teaching experience, 65 previous experience in the system, size of school and the number of new teachers in the building were used in a one-way analysis of var- iance to find the differences in means among each grouping in rela— tion to their level of concern, satisfactions and frequency of con- tact with professional people to discuss their concerns. The differences among the four groups as to their selection of help in their problems were studied by Chi Square. .Finally, their comments concerning the advice offered and their problems were studied, but not analyzed statistically. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION Since this study is mainly about new teachers (teachers new to the building), their concerns, satisfactions and frequency of con- tact with professional people in relation to (l) the organizational climate of the school, (2) the dogmatism of new teachers, and (3) the interaction of the two factors, these results are considered first. Chapter III reported how the 72 new teachers were chosen, 18 in each group: open school-Open teacher, called Open-open (00); open school-closed teacher, called open-closed (OC); closed school-open teacher, called closed-open (CO); closed school-closed teacher, called closed-closed (CC). These are the four different groups of new ‘beachers mentioned throughout this chapter. RESULTS Evels of Concern The null hypothesis first to be tested by the two-ray analy— EBis of variance is the following, called Al in Chapter III: No dif- ferences will be found among the four groups of new teachers (00, 0C, (3(3, CC) in the level of their concern in selected aspects of teaching. The 72 new teachers reported their concern about each cate- £§<>ry and ranked discipline, teacher-student relationships, and grading as the three items of greatest concern to them. Table 11.1 shows the I3‘J.'5I-1r11<'.order of importance for the ten areas. This order will be used 66 in presenting the results throughout the study. 67 high concern. TABLE h.l A low score means RANK ORDER OF CONCERNS OF NEW TEACHERS IN SAMPLE Categpries of Concern in Order 1. 2. 3. ommdmmz’ Discipline Teacher-Student Relationships Grading Classroom Instruction Building Policies Teacher-Principal Relationship Teacher-Self Autonomy Teacher-Parent Relationship Teacher-Community Relationship Teacher-Teacher Relationship h--Not at all concerned 3--Mildly concerned 2-cSDmewhat concerned l--Greatly concerned Mean Scores 2.206 2.386 2.h10 2.6h9 2.77h 2.803 2.932 2.95M 3.06h 3-095 Table h.l also shows that the average level of concern for discipline of all 72 teachers was 2.206, between somewhat concerned and mildly concerned. Discipline was ranked as the first concern, ‘while the teacher-teacher relationship rated as the least concern. Significance is mentioned at the .05 level and at the .01 .level by * and ** respectively, taking 2.7h as the F statistic for ‘the .05 level, three degrees of freedom between 68 within, and h.08 Ems the F statistic for .01.1 Table h.2 shows that none of the areas of concern was sig- nificant when the factor of school climate was considered, but six or the ten concerns were significant in relation to the dogmatism <31? the new teachers. ‘ Book Co., Inc., New York, 1 Furthermore, the means of each group, as well J. P. Guilford, Psychomepric Methods (New York: McGraw Hill 68 m0. m0. Ho. Ho. Ho. Ho. mam.m wmm.m mow.m moa.m so .msm .m.z ooo.m Has.m mmm.m oam.m .m.z .m.z mem.m oam.m wmo.m mma.m .m.z .m.z Hem.m amm.m wao.m was.m an .wam .m.z ome.m «mm.w mam.m mma.m an .wsm .m.z mm:.m meo.m mmm.m maa.m .m.z .m.z mmm.m mmm.m mmm.m mmm.m .m.z .m.z «mm.m eme.m awm.m mae.m an .mam .m.z oma.m mum.m emm.m mmm.~ so .msm .m.z mas.m mms.m mum.m mmm.m so .mam .m.z amo.m mom.m mao.m mas.m msuz wane mane mane snspmmmon cansaao owpmfipdpm h mnonodoe womoao whoaomoa mono mHoonom comoao maoonom comoao masseuse oomoao mHoonom some Anhoodoo coca oopcosods onoon sassy owoao>< uaowpdaom sonoooaluonosua msoaaoaom hpwnsaaooanoaodos anowvdHom pauscmlaonosua haon0p94 uaomluonosoa msoapaaom Homfioswumnaonodoa mowowaom mswcHHsm soaposnpmnH soounnoao msaodso msoapsdom psousvmlaonosoa oswdmwomwn mausoooa comm maoo30m some mmbomo geomomimmmomq z<fiz mo mmnmo 224m N.: mqm.m oom.m .m.z mme.m Ham.m mm».m Ham.m .m.z mmm.m mmm.m mee.m :::.m .m.z Ham.m mam.m mmm.m mm».m .m.z Ham.m wmm.m omm.m mam.m .m.z mmm.m mmm.m emm.m mom.m .m.z mem.m ema.m Ham.m wem.m .m.z mam.m Has.m mmm.m ss:.m on .msm mmm.m mow.m mam.m mew.m an .wsm ooo.m ewa.m mmm.m cem.m so .wsm ooo.m awa.m mmm.m mom.m .m.z mmo.m ooo.m amH.m oam.m .m.z mwm.m ooo.m mmm.m asa.m .m.z mmm.m mmo.m Haa.m Haa.m .m.z Has.m mmw.m ooo.m HHH.m .m.z mmm.m mom.m ssm.m ema.m no .msm mmm.m Ham.m mma.m mma.m .m.z has.m oom.m mmm.m ma».w mane mane cane cane cannapopm a opmawao masseuse oomoao mHoonom some Amofiuommepsm nonmoaw undue osoom nmwmv ommao>< covsnfiuonwo can moansp moan: an“: sunshade nuances» sumac up“: uncapoaom sensuous span nnowooaom maopoupmaswavc saw: mnowpsaom “humans pmooxov scapfimom msoHusHuu.psoasm muapwawnamnommoa weanodoplsoz sawmabhoasm mo hoosdoc< humans mswosaonfl .sowpwmom nofiuw>uum5m no noosasmaaom wood wdwnomoa masocspu an aroma pmouowsH canvases spsdssaoo «soapfiosoo wnwmaoz wcwcstp Hoonom no hooddoo< cognac no paces mafia coasaaooaa mowaqnsm «o homomoc< no.2. honpo on uossmaoo inflow muonomoa some msonosoe comoao masseuse comm maoosom womoao mHoosom cocoao mHoonom mono meomc doomomlmmmodma mach mma am qumo.m omm.m mnuz mduz nausea mwauo>< odds omauo>< me.m eme.m sow.m hmm.m mwm.m mwm.m mwm.m mo:.m mmm.m mhm.m :mm.m 0mm.m ~mm.m mmH.m mmo.m Nzo.m wmo.m wmm.m :am.m mmm.m mmuz ado: owauu>< m.m mumda knapodumapauaa huo>rra knapoammwpmmaa haufiamrrm knapoaumupau hauaamrlm hhopoauuwpau hya>rlz uwauo>a Havos cupanfiupmwo one mowpsc Sofia: new? mmoahwam nuances» manna an“: maofipaaum «pacespm so“: maofieaaam asapaupmaafiaoa new: maoHpaHum humane annexe .aoflpwmom ma0apaauu vacuum mowpwafipfimaommau magnoauplaoz aofima>homam Mo hoaaaoc< humane wawcadoaw .aoHpHmom aowmw>uumam ho mmoaashnaum caoa waflaaaue mpaooapm hp ozone pmauopaH meanness spfieaaaoo euhagfioo maowpwcaoo mawxaos wafioawsp Hoonom muwpac no pangs uawa oeeaaaemee paoaawawo cad mowamgam anon scene has: eeaeaaoe sesame Hmomupao xmm Mm mZOHBU00.m 000.m hmm.m mmm.m hww.m hwm.m mmm.m >00.m muz NWIOW H0.: u H0. mv.m u mo. bm>.m 000.: 000.: bhm.m 000.: hwm.m 000.: 000.: 000.: mmm.m 000.: 000.: ~00.m ~00.m 000.: 000.: mmm.m mmm.m mmm.m 000.m muz were: .Mwm .wwm mam.m mum.m mp0.m www.m 000.m mmw.m mmm.m mam.m 00H.m mam.m mNH.m wwH.m mbm.m 0mm.m mmm.m 0mm.m 0mm.m m00.m mH0.N ma0.N film mmm.m owm.m 0:0.m 0:0.m o:m.m 0mm.m 0mm.m 00m.m 0mm.m 0:N.m 00m.m 0NN.m 0:H.m 000.m 000.m 000.m 000.m 000.0 o:m.m m~:.m omuz 0m 09 MD P.m mqmda hhovoammwpama: huo>lrd unavoaumwpmmaa hdhaahlrm huouoammwpam hauwamrrm hhovoaumfipam hhu>lr: umauu>< unease ho unmanaam anemone» nonpolmao«vaaum mpcucSpmrmaoHpaHum maopaupmacwsuarmaofipdaom Ahaoadm pmooxuv aofipamom unawpaaou vacuum mawpwflfinfimaommou wafimoaopraoz aowmw>hoaam mo hoaauou< Ahaaaam waweaaoawv aowpwmom aowmwbuonsu ho mmuaaahmaom eaoa weanoaua mpaueopm hp chasm amouopaH oversees seaaaaaoo panamaoo meowaweaou wawxaoz wafieawsn Hoomom unease so made easaaaeaen pcasnwaoa can mowamgsm cohamaoo hyaaam Hmomavau mZOHBD ho mz.N Hmh.m mva.m mom.m w:N.m mmm.m mvw.m hmH.m :m0.m Hm0.m m:0.m 0mm.m mmm.N :Hm.m 0mm.m mom.m mm:.m mom.m MNN.N 0H:.N Hmw.d HHO.N Nauz Puz macaw :Im whoa» mum coahooaoo hapauuorra coauaoaoo pansaaomrrm coauooaoo haeawzrlm euaaooaoo Add as pozrl: omaao>< unawpaaoa nonuaopruunoaoa meowpaaou hpfiaaaaooruonoaoa maoHoaHoa pauuamlhanoaoe SacaOpna maomraunodua uaowvadua Hamwoawaaruomoaoa maaofiaom wageawsm aofiuosupnaw aooummaao mawoauo maowpaauu paucapmraunuaaa oaHHmwomwn Hmomupao mammvzoo 09 20HB ho mz00.m mmm.m mmm.m mm0.m emm.m emm.m emw.m mom.m mmm.m mwm.m oom.m Hmm.m Fma.m sam.m mmm.m Pam.m vmm.m :Pa.m mmm.m mma.m mmm.m 0mm.m oom.m oma.m ooo.m moa.m oom.m mam.m ooo.m m:o.m mmw.m mwo.m mmm.m ~:m.m mmm.m mme.m M12 were endow m mama» : HH.m mqmrla knapoaMuwpamas hauwahurm asapoaumwaaa hauwamrrm knapoauaapan hhu>rr: 0mH.m hem.m owano>< PH:.m Hem.m mowpac no amuauwah m0m.m >m0.m mascara» aonvorrmaofipadom >00.m arm.m mpaacaparrmanumHam 00m.m Hem.m maopahpmficfiaoarlmaowpaaum 0mm.m :Hr.m “haaaam pmuoxov anpHmom wa:.m :H>.m maowpaamh pauumm FH:.m 00m.m mufipwafipwmaoamou wafisoaopraoz oom.m >m0.m aofimwbhogaa mo hoaavoc< m00.m mm:.m Ahhaaam wawvsdoawv aowpfimom 00m.m ~m0.m coamfi>humam mo macadammaom NH:.m 0N:.m caoa mawnoaoa ooo.m ooo.m accesses an aeoea eaoaupeH >00.m mm:.m caspwppu apfiasaaoo ooo.m m:a.m voyageoo maoavficaoo wafimuoz Pam.m :Hr.m wawuawap Hoosom omp.m wmm.m «sauna ao «awe 00m.m m:H.m oaHHQHomHQ om~.m mm:.m moaannsm 0mm.m mm:.m caucuses huaadm NH": huz mama» :Im when» WHM Hmomupao mon80 ho mzw.0 0mm.0 mmw.H PH:.0 mom.0 www.0 0m0.m Nana muse» :Im mmm.0 000.0 00:.0 m:H.0 000.m m:H.m buz mane» mn0 hduaamlra haaaaowmaooorr0 hapaoadouhrrm aaaceaue ummuu>< amused u>Hpanpchwaca sumac mmawcawsp uunpoaa Managua Hanwoawhm mawcaaan mean .ucaum nonpoaa hunoaoe wawcawap.uaam .ocdam mean honoree Nmomupao mammozoo mHmmB mmDUmHQ OB Bo ho mzuua . huopoammwuamaa hauwahrrm asapoaumauau haufiamrrm knapoaumwpam hhu>rr: 0 e00.m 0m».m mmm.m mea.m seaweeaaa an“: puapcoo no hoauadoah at mmm.a 0mw.a mmw.a 000.0 needed o>fipaupmfiafiaca new; poauaoo no hoaoduoum ** e0H.m eam.m 000.m e00.m eoaaaeaoase Mo 00050000 new: aofipoammfipam a ~00.0 :ea.m 00m.m ~m0.m aowmw>homsm no aeeeaaueace eve: eoeeeeeaepem a .muz w:uz . 0Huz wuz maaunlw when» : when» :Im macaw ma0 “Momupmo UZHZH ho mz<fiz mH.m mum<9 awanu>< 0ao0paaun honoaopluonuuoa 0aO0paHau 000a:EEOoruo:oaua mao0vaaou pauhdmlaonoaue hsoaopau ruauuraonudoa 0ao000H00 Ham0oa000rhunoaua 00000000 00000000 aowpoaupm ra0 aooaunoao 0:00000 0a00eaauu vaouapmruonoaoa 0000006000 Nmouopdo 110 no. mo. 0m0.m 000.: ooo.m 000.: ooo.m 000.: 000.: 000.: 000.: 000.: 000.: 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.; 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 Hum 00 0000 000.0 000.: 000.: oom.m oom.m 000.: 000.: 000.: oom.m 000.: oom.m oom.m 000.0 000.0 000.0 cow.m 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 Nuz .000 00000 wH.m mnmIIH 0000000000000: 000000|Im 000000000900 00000mlum 000000000000 00o>ulz m0o.m Hmm.m Hmm.m 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 mmm.m mrw.m mma.m mmo.m ooo.m 00m.m 00m.m :Hw.w 00m.m mmm.m mmuz .0» H mozmHmmmNM mDon<> ho mz<fiz mmd0o>< 000050 00 00000000 00000000 00:90:00000000m 00000500300009000m .uwac00050 00 0000H90900m uaoa 00000009 .0990 09 03000 .aqH 00000000 000000500 .9800 .0000 0000003 00000000 000000 000000 no 0509 0000000000 000Hnmsm 00000000 000000 Hmouupdo lll oom.H ooo.H ooo.H 000.: ooo.H ooo.H Huz .mfim om hvbo mm.m u do. an .mHm mo.m u no. nu .mflm aaouumuua haaanHmdooolnw hdpnosdmumlnm hawuonu: oom.m 00m.m ooo.m oom.m oow.m mvm.m oom.m mm:.m owwuo>< ooo.w omm.a mad.a ooo.H oom.m www.a ooo.H m:>.d uucuoa o>fiv naupmanfiaod guano 00m.m ooo.m arm.a ooo.m om~.H mow.a ooo.H mmm.m waacafisn uonuoqd honodma oom.m ooo.m www.m 000.: 0mm.m Pmm.m ooo.m mmm.m Humwonwnm 00m.w om>.w :HP.N ooo.m ooo.m w~>.m 000.: th.m wqficawsn mama . madam nonvond nanodua 00m.m 00m.m www.w ooo.m oom.m Pmm.m 000.: mmm.m mnwcawsp uaum .ucduw mad» honodua muz .wmz huz Huz Ava mnz Huz mauz .mu» omuam .mu» ONIHH .mh» oauw .mhw n .mu» : .muw m .muw N .u» H huowmpdo mammozoo mHmmB mmDomHn OB mqmomm A ho mz< 00>.H omn.m oom.m oa>.m mmm.m baw.m omw.m :ma.m mooHvdHou genomes A.nopnmaoo no mnOap suck on mapfimmome «so many coma uncommon mooapmavwm on honouop an“: hhowopso msov loamy hpwqqaaoo omm.m omw.m mmm.m oom.m mH:.m h:m.N mom.m mmm.m msoflgsaon vacuum oom.a omw.m om:.m mmm.m ora.m mm>.m MHm.m >wm.m haoo0padluaom omm.a o»w.m mHH.N mrm.m. mmm.m om:.m omm.m mmw.m unofieda no» Hanaoofium abh.m 0mm.m .omm.m o::.m mmm.m owm.m mH:.m Hwb.m mcwoaaon mdwudwsm orm.a 0mm.m m»:.m 00:.m omm.m mrw.m mma.m www.m nowvosuvm . low aooumndao ooo.m ooo.m mum.H mm:.m oom.m mmm.m mma.m me.m wawuouo omH.H omm.m o:~.a mww.m om>.w bwm.m omm.m omm.m udprmHou poocspm oom.H omo.m mom.a omm.m m»o.m mmm.m mum.m N:H.N unwamwomwn Huz ouz Huz muz mnz Nuz mun an: hmuz .muw omuam .mn» ONIHH .mp» oauw .mh» ml: .mhw m .muw N .u» H .wh» o “Homopoo mammozoo OB onadqmm 2H Emamwm Hz ho mz<fiz mH.m mumm~.m mmN.m mmN.m >::.m 000.: ooo.: ooo.: 000.: ooo.m ooo.s oom.m oom.m 000.: ooo.s oom.m ooo.s ooo.m ooo.m oom.m 000.: ooo.s ooo.s ooo.s oom.m 000.: 000.: cem.m 000.: 000.: ooo.m 000.: oom.m 000.: ooo.m ooo.m oom.m 000.: 000.: cem.m oom.m no. 000.: ooo.a oom.m oom.m ooo.m ooo.m ooo.m oom.m 000.: ooo.m con.m 000.: ooo.m ooo.s oOm.m ooo.m ooo.: ooo.m oom.m ooo.m ooo.m ooo.m ooo.m 000.: 000.: ooo.m cam.m oom.m 000.: ooo.m ooo.m oom.m no. 000.: ooo.m ooo.m ooo.m ooo.; ooo.m ooo.m ooo.m Hue ouz an: muz muz \wmem om ssso .ss» omuflm .ss» omuaa .ms» oaum .sswlwr; HHN.m oom.N 000.: oom.m 000.: 00m.m oom.m ooo.N ooo.m oom.N ooo.m ooo.N oom.m oom.N ooo.N ooo.N oom.N oom.N ooo.H oom.a Nuz .mhfi M huoaodmuwpamns huo>IIH hAOpodmmwpdma: hauwdhllN hAOpoommHunm hauwomllm knapodMqudu Aho>lna mmduo>< mowpscnmmoahfidh nuances» nonpOImsowpsHom .uapmlmooHeaHom .ac mo wz.m amm.m www.m omr.m m:w.m www.m omr.m Hmm.m Pom.m om>.m mNm.m mmm.m omN.m arm.m www.m oom.m hmm.m omh.m hmm.m oom.m wNN.m mmm.m omh.m HmN.m Pmm.m oom.m mwN.m hmm.m omN.m oma.m hww.m oom.m Oho.m Pom.m om>.m wHo.m hmm.m omN.m mmo.m Pmm.m omb.m Nwm.N Pmm.m ooo.m mam.N mmm.m om>.m ram.N mmm.m omN.m mNm.N muz :uz hmuz .mhw N .h» H .mh» o Ahudadm .ooHV oofipwmom sawmw>n095m no muocasMQHom cmoa moanodoa upoouopm hp .593 page 2H ouspwppm .aaoo couogaoo .caoo mdwxhoz mofiuawsp Hoosom weapon no mafia ossamsosea mowamgam coudgaoo hhdamm Hmomovdu 116 mo.m a Ho. .mem oa.~ u no. .mem haoudmula haddoOwndooousN handmadouhlnm haesauu: OON.N oom.N ooo.N oo:.N ooa.m mwN.m 0mm.a Hw:.N owduu>< ooo.H ooo.N ooo.a ooo.H oom.N www.N ooo.a mab.a hooded o>apcup Inwdfifidd yonpo ooo.a ooo.N 00m.a ooo.N 00m.N mmm.m ooo.H mNH.N woficdwzp someone nuances 000.: ooo.N oom.N ooo.m ooo.m mmm.m Omb.a wa.N Hdnfiosflhm mo. ooo.H 000.: oom.N oom.N 000.: mmm.m 00m.a mmm.N mawvaaun 28m . modem nonposd assumes no. 000.: 000.: oom.N oom.m oom.m bmm.m oom.a mom.N moauafisp can» .oumum case Museums Huz 0mm Huz Nuz Nuz Nazi muz :uz hmuz swam om um>o .mu» omnaN .mu» ONIHH .wu» oanm .mn» ml: .mu» m .muw N .9» H .mu» 0 “Homoeuo mzmmozoo mHmmB mmDomHn OB BO ho mzo Nw.m u Ho. .mwm Hm.N u no. .wwm mwm.N mmw.N mmd.m ooo.m mow.N mvw.N NmH.m me.N Nom.N ®HQ.N Nmm.N mmm.N aow.N mm>.N :mm.N me.N Nm:.N hm:.N mmH.N Nam.N OPQ.H ham.N oauz Nana WNION ONIwH whonodoe m:m.m mON.m waN.m wNo.m mmo.m New.N arw.N :mP.N Hmm.N WNm.N NwN.N vauz WHIHH F:P.N HHH.m mON.m mow.N ohm.N 0mm.N mm>.N mmm.N th.N w::.N mam.N HNuz OHIm mammozoo OB 20Ha ho mzo mm.m u Ho. .mam Hm.~ u mo. .mem wwm.m oom.m oom.m oom.m ooo.m oom.m oom.m oom.m oom.m ooo.m ooa.m oom.N oow.N oom.N 00:.N oom.N 00>.N 00:.N OOH.N oom.a oauz WNIHN Nom.m ham.m oom.m PH:.M mmm.m mmw.m bH:.m www.m Pwm.m mmm.m mmm.m OmN.m mmm.m OmN.m omN.m ooo.m ooo.m hwa.m moo.m 0m>.N NHuz ONImH nauseous NvN.m wo~.m Nmm.m wo~.m mNm.m H~:.m mNm.m mmm.m mmN.m :mN.m mmo.m mMN.m mMN.m ooo.m mmo.m amN.m Nmm.N waa.m mHH.m HP:.N hauz wHIHH Ham.m :H~.m MNm.m mom.m arm.m :Hr.m :H>.m mQN.m omH.m me.m moo.m aN:.m msa.m oma.m mzo.m oaH.m mmo.m omH.m m:o.m oaw.N HNuz OHIm mZOHBolla knaposuuapsmo: hauwdhluN Ahovouumwudm hanadhllm knapoduuwvdu huo>ula omduo>< nowpbc Mo mucouwdm nuances» uonvouuoONpmHom upoocopnlquNQuHom uuopdupuaoaacmluoOupdaom Ahhmddm unvoxov soapwmom meapuHuu vacuum mowpwawnauoommou wownodopnooz oonH>uumsm mo homsvou< Ahhsadm wagonaoowv soapamom oofima>homsu Mo muosashmaom dead wnwnodoa monocapm hp ozone vuohupsH «savages spassaaoo cuudmaoo unawpacooo wdwxuos msesaesp Hoosom cognac no saws osaanaosen momeQSm Mo hodsuoc< ooHdQEOO madden “Homoudo 09 md anhmedao ZHNS mmmmo ho madmz :N.m mnm<8 122 ‘ ceasefimwomwm haw.N mmw.a oom.N New.N om~.N mmm.m Wm peso mm.m u Ho. .mam Hm.N u mo. .wfim oom.m wmm.N oom.a mmm.a OOH.N mmw.a oom.N mmm.N ooo.m mwm.N CON.m om>.N mNIHN ONIMH openness mm:.N :Nm.H mmo.N mNm.N :Nw.N H:Q.N mHIHH :Nm.N mmm.H ooo.N :Nm.N m:a.m maw.N OHIm sasssmuna haaoooamdoooanN hauomsouumnum sassnaas owmuo>< hooded o>HpsupmfioNaod nonpo wofioawsn nonpood Auguste Homeosasa muficdwan mama .oodnm nonpood genomes mowoawop oedm .ocohw damn Museums “Homopdo mammozoo mHmmB mmDumHn OB Hamomm A ho mz< m.m :.m m.e 0.: nauseous bmz unpasz owsao>< s.mH m.mm mm owe Ha assesses oomoaulmaoonom oomoao w.:a N.>N m: Hma m nuanced» ammonmaoonuu comoao 0.:H m.MN mm Nod ma chanson» comoaonmaoonom some N.:H m.HN Nm mma ma mangoes» ammonmaoonom some mamsomoe muwnodoe dungeons muonodoa maoonom “monopuo amaswom #02 3oz Adasmom no nonasz yo mo mo nonaoz owwam>< pooo Mom nonasz panama mmDomc goomomlmmmuo so HH ouz calm mo.m u Ho. .wwm mH.N a mo. .Mwm coshoooou handouuula ounsuoooo unnsuaomalN ooohooooo hacaaznlm coshooaoo Add as 9023:: www.N mmw.N maw.N mmm.N H:®.N Hmm.N mmh.N owdao>< mHH.m HmH.m Naa.m oza.m ovH.m zom.N oma.m moowpsaon nonodopnuonosoe oao.m m»o.m mNm.m omo.m mmo.m FHH.m oom.m moONpuHoh hufiosaEOOIuonosoe omH.m mHH.m mam.N ONm.N oaa.m Now.N omo.m escapades psousnuaonoooa amo.m smo.m smo.m mmm.w mmm.m mme.m omo.m saosopssuuatsusssosta oaw.N :Hm.N mam.N mom.N ooo.m mmm.N mao.m muodeHou Homfioawumlaosodoa mum.N ONm.N mmw.N mw>.N www.N wom.N mha.m mofiowaon mowcdwam :Nw.N wm>.N mm:.N mo~.N mw>.N mom.N mom.N sowaooavmou aooummwau mam.N Pwm.N mHN.N ONm.N zom.N mmH.N m:H.N wafiosuo mNm.N NN>.N me.N mw:.N mam.N hwo.N o::.N moofipsaou pnoospmluonosoe wmm.N mHm.N mwv.a NmH.N mam.N whH.N omm.a onaamwomwa wuz mHuz HHuz :uz Hana muz Nuz m-» m m e m m a Hmomoeso wowcawsm pom outcomes oanAHDm mum mmmzpz mma 09 m4 nthmm Mm zm>Hu mammozoo any ho mzo .8 S ouz OHIm cocnuoooo hapdoncuua mo.m u.Ho. .mwm oochuoooo pmnauaomuIN mH.N u we. .wwm ooohooooo hHoHqulm conhoocoo Add as pOZInz www.N mew.N mam.N www.N. H:®.N Hmm.N mm>.N owdao>< wHH.m Hwa.m N:H.m o:H.m ova.m :om.N omH.m maowpsaon nonomopiuonodoa oao.m wro.m mNm.m omo.m moo.m haa.m oom.m moowpsaoa hvfiqnaaoolhonodoa OmH.m wHH.m mam.N ONm.N OHH.m wa.N omo.m mooHpsHoa pseudmlaonodoa mmo.m Pmo.m hwm.N wNm.N Nmm.N wmh.N oao.m haocouseluawmluonodos oaw.N :Hm.N m:®.N mow.N ooo.m mmm.N mao.m moowpmaoa Homwonfinnlaonodoa wmm.N 0Nm.N mmw.N mw~.N mmc.N wom.N mha.m mowowaom wawoawom :Nw.N mm~.N mm:.N mo».N mm~.N mom.N mam.N c0wposupmna aooammsao mmm.m Pmm.N mHN.N 0Nm.N zom.N me.N m:H.N woficduo mNm.N NNb.N me.N wm:.N mam.N bwo.N o::.N moofipsaoa osmospmnuonooma mmm.N mHm.N mw>.H Nma.N mam.N mbH.N omm.a onwanwomfin uz mauz Hana :uz Hauz muz an was m m a m N H “Homopmo mewoawnm hem masseuse uZHnAHDm mam mHmZDz was 09 m< QMhHmm Mm zm>Ho mammvzoo any ho mz0.m :mH.m :mH.m Nam.N m»o.m wa.N mam.N wa.N mauz no>o 90 Ha mo.m u do. .wew mH.m u we. .mam mae.m amm.m mmm.m mmm.m mmH.m mo:.m mmN.m ooo.s mmm.m mam.m ooo.e sme.m mee.m ooo.: oom.m mmm.m em~.m ooo.s ~N~.m mmm.m ooo.e oom.m mem.m mmm.m oom.m eme.m mam.m oom.m oms.m mmm.m pme.m oom.m eme.m m»s.m oom.m m»w.m mmm.m mm:.m oom.m mme.m swm.m oom.m msm.m mam.m msm.m mom.m mam.m mee.m oom.m mmm.m ema.m mem.m oom.m mme.m «mm.m ooo.m om~.m amm.m mem.m oom.m sme.m swm.m ooo.m oom.m eeo.m mm:.m ooz.m emm.m see.m oom.m one.m sso.m msm.m ooo.m eme.m mmm.m ooo.m mmH.m mom.m ewm.m oom.m emm.m see.m oom.m mem.m mom.m Hma.m oom.m mms.m www.m oom.m msm.m ooo.m ooo.m ooo.m ooo.m mmm.m oOm.m mmH.m ooo.m emm.m oom.m ems.m mmm.m ooo.m omm.m smH.m mem.m oom.m mem.m sse.m cem.m mem.m sma.m Hmo.m ooo.m waw.m Haa.m ooo.m oom.m ema.m mom.m oom.m mom.m moo.m ooo.m ooo.m wew.m mem.m ooo.m mam.m mmm.m oom.m mum.w mm:.m smm.m oom.m mme.m mom.m ooo.m ouz muz mauz Hana muz Hana one was oaumi was m at a m m H mowoafism hem masseuse quQAHDm mam mHmZDz 09 md QmHhHmmHo mZOHBonla haoposumapsues hauwshnnN huovodunwpsu hauwshllm huoposumupsn hho>lna owduo>< mowpoc no unusuaum anemone» nonponmoowusaom upcoospnnmcodeHom .mwawaosnuooHvdHom Ahhsdsm vmooxov oONpHmom mewusHou vacuum .moommou msfinodepnooz oofimw>aombm no housuoo< Ahhsaem .oowv oofipfimom .humfim Mo umoofldumdom osoa mownosoe epooospmlapmohoasH messages assessaoo .9800 meowpwoooo mswxuos wowcawsn Hoonom moapdc so made osaaaassao mowamnsm ooaogEOO hhmddm Hmouopso 129 mo.m u Ho. .mam wa.m u no. .mam mmm.m oom.m ame.m em~.m omH.m Hmm.m ooo.m mem.a mmm.a oos.a mo. mmm.a oms.a eso.m mom.m ooe.a mam.m ooo.m mam.m ooo.m ooo.m mm~.m msm.m Hmm.m ooo.m ooo.m mom.m msm.N mNm.N mPN.m oom.N mane on muz mauz Hana muz sossoaaaswam ssso caum a-» m n, s 9H0 HH mowoflwsm hum muonodoa ma:.N mam.a :wm.N wdw.N PNP.N :wm.N Hana m ooe.m oom.m ees.a ooo.H mmm.H ooo.H mam.m ooo.m wmm.m cem.m mmm.m oom.m m 2 man H quQAHDm mmm mmmZDz OB m< QmHhHmmHU mamomm A¢ hooded o>fipuavmwofiaos guano mswoawsp heavens honesty Homwoswum msaeaasn mass .ooshm nonpoos academy seaweeds uses .ousaw oats Museums Hmomopso 130 The frequency of contact with a teacher in another building, an area showing significant differences, was unusual and rather unexpected, since that one contact in the two-way analysis of variance was re— lated to dogmatism. When further answers and comments were studied, it was clear that many of these new teachers had a parent, a spouse, or a roommate who was a teacher. (See Tables A.1l, A.12, and A.13.) Conclusion The basic null hypothesis in this chapter (Bl) was that no differences will be found among new teachers when they are grouped according to variables of sex, age, training, teaching experience, experience in the school system but not in the building, size of school, and number of new teachers per building, in relation to the ten categories of concern, l9 satisfaction areas regarding selected aspects of the Job, and frequency of contact with professional people to discuss their concerns, as measured by the oneaway analysis of variance with unequal N's. The null hypothesis B is accepted in 19h cases out of 238 1 areas in relation to the seven variables for no differences are found in the levels of concern, the degree of satisfaction expressed with selected aspects of teaching, and the frequency of contact with pro- fessional people to discuss their concerns among the various groups of new teachers when they are classified according to (1) sex, (2) age, (3) training, (h) teaching experience, (5) eXperience in the school system, (6) size of school, and (7) number of new teachers per building. The differences are shown in Table 5.31 and the levels of significances: eight regarding sex, nine regarding age, three about 13} TABLE 5.31 SIGNIFICANT AREAS IN RELATION TO THE SEVEN VARIABLES Train- Teach- Exp.in School No. New i . em Size Teachers erns-- er Disci e .05 .01 Teacher-student relations G Classroom instruction . .01 l licies Teacher- inci rela. Teacher-self aut Teacher— ent relations eacher-c t rela. Teacher-teacher relations Satisfactions Sal c ies D sc ne Time on dut es School buildi Wor conditions c a nterest 5 ac Hel fulness of sit on no. 0 e s on on— eac re ns. Parent relat ons on exc Relations-adminis. Re ons- en 3 Relations—other teac ers of Contact Teacher same grade, same buildi Teacher another buil 1 Teacher another buil n. r 132 training, seven for teaching experience, seven for emerience in the system, seven for size of school, and three for number of new teachers per building. Summag Seven variables of sex, age, training, teaching experience, experience in the system, size of school, and number of new teachers in the school, were all used in a one-way analysis of variance with unequal N's with the ten categories of concern, the 19 satisfactions, and five frequency of contact with professional peOple. . Twenty-one of the 70 analyses in the levels of concern were significant at the .05 or .01 level, or 30%. Thirteen of the 21 were related to sex and age, or 61.9%. Age alone accounted for eight of the 21, or 38.1%. Nothing significant relating to level of concerns was found for either school size or number of new teachers. (See Table 5.31.) Eleven of these areas were significant at the .01 level, while ten were significant at the .05 level. In the satisfaction area, 20 of the 133 analyses showed sig- nificance at the .05 or .01 level, or 15.0%. Seven of the 20 simi- ficant areas, or 351, were related to the size of the school. The other significant areas were distributed in one, two, or three for each variable. Only three of these were siglificant at the .01 level; 17 at the .05 level. Only three items of the 35 frequency of contact with profes- sional people, or 8.5%, showed siglificance. Two of the three were related to the previous exPerience in the school system, and the other one to the number of new teachers in the building. The null hypothesis as stated was accepted in 19‘: cases of a possible 238; there were no significant differences among the teachers. . ’t 333‘ In hh cases there were significant differences at either the .01 or .05 level. More specific conclusions are as follows: 1. Males were significantly less concerned than females about discipline (.01 level), teacher—student relations (.05 level), grading (.01 level), classroom instruction (.01 level), and building policies (.05 level), all five of which were areas of greatest concern to all new teachers. 2. Males were significantly less satisfied than females with their salary compared to that of other professions in their area open to people with their level of education (.05 level), working conditions compared to those of other professions in their level of education (.05 level), and their relations with parents(.01 level). 3. The younger teachers, ages up to 30 years, were signifi- cantly more concerned than the group, 30-39 years old and h0-h9 years old, but no so concerned as the group 50—59 years old in teacher-student relations (.05 level), class- room instruction (.01 level), building policies (.05 level), teacher-principal relations (.01 level), teacher self- autonomy (.05 level), teacher-parent relations (.01 level), teacher-community relations, (.01 level), and teacher- teacher relations (.01 level). h. The youngest age group (up to 30 years) was least satis- fied with salary when it was compared to that of other pro- fessions in the area open to people with their level of education. This satisfaction gradually increased, with 13h the oldest age group (50-59 years) being most satisfied. This satisfaction was s1 lificantly different at the .05 level. New teachers with four and fives years of training were significant less concerned about discipline (.05 level) than those with only two and three years of training. (Mention should be made of one man with a six-year train— ing level who had a high concern for discipline.) The new teachers with two to three years of training were more satisfied with the community attitudes toward teach- ing as a profession than those with three and four years of training, and about equally satisfied as those with five or six years of training. New teachers with two or three years of training along with those with six years of training were the most satis- fied nf all the groups with the helpfulness of supervision received, with each training level in between being less satisfied. The new teachers with their one year of experience were significantly more concerned about discipline (.01 level), classroom instruction (.01 level), teacher-community re- lations (.05 level) and teacher-teacher relations (.05 level), than those with up to 20 years of experience, but less than that for those with over 20 years of experience. The teachers with the 1963-6h year as their one year of experience were significantly less satisfied with their salary compared to that of other professions (.01 level), their working conditions compared to those of other 10. 11. 12. 13. is: ‘_ professions (.05 level), and the position except salary (.05 level) than those who had six or more years of ex- perience. New teachers who had had two or more years of their ex- perience in the same school system were significantly more concerned than those who had had one or no years in the system in teacher-principal relations (.05 level), teacher-self autonomy (.05 level), and teacher-teacher re- lations (.01 level). New teachers who had had three or more years of their ex- perience in the same school system were significantly less satisfied than those with two or fewer years in the system with the adequacy of supplies (.05 level), and helpfulness of the supervision (.05 level). New teachers who had had no experience in the school sys- tem before 1963-6h had significantly fewer contacts than those who had taught four or more years in the system with the teacher of the same grade in the same building, but had significantly more contacts with the teacher of another grade in the same building. New teachers who were in schools with 21-25 teachers who had been there the year before were significantly less satisfied than those who taught in other size schools with salary compared to that of other professions (.05 level), pupil attentiveness and discpline (.05 level), adequacy of school building (.05 level), working conditions compared to that of other professions (.05 level), and amount of interest shown by students (.05 level). » 136 1h. New teachers who were in schools with l6-20 teachers who had been there the year before were significantly less satisfied with their relations with students (.05 level) and their relations with other teachers (.01 level) than those who taught in other size schools. 15. The group of one—new—teacher-to—a-building, three-new- teachers group and eleven—or-more-new teachers group ex- pressed significantly less satisfaction with the adequacy of their school building (.05 level) than did the other groups. 16. The one-new-teacher—to~a-building group and the three-to- a—building group expressed significantly less satisfaction than did the other groups in the adequacy of supervision (.05 level). 17. The one—new-teacher-to-a-building group had significantly fewer contacts than did any of the other groups with teachers in another building or system in order to discuss their professional concerns. The findings regarding these variables may not be conclusive as there may be other factors not considered. For this particular sample of new teachers they are, however, valid. CHAPTER VI USE OF HELP Where Did New Teachers Get Help? As a part of this stuw of experiences of teachers new to a building, an analysis was made of the persons from whom they sought advice and moral assistance, and on which issues they sought such help. Moreover, we tried to discover whether or not there might be significant differences among the four groups-nopen-Open, open-closed, closed-open, and closed-closed—-as to where the new teachers sought aid. Thus the 155.1tem survey about the teachers' concerns con- tained an additional part, asking which of the four avenues of help concerning specific problems they chose: ’ the principal; other teacher(s); observation of others; or self-correction. There was also a space where the teacher wrote in names of other perscms who helped. Smle l. Greatly concerned 1. Principal 2. Somewhat concerned 2. Other teachers Keys 3. Mildly concerned 3. Observation 1:. Not at all of others .. concerned 1;, Using own .. 5. Situation did not Judgment occur 5. Other-specify 137 To what extent were you concerned about this Where did you usually get help in deciding situation in your what to do in the Situations school this year? situation? 19. Deciding the report card grade for a child who had tried _ hard, but had not 1 2 3 h really passed. 1 2 3 h 5 5-specify 20. Deciding the report card grade for a child who had "fooled around", but could really do 1 2 3 h the work. 1 2 3 h 5 S-specify As in the other part of the project the items were divided into ten categories of concern: classroom instruction, building policies, teacher-teacher relationships, teacher-principal relation— ship, general teacher-student relationships, discipline, grading, teacher-community relationships, teacher-parent relationships, and te.chel-feeling of self autonomy. The number of times the principal was selected as the help in a certain situation was recorded for each teacher in each category. Likewise, the number of times other teachers, observing others, and using their own Judgment were selected was recorded for each teacher. When this was done, for each category there was a number indicating how many instances the new teacher had selected the principal, the other teachers, the observation process, or using own Judgment. Also recorded was the number of times some other person's advice had been utilized and his identity. After the data was collected, it was tested for significance. Did the groups differ with respect to the characteristics of open- closed climate school and/or to the characteristics of open-closed persons? The number of times each group chose the principal for help 139si- in each category, the number of times each group chose other teachers, the number of times each group decided to see what others were doing first, and the number of times they had to use their own Judgement, all had to be reviewed. The following null hypothesis was used in this section: No differences will be found among the four groups of new teachers (00, OC, CO, CC) in the number of times they tried to resolve the problems mentioned in the concerns of teaching in the Situation Suryey_ by (l) asking the principal, (2) asking other teachers, (3) observing others, and (h) using own Judgment. From this the following questions should be answered: Which group was most likely to go to the principal? to other teachers? to use own Judgment? to seek help from others? to select several sources? Did certain kinds of problems get more help from the principal than other kinds? The Chi Square test was used to determine if any of these areas might produce a value of X? that would be significant at the .05 level. Since several of the teachers had indicated that in many in- stances they had used more than one of the help sources in arriving at a decision, to count each recorded help source as independent would have made a greater number of help sources than there were people. According to Siegell, "The total number of such observations must be independent of every other; thus one may not make several observa- tions on the same person and count each as independent. To do so lSidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics fOr the Behavioral Sciences (New York: MCGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956), p.33. lhO produces an 'inflated N'." Thus the decision was to count the number of teachers who chose the principal for help two or more times in each category and to enter that information into a 2x2 contingency table for working Chi Square. The same was done for the number of new teachers who 7 chose other teacher(s) for help, for observing what was done, and for using their own Judgment. An X? value of 7.82 was taken as the value for three degrees of freedom for significance at the .05 level. Assistance from the Four Listed Sources The information as to the number of teachers in each group who had sought help two or more times from the principal was analyzed by Chi Square for each of the ten categories of concern. Only one of these showed a significant difference among the four groups, the teacher—parent relationship. (See Table 6.1.) TABLE 6.1 CHI SQUARE TABLE FOR SEEKING HELP FROM PRINCIPAL IN TEACHER-PARENT RELATIONSHIPS Categogy Open Schools Closed Schools Eggglg Open teachers 8 l 9 Closed teachers 11 7 18 Total 19 8 27 x3 = 7.96 Significant at .05 level The Chi Square table for the category, teacher-community rela- tionships in reference to the principal could not meet the requirements for the use of the Table of Critical Values of D (c) on the Fisher test, (expected frequency of at least 10). Even though this relation- ship did not show signficance, it is noted that only the open teachers 1A1 in open schools made a choice of seeking the principal when a com— munity problem arose. (See Table 6.2.) TABLE 6.2 CHI SQUARE TABLE FOR SEEKING HELP FROM PRINCIPAL IN TEACHER-COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS Category Open Schools Closed Schools Totals Open teachers 2 O 2 Closed teachers 0 O 0 Total 2 O 2 Likewise the information as to the number of teachers in each group who had sought help two or more times from the other teacher(s) was analyzed by Chi Square for each of the ten categories of concern. Likewise, only one of these showed a significant difference among the four groups, the teacher-principal relationship. (See Table 6.3.) TABLE 6.3 CHI SQUARE TABLE FOR SEEKING HELP FROM OTHER TEACHERS IN TEACHER-PRINCIPAL RELATIONSHIPS Open Closed Open Closed Category Schools Schools Totals Schools Schools Totals Open teachers 7 O 7 A B A+B Closed teachers 3 h 7 C D C+D Total 11 h it A+C B+D Since the horizontal sums added make 1h, the N is less than 20 and the Fisher Test as presented in the table was used for signi- ficance. No attempt was made to work out the exact probability. Ac- cording to the (1) Table of Critical Values of D (or C) in the Fisher Test, the following conditions have to be observed, when A + B = 7 and C + D = 7, there will be El significance at the .05 level when A = 7 and C = 3. These conditions are met in the above test, and it is concluded that there are differences not occurring by chance among the four groups in seeking help from other teachers in the teacher- principal relationships. When the information as to the number of teachers in each group had resolved their problems by observing what others did two or more times was analyzed by Chi Square for each of the ten categories, no value 01 Xn was large enough to be significant. Similarly, there were no significant differences among the four groups for any of the ten categories of concern when the infor- mation was analyzed for using their own Judgment in resolving the problems. (See Tables A.20, A.2l, A.22, and A.23 for the full infor- mation regarding the numbers.) Help From Others Since space was provided for new teachers to designate that they might have secured help from some source other than the princi- pal, other teacher(s), observing others, and using their own Judgment, the number of times that the teacher mentioned "other" was recorded. 'Because several of the cells had zeroes, the number was counted for the total of the ten categories. Also, many teachers indicated that for one problem, two or three sources of help were used. These were called "multiple choices." TABLE 6.1. NUMBER OF NEW TEACHERS SEEKING HELP FROM "OTHERS" AND MAKING MULTIPLE CHOICES TWO OR MORE TIMES Open Open ‘ Closed Closed Open Closed Open Closed Totals Others ll 10 1h 8 AB Multiple choices 11 7 11 1h h3 its? ‘ None of these yielded a significant Chi Square value. Discussion The study of the question of the search for help resulted in only two differences of significance among the four groups. One of these was in seeking help from the principal in parent relationships, where the closed-open group definitely did pgt_go to the principal for help. In this study the relatively closed teachers expressed greater concern for the parent relationships than the relatively Open teachers, and similarly asked help from the principal twice as often for this problem. The other area of significance was in seeking help from other teachers in the relationships with the principal. In this problem, the closed-Open group did pg§_go to other teachers for help when they had a problem in which the principal was involved. The trend in selecting the principal for help appears to be related somewhat to the climate, as teachers in open schools received assistance from him more often than did teachers in closed schools. As mentioned before, the Open teachers in closed schools were least likely of all groups to ask the principal for assistance. The trend in asking other teachers for help showed a differ- ent pattern. The Open-open group and the closed-closed group were most likely to ask for assistance from their fellow workers. Observation of others was not a method used very widely. Very few teachers reported using it two or more times. One trend was very evident again, though it was not significant in any area or in com- bined areas. The relatively open people were less inclined than rela- tively closed people to see what others were doing before they acted, lhh" while the closed-Open group (closed school-Open teachers) were least likely of all grOups to observe others. (See Table A.22.) The analysis of the data on using own Judgment in taking care of situations showed no significance and no recognizable trend. In almost all instances, 18 of the 18 teachers indicated that they used their own Judgment in settling problems, even though they might also have sought help from the principal, from other teachers, and from ob- serving what others did. An inspection of Table A.23 shows that teaching is work where there are innumerable decisions in which teachers use their own Judgment. Throughout this section, the open teachers in closed schools (closed—open) reported they were least likely to seek help from the principal, or from observing and then doing as others did, and were second in asking for help from other teachers. Where else did new teachers get help? There was a fifth choice in which the teacher checked "other" and told who or what the help source was. Counting the number of times "other" was mentioned two or more times for each group, (Table 6.h) and computing Chi Square gave no significance. TABLE 6.5 NUMBER OF TIMES "OTHER" WAS MENTIONED AS SOURCE OF HELP Open Schools Closed Schools Totals Open teachers 76 133 209 Closed teachers 123 91 21h Total 199 22h N23 Since the above table was not made with each number represent- ing an independent item, Chi Square was not considered suitable for 1&5 the analysis. Scrutiny of Table 6.5 showed that open people in closed schools and closed teachers in open schools used other help sources more times than open teachers in open schools and closed teachers in closed schools. What were the "other" help sources? Of course, the intern consultant for the teacher in training and the special services per- sonnel were mentioned often. New teachers read or said they read policy books and curriculum guides. The school secretary was a very popular source of help. TABLE 6.6 NUMBER OF TIMES SELECTED "OTHERS" WERE MENTIONED AS A SOURCE OF HELP BY NEW TEACHERS IN EACH OF FOUR GROUPS Open Open Closed Closed Category Open Closed Open Closed Intern consultant, training teacher, elementary supervisor 2h h8 39 25 Special services personnel, as nurse, diagnostician, visiting teacher 10 2h 36 33 Policy book and curriculum guide 2h 18 31 18 Secretary 18 9 13 15 Not in categors, already knew, made no mention 0 2h 1h 0 Totals 76 123 133 91 While these data were not suitable for Chi Square, in almost all instances the open people in closed schools made more choices of "other" than did any of the other three groups. Only in closed schools was the elementary supervisor mentioned as a source of help. The clerk was mentioned consistently in all 1&6 TABLE 6.7 NUMBER OF NEW TEACHERS IN EACH GROUP MENTIONING LISTED SOURCES OF HELP Open Open Closed Closed Category Open Closed Open Closed Training teacher and intern consultant 5 10 7 9 Elementary supervisor O O 2 1 Visiting teacher, nurse, diagnos.ician 3 2 2 2 Clerk or secretary 6 h 5 5 Curriculum guide A l 5 3 Already lnew l O 3 1 Made no mention of other 5 3 3 2 Total 27 23 27 27 groups as was the policy book and curritulum guide. The intern con- sultant and training teacher were peOple in the larger schools who had been assigned to the beginning teacher for the first two years for a couple of reasons; one is for evaluation and the other is to see that the beginning teacher has a good chance to get started and hence will not be a failure. They were hired by the school systems and could not be attributed to the climate of the building or the dogmatism of the teacher. How these people were viewed, how much help they gave or were thought to give, could only be guessed from the tone of the com— ments. Some teachers who had consultants felt sorry for others who did not have a consultant. Which teachers made the greatest number of "multiple choices?" In other words, which teachers chose several sources of help and used any or none of them? m The Chi Square value when the number of teachers were counted who made two or more multiple choices was not significant. (See Table 6.h.) However, the actual number of multiple choices showed a definite trend. (See Table 6.8.) TABLE 6.8 NUMBER OF MULTIPLE CHOICES MADE BY EACH OF THE FOUR GROUPS Open Schools Closed Schools Totals Open Teachers 297 202 A99 Closed Teachers 67 152 219 Totals 36h 35h 718 The Open teachers made more than twice as many multiple choices as did the closed teachers. This may possibly be explained by the rigidity Of patterns set by closed teachers and the lack of rigidity among Open teachers. Sources of Help with Multiple Choices Included In many of the reported situations, the teachers stated that they had had help from more than one source. Since this material was not suitable for the use of the Chi Square test, the number Of times such happenings occurred was counted and reported in chart form. Tables A.16, A.17, A.18, and A.19 show for each category the number of times the designated help was sought. Following, in Table 6.9, is a summary of the totals from these tables that will show a definite trend among the four groups of new teachers. 1h8 TABLE 6.9 TOTAL NUMBER OF CHOICES OF FOUR SOURCES OF HELP FOR ALL TEN CATEGORIES OF CONCERN Open Open Closed Help Open Closed Open Closed Totals Principal . h50 h06 305 399 1560 Other teachers 388 231 2hl 30h ll6h Observation Of others 179 286 1A7 211 823 Own Judgment l6h0 1357 1773 1500 6270 The trend from the totals indicate that Open teachers in rela- tively Open schools will seek help from the principal and from other teachers, when help is needed, but the open teachers in closed schools definitely do not go to the principal or to other teachers. This trend is also noted in other parts of the chapter. In addition, open teachers, especially those in closed schools, do not observe what others do before they act; closed teachers report that observation is one of their ways Of Operation, especially in Open schools. Open teachers are not then so likely to conform to what the others are do- ing. Also in "using own Judgment" the open teachers in closed schools say this method is used Often in resolving the problems of their con- cern. All in all, using one's own Judgment is a very common proce- dure. Thus the null hypothesis C , with two exceptions was accepted 1 in that no differences were found among the four groups of new teachers (00, OC, CO, CC) in the number of times the problems in the concerns of teaching are resolved by (l) asking the principal, (2) ask— ing other teachers, (3) Observing others, and (h) using own Judgment. The first exception was that differences were found among the four groups in asking the principal for help in the teacher-parent relationships with the teachers in the open schools asking for help 1A9 twice as Often as people in closed schools. However, those with Closed belief—disbelief systems asked the principal for help in that relationship twice as Often as those with open systems. As noted in other parts Of the study, the Open teachers in the closed schools did not seek out the principal for help. The second exception was that differences were found among the four groups Of new teachers in asking for help from other teachers in the teacher-principal relationship. Teachers in Open climate schools asked for help nearly three times as often as those in closed schools. As before, the Open teachers in closed schools did not ask other teachers for help. Summary Only two of the "Where did you get help" Chi Squares proved to be significant at the .05 level. First, in comparing those teachers seeking help from other teachers in the teacher-principal relationship with those who did not, the results showed that in closed schools open teachers definitely did not go to other teachers. Second, seeking help from the principal in teacher-parent—community relationships, significant at the .05 level, showed that closed schools-Open teachers did not go to the principal for help, and that in Open schools teachers did go to the principal about 2-1/2 times as often as they did in closed schools. When all ten categories were put together, cells were filled showing nearly the same trend: the closed school-Open teachers did not go to the principal for help as much as the others, nor did they see what others were doing and follow their example. Insofar as seek— ing help from other teachers, there was no clear-cut trend for one 150 group. Neither the closed schools-open teachers nor the Open schools- closed teachers were as likely to seek out other teachers for help as were the open schoolssopen teachers and the closed schools-closed teachers. Nothing significant appeared in "using own Judgment" as in every instance every cell was filled the same or with nearly the same numbers. It can be concluded that in teaching, no matter what help was available, teachers invariably used their own Judgment. The greatest number of "others" for help was mentioned by closed schools-Open teachers. The greatest number of "multiple choice" help sources was made by the open schools-open teachers. How- ever, all open teachers in both Open and closed schools made over twice as many multiple choice helps as closed teachers in both Open and closed schools. It thus might appear that the help source used might possibly be an effect of the climate. It also appears that the number Of mul- tiple choices was somewhat related to the Openness and closedness of the teacher's mind. Nothing conclusive, however, can be said. When the full number of choices are counted, the following trends can be noted (Chi Square was not a suitable analysis). 1. The closed-open group of teachers did not seek help from the principal as much as the other groups in the listed categories of concern. 2. There was vely little difference among the four groups in the help they sought from other teacher(s). 3. The relatively Open teachers, wherever they were, did not Observe what others did and follow suit as Often as the relatively closed teachers. 151 h. The relatively Open teachers, wherever they were, used their own Judgment to a greater extent than the rela- tively closed teachers. CHAPTER VII COMMENTS Offers of Help In an attempt to discover what had occurred during the school year to new teachers that had made an impression on their adJustment to the Job, several questions were asked. They were to be answered in the teacher's own words. To these questions, some answered nothing, while others went into great detail. Reading what was said was one thing; being aware of the overtones and feelings expressed was another. "How many teachers Offered to help you, or have given you ad- vice during the first year?" Responses to this question commonly were a number, one to 20. Some said "many"; some said "all." The most descriptive statement of reality came from an Open school-closed teacher: "All; and all different." Another remark somewhat laden with feeling was from the same category: "All, except two or three first and second grade teachers." From.closed schools, closed teachers came these: "None offered--advice was given when asked for." "Very few." Presumably teachers in the building Offered help or gave ad- vice, or both. That's the way new teachers saw it. Number of Teachers This particular sample of schools ranged in number of teachers 152 153 from nine to AZ. Some teachers were not quite sure of the number in the school, and gave an approximate number. However, the average number of teachers in the schools, counting the new teachers, accord- ing to this report Of teachers was: Open-Open l9.h: Open-Closed 17.9; Closed-Open 21.6; and Closed-Closed 25.25. These numbers ap- proximated the actual size. Whether the size of the school is in any way related to the organizational climate is pure conJecture. Statements such as these were made by teachers in the larger schools (over 25) to the question: "What do you consider to be the maJor difficulties a new teacher has in working with the teachers in this building?" "Getting to know them." "The lack of interest in people and children by others in the building." "Getting to know them and being able to work with them on committees." "Getting to know and understand their personalities." Notice also what is said Of principals in larger schools: "Not enough free time for conferences." "It is hard to find time to talk with him.because of the large number of teachers." "Not enough time allowed for conferences." "She is very busy. The maJor difficulty is finding a time when I can sit down and really talk to her." "She is one of the best in the system. Her time is limited as mine is, and one can't always meet when .they would like to." "The principal is Often out of the building. I only see her every couple of weeks." "Mere time for conferences with the principal. Mere supervision from consultant." These kinds of statements were made regardless Of the school's climate 15h or the teacher's dogmatism. Even teachers in some smaller schools (lo-20) made these come ments about the principal as a source of help: "It is difficult to find a time when she is not busy and can help you." "He doesn't introduce staff-show where equipment is-- never in the building." "Locating her when needed." "He is attending so many meetings that he is in his Office very little. I do not see how he has time to do the work that he is doing." "It is sometimes difficult to meet with her when help is needed." "Principal absent from building for other meetings." "No difficulties at all; however, she does not visit Often." These statements appear to demonstrate that many new teachers found it very difficult to get help from the principal, and feel this lack is one of the maJor problems in the building. Of the 31 people who made comments, 13 Of them.mentioned the lack Of contact with the principal. Since these statements came from teachers in schools of different size, it can be assumed that something other than size was playing a part in the lack of contact with the principal. Socializing with Co-Workers Out of School "Do new teachers see other teachers from the building socially outside of school?" In this sample Of 72 teachers, only 26 said they saw any of their co-workers socially outside of school. The numbers were distributed as follows: Open-Open 5 Closed-Open h Open-Closed 8 Closed-Closed 9 155' A Chi Square or this information yielded 10 significance, yet the trend would seem to indicate that the climate of the school made little difference, but the dogmatism of the person might cause him to choose social friends from his working surroundings, or to choose a place where his friends might be near. A clue that might help explain this is that the two-way analysis of variance showed dogmatism a factor in new teachers selecting a teacher in another building or system as one with whom to discuss their professional concerns. "How many Of the teachers in your building do you really enJoy working with?" The prize answer came from an Open teacher in a closed climate who said: "I'm busy in my own room." There did appear to be a pattern that would indicate that the Open climate-Open teacher felt more free to like or dislike and to say what he felt. These people either said they enJoyed working with all, or with few. One said he enJoyed working with "none." The closed school-closed person never committed himself too much. All or most of them made statements with which anyone would feel comfortable. Table 7.1 shows the scattering of likes and dislikes in the four groups Of new teachers. Advice and Help Vs. Problems The two questions, "What did the teachers offertto help you with?" and "What kinds of things did the teachers give you advice about?" were answered interchangeably and in such repetition that they were treated as one question--"Concerning what kinds of things in the building and in the teaching Job did the teachers who had been there before feel they should help and advise new teachers?" Later in the 156 TABLE 7.1 NUMBER OF TEACHERS NEW TEACHERS REPORTED "LIKING TO WORK WITH" Open Open Closed Closed Answer Opgp’ Closed Open Closed. All '7 I. h a Practically all or most 0 3 3 5 All but one 1 0 h 2 All but two 0 2 2 0 All but three 0 2 2 0 All but four 1 3 O 2 All but five 0 l O 0 All but six 0 O 0 0 All but seven 0 O O l Roughly 1/2 of teachers in school 20 O O 2 O 8 0 2 O O 7 1 O O O 6 0 O 0 O 5 O O 0 O h 2 O l 3 2 l 2 l l 1 None 1 NO answer 1 rye-47*“ 157 survey the teachers were asked: "What do you consider to be the three chief or maJor problems which new teachers have in this school?" If the new teachers agreed with the help and advice the other teachers gave, then the new teacher saw the school and its problems as the others saw it. Otherwise, the new teacher saw the school dif- ferently and mentioned different problems the regular teachers did not see, or feel as a difficulty. A few excerpts from the new teachers' statements of problems follow: "Getting along with the principal." "Some of the teachers are really cold at first." "Knowing school policy." "Not knowing anything about the school policies until you inquire about them or were Offered assistance." *"Coldness or lack of concern of other teachers for problems of new one." *"Unwillingness of teachers to share, or assist new teacher in acquiring teaching materials." *"A certain degree of hostility, Jealousy, and back- biting which seemed to me surprising in a group of professionals." "Lack Of friendliness by some Of the teachers. Get- ting used to the older staff. They are very fine teachers, but set in their ways. Trying to change policies in ways the Older teachers have of doing things." "It being taken for granted that a new teacher knows all the rules and regulations. I was the only new teacher and too many times I was not told of things because everyone else already knew about them from former years." "Neglect to be filled in on all rules and procedures." "Getting the 'rules' straight." "Knowing exactly what is expected from.one as a teacher." *All from one paper. 158 "The 'old' teachers." "Knowing exactly what is expected in daily routines outside of the classroom, but in the school." "Building policies and procedures, especially those unwritten rules." "Finding out the unwritten laws of the building- things that one is automatically expected to know." "Being informed of all procedures." "All teachers are Old and have taught here so long that practices are too ingrained." "Getting information on unwritten school rules." "Finding answers to questions. (You want the answers, but you don't want to be obnoxious.)" "Lack of formal information on procedures and records." "As a white teacher gaining friendship of the staff." (More than half of the staff was negro.) "New teachers should be informed earlier about 'tradi- tional assemblies'." "Procedures to follow--must always ask." "Policies Of school, both written and unwritten--must always ask." "Knowing what is expected of me as a teacher by my principal and co—workers." "AdJusting to new situation and new teachers." "Getting priority." "Questioned--the third degree--concerning you and your class." "Lack'of consideration from the experienced teacher." "TOO much school policy thrown at you too fast." "Finding out exactly what is expected, when, where, and how much for most activities other than in the class- room. Parent and community problems were centered on two themes-- the culturally deprived and the professional neighborhood with its 159 parental pressures. Both seemed equally difficult for the new teachers who mentioned this. On one hand were these statements: "AdJusting to the area in outlook, economic status, and awareness of civic reaponsibilities." "Pleasing the many professional people who live in the area." "Getting used to a professional neighborhood." "Parental pressure in this higher class school is great." On the other hand were these statements: "AdJustment situation--cu1turally deprived." "Discipline." "Lack of capable social background for working with children in a culturally deprived area." "Understanding the value system of culturally de- prived children, mannerisms and needs." "To maintain a positive attitude toward these children." "Getting acquainted with the type of children involved-- lower class." "Learning attitudes and conditions of families in this area." "Lack of parent-teacher contact." "Knowing how to handle Negro children when you have never handled them before." "How to teach material to a group that has had very few experiences." "Citizenship; teaching them society will accept some things and not others." There were several who gave no answer to the question, and 12 that said there were no difficulties, no rgg;_problems. That answer could mean a lot. Yet, many who omitted other answers would "fill the space" allotted to the three chief problems. The conclusion is that if teachers wrote, they really felt strongly about their difficulties. 160 TABLE 7 . 2 RANKING OF IMPORTANCE OF ADVICE AND DIFFICULTIES BY NUMBER OF TIMES EXPRESSED List of Advice List Of Difficulties Importance as ranked by number Importance as ranked by the num- Of new teachers who received ber Of new teachers as diffi- the advice. culties. School policies and Expected role and un- building procedures 29 written rules 22 Materials and supplies 25 Building procedures 20 Discipline 22 Discipline 19 Students 16 Teachers 17 Records 1h Supplies 15 Organization for room Students 12 and for instruction 13 Records 11 Hints, methods, techniques 9 Personal lacks 10 Principal 6 Organization for room and for instruction 9 Parents h Principal 7 Community A Parents 5 Expected role and un- written rules A Community 5 Teachers 3 Teachers gave advice and help about school policies and build- ing procedures (29 of them), but only 20 new teachers felt that learn- ing about them was a maJor difficulty. What new teachers really felt as a maJor difficulty was learning about the "expected role", the "un- written rules", "knowing what is expected in daily routine outside of the classroom, but in the school". "You want the answers, but you don't want to be Obnoxious." This difficulty led the list for new teachers, 22, followed by building procedures-20, discipline-l9, I I 3 l l teachers-l7, supplies-15, students-12, records—ll, their own personal lacks-10, and organization of the classroomp9. (See Table 7.2.) Teachers in the building did not make it a practice to tell new teachers about these unwritten rules and traditions, as only four cases of this were recorded. That they tried to clarify the building procedures, school policies and routine procedures was well docu- mented. That the new teachers didn't "see it that way" is evidenced by the numbers who felt that unwritten rules were a maJor difficulty. Probably many procedures the teachers in the building neglected to tell about were ones accepted and internalized so completely that no one ever thought about them, like putting one foot before the other in walking. Undoubtedly teachers in the building might say, "I never thought to mention that. I Just thought everybody knew." Habits and procedures become so ingrained that people cannot Verbalize them. In fact, some Of the new teachers said the same thing: "All teachers are Old and have taught here so long that the practices are ingrained." "It being taken for granted that a new teacher knows all the rules and regulations. I was the only new teacher, and too many times I was not told of things because everyone else already knew about them from former years." This one area of unwritten rules was mentioned the most among the difficulties Of new teachers and provoked the most expressions Of frustration and feeling. New teachers felt quite strongly about one other area, other teachers. As in the unwritten rules, characteristics and personali— ties Of teachers are so thoroughly internalized that any teacher who had been in the building long would find it difficult to explain Just what there is about teachers to give advice. 162 comm H H mmoomom pH p H mH NN m HH NH 0N mH Hmpoa mm S 3 H m H H m H H H m H m H m H H m H m e H m m m H m m m m e w m H H H m H H m N H m e m 0H m .mm .mm .mm douoonsoo muonomoa 3oz soHpoaa < HH 0H Nm oH mH m o N N H H H N H H H m m H N m N m o H H H m H m H H N m m N H H m m m m m m N N H mN m e w H H H N N mH m N H m HH N m m m 0H H m m w mN H m m H mm m a H mm H33. .od 3 oo OOH>O< o>mc HO mHom oouommo panacea m.b mqm<fi 0H HWN Fir-{H Fir-{H Catt—3.3 8|” oHouoe sounds on o>oo oaOHnoum scene 33 .4Bm .Hoonoo sound omanooz auosoaon .aoHOOHuHsO .ooonpoz sopHnonloesoamhmHm upsopHsmsOo one space mxooH Hosoonom onOHHsn OHduoa .onnoono thosaeoo opossum nauseous HoaHooHaa mosdHnnOOp .moonvoa .uvon mOHHmmso one quHuopoz mOHsh southb In: one OHOH concomxm onsqum one sOHvouHsowuo monooom apnoospm monsooooum moH -oHHsp ooc soHoHHoa Hoooom ooHHmHooHn “monopoo mmbomo mach mo moHw mamm ho zomHmdmzoo However, both new and "other teachers" considered discipline a. maJor problem in approximately the same degree. Parents, community characteristics and the principal were considered at the same level «of concern by both new teachers and regular teachers in the building. In Table 7.3, showing the number of each group Of new teachers who recorded the advice given and their maJor difficulties, it should be noted that in almost all areas the closed school-closed teacher situation gave much less advice than the other groups. One of the maJor exceptions was in discipline; another one was about materials and supplies. No one in a closed-closed situation received any hint of the unwritten rules, although two cases of advice about other teachers were mentioned. No one received any help or advice regard- ing parents and community in the same situation, and only one re- ceived help about students. New teachers in closed schools did not perceive the parents and community as a maJor difficulty. There the advice and help seemed to be more forthcoming about things, and less about people and intangibles. In fact, teachers in closed schools (15) CO and CC, gave more advice about discipline than did those in Open schools (7). Fifteen new teachers in closed schools saw discipline as a maJor difficulty in contrast to only four in open schools. Teachers in Open schools evidently gave more advice about school and building policies and new teachers in Open schools felt that it was more of a maJor difficulty than teachers in closed schools. The explanation usually given is that a closed school is more closely organized, has set rules that are always followed, and hence it is not as difficult to find out the policy. Teachers in Open schools gave more advice about the unwritten 16% rules, but new teachers in Open schools did not complain as much about them as did teachers in closed schools. Other teachers seemed to be more Of a problem to closed teachers than to open teachers. For the most part, only Open teachers in open schools saw any difficulties encountered that could be attributed in some way to their own shortcomings, either in training or social background. This pro- bably stems from the greater insight and less rigidity found in Open people. Mest other teachers saw these difficulties as a failing in other people or in the environment rather than in themselves. The ease of expression seemed to be noticeably lacking in comments from closed schools-closed teacher situations, with more generalized statements without the overtones of feeling and frustra- tion noticed in many of the others. Even though very little comment was made, only three of the 18 teachers gave no answer to the maJor difficulties. Generally new teachers could see reason for the advice of regular teachers, such as discipline, school policy, and materials. In a few instances, new teachers could not see the difficulties in proportion to the help and advice Offered by regular teachers. In the closed schools-closed teacher situation, less advice and help was offered, and also fewer number of difficulties expressed. Only 12 of the 72 teachers (one-sixth) gave no answer to the question con- cerning difficulties or else commented that were no r£a_l. or 1.1.3.132 difficulties. ‘Mggor Difficulties in WOrking with Teachers in Building "What do you consider to be the maJor difficulties a new teacher has in working with the teachers in this building?" 165 Of all the answers given, 33 out of 72 new teachers made no comment or replied negatively. However, how the new teachers ex- pressed some of their difficulties gave a clue to much more. From the open-open group were these comments: "None-too busy." "Being able to talk to the other teachers about professional problems." "Worrying tOO much about pleasing others so that he can't relax and be himself." "I feel that in a Job situation a person must work hard to mesh the personality to work agreeably and cooperatively." "Knowing when and to whom to express your Opinion." "Their professional Jealousies." "The lack of interest in people and children by the others in the building." "Getting to know them." "There is so much competition between the teachers of a grade. They seldom share ideas as to art, music, stories, or mimeograph work." The next set came from the open school-closed teachers: "To maintain ideals and the desire to work with troubled children. To encourage positive attitudes toward children. To 'hear' about progress made in- stead of the negative accomplishments of children." "Any new ideas one has should be exposed to the group slowly." "MOst of them are older--have different ideas." "Not tOO much in common because of age span." "Some of the teachers are 'nosey'. Some are nosey because they want to know new methods, etc.-- others because they dislike you." "Getting to know them and being able to work with them on committees." "Being able to be a good listener. Use common sense." "Being friendly." "I had no particular maJor problem; however, I feel that a new teacher should show interest in various ideas and be willing to accept advice, and not act like a know-it-all." "The 'old' teachers, building procedures, especially those 'unwritten rules.'" "They are not Open to most new ideas or different ideas." "Probably age would be the maJor difficulty, because the teachers are almost all older teachers with different methods in some cases." "Finding out policies and ways of doing things." From closed schools-Open teachers: "Not listening to gripes about other teachers." "School is divided into small groups by teachers who eat lunch together. Some go out; some in lunch area; others upstairs; and others in their rooms." "Have their own cliques so it was slow getting in." "Older teachers pessimistic as to what can be achieved with these children. They generalize much of the time." "Too many teachers have pupils come to their room to help them without asking for permission." "Their expectations of having you fit into their predetermined ways of wanting to have things done (rules, discipline, teaching methods)." "You must gain their respect even if you are younger." "None--really two could be more tolerant." From closed schools-closed teachers: "They assume you are familiar with all they are talking about." "Older teachers vs. younger teachers." "They're always interested in what you are doing, how things are coming and how well the class is kept under control." ‘5.“ "Getting to know them and understand their per- sonalities." "Personality clashes." "I would Just like to get to know them." "Criticizing to other teachers instead of telling you things they see wrong." "None--I got along nicely with both white and Negroes." Major Difficulties in Working with the Principal in This Building "What do you consider to be the major difficulties a new teacher has in working with the principal in this building?" To this question, 33 answered "no difficulties,‘ or gave no comments. How- ever, nine said something good about the principal, six in open schools and three in closed schools. To say something good was really more difficult than saying something critical from the wording of the question. There must have been something extremely outstanding to occasion the good remarks. From the open school-open teachers: "No maJor difficulties--the principal is wonder- ful and I'm.very sincere in saying this." "Learning how to get along with her." "Confidential." "Too formal." "This situation did not occur. The principal made it a point to visit and had offered to assist me with any work I wasn't familiar with." "There are no difficulties. She is very cooperative, sincere and capable." From the open schools-closed teachers: "She is one of the best in the system." "Principal is a bit rigid--authoritarian. She might change her mind on a certain policy if both teachers of same grade presented different view from hers." 168’ ' "We have a most understanding principal. I am very, very fortunate to be assigned under her." "Locating her when needed." "Discipline--principal does not believe in 'iron- fist' discipline--therefore most teachers disci- pline themselves." "Being a good listener, being cheerful." "There was no major difficulty for me. However, if a beginning teacher does question a particular issue or thing to be done, she should be cautious and ask before doing." "Don't know her likes or dislikes. To know what types of discipline she wants. To know what type of activities she likes." "No difficulties at all; however, she does not visit often." "She is very busy. The major difficulty is finding a time when I can sit down and talk to her." From the closed schools-open teachers: "Not having requirements thoroughly and clearly ex- plained so there is no room for misunderstanding." "Does not always commit himself on an issue. Not rigid on rules and too easy on teachers who are late or doing a poor job, etc." "He doesn't introduce staff-~ahow where equipment is-- is never in the building--expects much decoration for visitors even if not important--is very distant." "Prefers the traditional methods in teaching." "He is attending so many meetings that he is in his office very little. I do not see how he has time to do all the work he is doing." "The principal automatically shifted her responsi- bilities to other co-worker teachers." "None--cooperation and direction are wonderful." From the closed schools-closed teachers: "Not knowing what she expects of you, both profes- sionally and personally in the classroom." "Principal absent from building for other meetings." "Not knowing what to expect (insincere)." "It is hard to find time to talk with him because of the large number of teachers." "The principal has never taught elementary children and does not understand that kindergarten, etc., are not conducted as those in ninth grade." "None, whatsoever." "None, although I sometimes wish corporal punish— ment were done." "Not enough free time for conferences." "None, he's one in a million." These statements cannot be analyzed statistically, but in a larger sense they give overtones and explanations of the problems of a teacher new to a building. Summary The number one problem for teachers new in a building was the unwritten rules. Next in order of importance was the item of building procedures and school policies, followed next by discipline. Regular t achers advised and helped new teachers in this order: building pro- cedures and school policies, getting materials and supplies, disci- pline. Neglected were expectations in daily routine outside the classroom but in the school. Old teachers and their unwillingness to learn new ways or change their ways were the major gripes about other teachers. The major difficulty about principals seemed to be their lack 0f time to talk to new teachers about problems. This was also borne (”It in the two-way analysis of variance conducted earlier in the study. _",':-‘ However, for new teachers, perhaps this one answer summed it up very succinctly: "All offered to help, and it was all different." CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary The purpose of this project was to study the concerns, satis- factions, and contacts with professional people of teachers new to an elementary school building 1963-6h, in relation to the type of school climate as measured by the Organizational Climate Description Ques- tionnaire, and also in relation to the classification of the teachers as to relatively open and relatively closed as measured on the Dogma— tism Scale. The question of what differences there might be in these con- cerns, satisfactions, and frequency of contact with professional people, and of what strength these differences might be was tested on the null hypothesis: No differences will be found among the four groups of new teachers (open school-open teacher, open school-closed teacher, closed school-open teacher, closed school-closed teacher) in relation to their concerns, satisfactions, and frequency of contact ‘with professional people. A second hypothesis was used: No differ- ences would be found among the entire group of new teachers when they “Were classified as to sex, age, training, teaching experience, exper- ience, experience in the same system, size of school, and number of new teachers per building. A third hypothesis was stated: No differences will be found aflkmng the four groups of new teachers in the frequency with which 1n 172 they sought help from the principal, from other ;c;chers, from ob- serving others, or from using their own judgment in resolving their concerns. Originally, 73 schools participated in the study, selected on the basis of their willingness to coOperate in the project, and of the presence of one or more teachers new to the building. A group of relatively Open and relatively closed elementary schools was identified from the results of the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire. A group of relatively open and relatively closed new teachers was identified from the results of the Dogmatism §gglg, Four groups of 18 new teachers in each group were selected: 18 relatively open teachers in relatively open schools (Open-Open), 18 relatively closed teachers in relatively open schools (Open-Closed), l8 relatively open teachers in relatively closed schools (Closed-Open), and 18 relatively closed teachers in relatively closed schools (Closed- Closed). The Situation Survey which the teachers answered in May, l96h sought to ascertain the degree of concern they felt for some aspects of teaching, their level of satisfact§un in selected aspects of teach- 1ng, their frequency of contact with other professional people, and* their use of help available in the school building during the school year, 1963-6h. The two-way analysis of variance was used to test the hypo- thesis of no differences in concerns, satisfactions, and frequency of contact with professional people. The one—way analysis of variance was used for testing the strength of the variables, and Chi Square to test the teachers' use of help sources during the year. 173 TABLE 8.1 SIGNIFICANT AREAS IN RELATION TO CLIMATE, DOGMATISM, AND OTHER VARIABLES Experience in System Climate Training Teaching Experience No. New Teachers CONCERNS - RANK ORDER Disci line Teacher-st t G O U'l sroom ruct on 1 cies er- ci re ons - e a Teacher- nt relations er-c re at ons SATISFACTIONS h=Hi c S es Disci line School buil Wor conditions c a Interest 8 st Hel fulness of s on c. s of s on- re Parent relations t on esc s Relations-administrators at ons-st s ons er ers Fairness of duties CY OF CONTACT (h=Daily er same , buildi Teacher another same buil nc - e r Other administrat ve 17H" Conclusions The significant findings from this study of 72 new teachers are seen in Table 8.1. Each list is in rank order: most concern to least, least satisfactory to most, most frequent contact to least. The direction and trend of these significant findings are explained in the order they appear on the chart. The selected new teachers reported, in order of frequency, concerns in teaching as follows: (1) discipline, (2) teacher-student relationships, (3) grading, (h) classroom instruction, (5) building policies, (6) teacher-principal relations, (7) teacher-self autonomy feeling, (8) teacher-parent relations, (9) teacher-community rela- tions. and (10) teacher-teacher relations. None of these areas of concern was significantly related to the climate of the school when the two-way analysis of variance was used. Concern with discipline, teacher-student relations, teacher- principal relations, and grading was related to open and closed per- sonality as determined by the differences in the means at the .01, level (See Table 8.1). The relatively closed teachers showed greater concern with these matters than the relatively open teachers, regard- less of whether the climate of the school was open or closed. The same pattern held true for the teacher-self autonomy feeling and the teacher-teacher relationship at the .05 level. None of the four groups expressed much concern about the teacher-parent or the teacher-commun- ity relationships, and there were no significant differences among the groups in these areas. A two-way analysis of variance of teachers' expressed satis- factions indicated that the open-open people reflected a much higher level of satisfaction than the other groups: that all teachers, both "175 open and closed, in the relatively open schools were more satisfied with the adequacy of supplies, teaching load, and fairness with which duties were distributed in the building. These were significant at the .05 level (See Table 8.1). On the subject of the amount of in- terest shown by the students the differences became more pronounced, significant at the .01 level, with both open and closed teachers in the relatively open schools expressing the same amount of satisfac- tion. I Concerning helpfulness of supervision a somewhat different relationship was shown-~the open-Open and closed-closed groups ex- pressing the least satisfaction. The climate factor showed signii ficance at the .05 level, while the dogmatism factor indicated sig— nificance at the .01 level. All the other areas, while there was no significance, showed the same trend toward the influence of cli- mate rather than dogmatism, except in relations with administrators. These 72 teachers new to the building indicated that teachers of the same grade in the same building were most frequently contacted to discuss their professional concerns, followed by teachers of another grade in the same building, the principal, a teacher in another building or system, and other administrative leaders, (See Table 8.1). The two-way analysis of variance indicated a significant dif- ference at the .01 level among the groups concerning their contact with a teacher of the same grade in the same building, with the open- Open group having the least contact and the closed-closed group hav- ing the most contact. The closed teachers in open schools and open teachers in closed schools reported a frequency of contact in the range between the other two groups. L76 Where teachers were contacted in another building, the rela- tively closed teachers reported more frequent contacts than the rela- tively open teachers, with a difference significant at the .05 level on the factor of dogmatism. Information in other parts of the sur- vey indicated that many of these teachers in other buildings were room- mates, spouses, or friends. The climate appeared to be practically non-operative except in the contact with teachers of the same grade in the same building. The analysis of variance showed no significant differences among the four groups attributable to the interaction between cli- mate and dogmatism. In fact, only seven F statistics had a value as high as 1.00 plus. Not one was over 2.00 (2.7h was needed for signi- ficance at the .05 level). The conclusion is that in this sample there was no interaction between the factors of climate and dogmatism that would produce significant differences among the four groups. Each factor appeared to work independently of the other. The analysis of variance showed that the sex of the new teacher was significant in their attitudes toward discipline, teacher- student relations, grading, classroom instruction and building poli- cies, with the male showing less concern. However, males were less satisfied, and significantly sc at the level of .05, in the areas of salaries, working conditions, and at the .01 level in the area of parent relations. Age differences were significant in all areas of concern ex- cept discipline and grading, with teachers in the middle years show- ing the least concern. Older teachers were more satisfied with sal- aries which was the only area of significance in the relationship be- tween age and the satisfactions studied. 177 The level of training was significantly related to concern for discipline and in satisfaction with community attitudes and help- fulness of supervision. Higher levels of training indicated less concern and less satisfaction. Experience was significantly related to concern for disci- pline and instruction. There was a trend of first year teachers show- ing most concern, which gradually lessened during the next four years. After ten years there appeared a gradual increase in the level of con- cern until in the P? years and over bracket of experience concern for var? of thuse was much greater than it was for new teachers. In the satisfaction area, the trend was reversed, as first year teachers and those teaching the first five years gave nearly the same kind of answers to satisfaction items. Of the 19 areas of satisfaction, only three appeared signifi- cant when related to experienced teachers: satisfaction with the po- sition as a whole except for salary, satisfaction with working con- ditions compared to those of other professions at the same level of education, and satisfaction with salary compared to that of other pro— fessions in the area open to people with the same level of education. Experience in the school system in the analysis of variance showed that those who had taught there five or more years were more concerned about problems than those who had taught there less than five years in the following areas: significantly at the .05 level in the principal relationship and in the teacher-self autonomy feeling, and at the .Ol level for the teacher-teacher relationship. Those who had taught there three or more years were less satisfied than the others in adequacy of supplies and helpfulness of supervision. New teachers without experience in the system had less frequent contact MS with teachers of the same grade, same building, but more contact than the group with experience in the system with a teacher of another grade. In terms of school size, teachers in the largest and smallest schools were least satisfied, while new teachers were more satisfied in the in-between schools. The size of the school had no relation- ship with the level of concerns, or with the frequency of contact with other professionals. The number of new teachers in a school appeared to have little bearing on any areas studied except in the attitude of the teachers to the adequacy of the school building and adequacy of supervision, significant at the .05 level. The more new teachers in a school the more dissatisfied these teachers were with their building and super- vision. There was also a significant relationship between the number of new teachers in a school and the frequency 0f contact with a teacher in another building or system to discuss their professional concerns; the more'new teachers, the more frequent were the contacts. Neither school size nor number of new teachers per building was re- lated to the concerns of the teachers. In the study of how new teachers used the help available only two areas of significance developed. In getting help from the prin- cipal in the teacher-parent relations, both climate and dogmatism seemed to be operating, as there were differences between open and closed teachers and a comparable difference between open and closed schools. Getting help from other teachers in the principal relation- ships apparently depended on the climate factor as there were no dif- ferences between open and closed teachers, but a large difference be- tween open and closed schools. An interesting, but not significant, if) trend was that relatively open teachers in the relatively closed schools were not likely to seek help from the principal, or from other teachers, or from Observing. They were more likely to choose some other form of assistance. All four groups showed equally the tendency to use self-judgment in resolving problems, indicating that teaching in its different aspects seem to be an individual mat- ter in which the teacher makes an infinite number of decisions on his own. Variables in this study accounted for AA of the 60 signifi- cant analyses. Even though the main purpose was the study of organi- zational climate and dogmatism in relation to new teachers, the analy- ses of the variables regarding new teachers have given some insight into the workings of climate and dogmatism, and have perhaps added some pertinent information to the knowledge of what happens to new teachers, and how they react. From the actual comments made by new teachers it was found that the main problem they faced in the building was unwritten rules. Next in order of importance were the items of building policies and discipline. Other teachers advised them about building policies, getting materials and supplies and discipline. Other teachers ne- glected to tell about what was expected in daily school routine out- side of and sometimes inside the classroom. This happened because many procedures and policies had become so internalized that other teachers were,unable to put the ideas into words. They followed the rules without thinking about what they were doing. The major gripes about other teachers were the "old" teachers, and their unwillingness to learn new ways or change their ways. The major difficulty with principals seemed to be that new teachers could . :‘;<;' '.-.'\, -‘ ‘u—I not find time to discuss their concerns with the principal. This finding was also borne out in that the principal ranked third in the rank order of frequency of contact with professional people. Discussion Since the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire. labeled school climates on a continuum from open to closed, one of the first considerations was to discover what connections there might be between the open and closed school and the open and closed mdnd, as described by the Qggmatism Scale. The use of the two-way analysis of variance would yield an F statistic large enough for sig- nificance if there had been an interaction between the two factors. Since there was no significant interaction in any tested area, the conclusion for this sample of new teachers was that there was no rela- tion of any importance. Open and closed climate did not appear to have any link with the open and closed belief-disblief system. In this sample, the relatively closed teachers expressed more concern about teaching than the relatively open. Evidence as to whether age is a factor in dogmatism, or whether it is the dogmatic person who stays in teaching, is not conclusive. However, age as a variable was more closely related to concerns than any other variable. It was theorized that satisfactions would be related to cli— mate of the school. While the overall trend of satisfaction areas was that teachers in open climate schools expressed greater satis- faction than those in closed schools, there were only five significant areas relating to climate and two of the five also held a significant relationship to dogmatism. Satisfaction in teaching must in at least two aspects depend on the dogmatism of the teacher as well as the 181 organizational climate uf the school: helpfulness of supervision and fairness with which duties are distributed. Frequency of contact appeared to be a function of both cli- mate and dogmatism, each acting independently in seeking help from the teacher of the same grade same building. Other professional people were contacted on the basis of dogmatism, not climate. The other administrative leader contact was the result of the teacher training system, not the climate. It was not surprising that new teachers ranked discipline as of greatest concern, or that they felt discipline was one of the three areas of greatest dissatisfaction. This finding is the same in practically all studies of new teachers. New teachers' dissatis- faction with salary is also authenticated in other research. Those people who had been in the system for years would be at the top of the salary schedule and be less dissatisfied. The expectation was that teachers would be extremely concerned about their relationship With fellow teachers, but this relationship was ranked of least con- cern. It was also the one ranked very high in satisfaction. Helpfulness and adequacy of supervision were two areas new teachers particularly noticed. Those with less than a Bachelor's De- gree were under the intern consultant or the cooperative program. The helpfulness and adequacy of the supervision was rated high. Other new teachers holding a degree were somewhat critical of the super- vision they received. That new teachers showed a definite lack of concern about the parent relationship and the community relationship was surprising, as many of the college professional courses are aimed toward the ad- visability of involving parents and the community in the schools. 182 There appeared no significant differences among the groups in this lack of concern about parents and the community, and satisfaction with the relationship ranked in the upper half. The basis for this lack of concern might be that with the scarcity of teachers, the job no longer depends on how well the teacher fits into the commun- ity and gets along with parents in the schools in this sample. One comment from teachers was they did not know how to conduct a parent- teacher conference, and that other teachers had helped them when they were confronted with the problem. The question of concern for the parent relationship yielded answers showing no significant differences among the groups. many items regarding parents in the Situation Survey were answered, "did not occur." Insofar as satisfaction with the par- ent relationship was concerned, only those with less than a Bachelor's Degree and those with five or more years of training expressed any de- gree of satisfaction. While the principal in the elementary school is the adminis- trator, he is only third in the frequency of the persons with whom new teachers talk over their professional concerns. Teachers in the same building, either same grade or another grade, serve as the chief source of professional help, especially in the case of relatively closed teachers. In a relatively open climate, relatively open teachers are the least likely of all groups to seek out other professional people to discuss their concerns, while in the relatively closed climate, relatively closed teachers have the most frequent contact with such people. One trend that definitely stands out from "Where did you go for help?" is that in relatively closed schools, relatively open teachers did not go to other teachers or the principal for help. They 183 m0. um .wwm cncncncocatncncn 2:2:2:z:z:=:2:z: Ho. Mam .p d (DCDCDCDCDCDIDCDCD 25252323252323232: amaemmmon mo. no. mo. Ho. mo. epeaaao espousepm a smm.m oma.m omm.m mam.m «unease mmw.m we».m mse.m mmm.m nuance so accesses mmo.m «me.m «me.m oom.m nuances» sense as“: meoaeeaom mm».m Haw.m mme.m Haw.m «antenna as“: «assesses mmm.m wmm.m oes.m :s:.m uuoeutamaeaaee spa: uncapeaom aam.m mom.m mmm.m mms.m Assess» antenna competes Ham.m mmm.m mmm.m mmm.m escapades nausea mmm.m mmm.m swm.m mmm.m moauaaanaaaoaeun meanoaepuqoa wsm.m ema.m Ham.m m»m.m neaeaspoaau no sousaee< mmm.m Haa.m mmm.m s:s.m Assess» musesaoeav eoapamom mmm.m mmm.m mmm.m mem.m eoaeasuuaau so emoeasuaaem ooo.m sma.m mmm.m oom.m eeoH masseuse ooo.m sma.m mmm.m amm.m assesses an enema peesepeu mmo.m ooo.m ewa.m wem.m censuses spseaaaoo moo.m ooo.m mmm.m Haa.m meoapaeeoo manages mmw.m emo.m Haa.m HHH.m assesses Hooaom aaa.m mwm.m ooo.m Haa.m «cause no paces ease mmm.m mmm.m ssm.m sma.m oeaaeaomsn mmm.m Ham.m meH.m mma.m eaaaaaam sss.m oom.m mmm.m mm».m upon compo op eeueeaau seesaw Hue an: man: an: dmeHo wvmm UOmOHU WONG HMOUOPGO nonoao oomoao mono mono «soapoommapmm noamoaw ensue spoon awamv mmbomo noomomlmmmodma mach Hma Mm oszU02 maoosom udoofiz muonoooa boa maoonom mono campuses nausea mmaflpuasa cases and ssooum «assumed pause wmAHBmSHd wm mmmmoa 3mm Q24. aoomom ho ZOHHbmHmBmHQ no 522290.. H.< "H.348 usages madam «so sumo HafinpusseH span nonhupbm oohd 99‘ TABLE A.2 SCHOOLS RANKED BY SCORES ON OCDQ, AND THEIR NEW TEACHERS CLASSIFIED AS OPEN, MIDDLE AND CLOSED BY SCORES ON D SCALE Schools Teachers Scores on D Scale Rank Score on Open Middle Closed School OCQQ Teachers Teachers Teachers 162 1 8h lbs 159 ’12? 2 82 161 98 3 82 1&6 *139 h 82 1h? 5 81 “180 1A6 11:8 ' 6 81 151 “202 7 81 :12; 158 “129 *163 8 81 *165 “172 9 80 .195 10 80 *166 1&2 11 79 162 .112 16h . 1h3 “139 12 79 t s “176 1A5 .122 13 78 ~ “178 1h? 1h 78 *115 15 78 “172 1&0 16 78 162 *121 17 78 *136 “Teachers taken for the study 200 TABLE A.2—-Continued Schools Teachers Scores on D Scale Rank Score on Open Middle Closed School OCQQ Teachers Teachers Teachers 159 155 18 77 *168 11:5 :33 157 158 25% Percentile 19 77 *17h 15h lhl 2O 77 *171 .136 21 75 *166 157 22 75 1AA 156 30% Percentile 151 23 75 162 2h Tn *133 *177 *l3h 25 73 ”181: "‘5 m7 *136 26 73 1h? "139 “121 35$ Percentile 161 27 72 169 1h5 28 72 11:6 29 72 127 lhh 3O 71 1&2 139 138 31 71 185 126 'Teachers taken fer the study 35% Percentile Schools Rank Score on School OCQQ 32 71 33 70 3h 69 35 67 36 66 37 66 38 66 39 66 ho 65 hi 65 he 6h N3 6h m. 63 NS 62 N6 62 1:7 62 201 TABLE A.2--Continued Open Teachers 175 17h 17h 208 175 181 167 180 168 m 173 172 *Teacher taken for the study Teachers Scores on D Scale Middle Teachers 151 159 162 169 169 159 167 159 161 157 1113 1&0 1&0 155 162 150 150 11.7 11.2 156 155 152 1&9 Closed Teachers 133 136 126 12h 139 13h 127 115 "f‘. :82 TABLE A.2--Continued Schools Teachers Scores on D Scale Rank Score on Open Middle Closed School OCQQ Teachers Teachers Teachers 162 161 153 12h "8 61 162 127 155 119 161 50 57 lhs *1hl * s1 57 *163 166 30% Percentile 52 56 *17h 'th *1ho 53 55 is; *139 I 96 5h 53 16h 158 55 so 156 16h 25% Percentile 56 us 111 ~139 57 hi *136 58 ho *180 1h? 59 ho *138 60 39 158 61 38 *1h2 62 38 :13: 162 63 35 - - - “Teachers taken for the study 203 TABLE A.2--Continued Schools Teachers Scores on D Scale Rank Score on Open Middle Closed School OCDQ Teachers Teachers Teachers 6h 32 150 “122 65 31 207 158 “1&1 161 “120 ”182 *206 151 ”125 159 ”1&3 “197 “178 *136 67 27 .179 l"6 .128 "176 162 68 25 1hh 69 23 *196 70 21 158 71 21 - - _ 72 20 *165 151 “185 73 15 *179 13° *1h2 *177 5 ' “Teachers taken for the study 20h TABLE A.3 RANK ORDER OF SCHOOLS ON OCDQ WITH INFORMATION ON NUMBER OF RETURNING TEACHERS, NEW TEACHERS, AND SEX OF PRINCIPAL Rank Number Number of Returning New Sex School Score Teachers Teachers (Principal) 1 8h 18 2 M 2 82 1h 5 F 3 82 11 2 F A 82 11 1 F 5 81 10 3 F 6 81 11 3 F 7 81 2O 7 F 8 81 6 1 F 9 80 18 2 M 10 8O 10 2 F 11 79 10 h F 12 79 1h 5 F 13 78 17 3 M 1h 78 16 h F 15 78 22 3 F 16 78 3o 3 F 17 78 12 1 F 18 77 19 8 F 25 Percentile 19 77 9 3 M 20 77 10 3 F 21 75 2O 2 F 22 75 ll 3 F 30 Percentile 23 75 6 h ' F 2h 7h 6 2 F 25 73 9 6 M 26 73 10 5 F 35 Percentile 27 72 8 3 M 28 72 8 h F 29 72 8 1 F 30 71 8 h F 31 71 9 3 M 32 71 1h 0 F 33 70 22 6 M 3h 69 13 2 F 35 67 15 8 F 36 66 13 5 M 37 66 17 2 M 205 TABLE A. 3—-Contir1uei‘1 Rank Number Number of Returning New Sex, School Score Teachers Teachers (Principal! 38 66 12 2 F 39 66 19 1 M A0 65 10 2 F A1 65 8 6 M A2 6A 9 2 F A3 6A 8 6 F 1111 63 16 6 F A5 62 8 1 F A6 62 29 3 F A7 62 10 2 M Lower 35 Percentile A8 61 11 9 F 119 59 6 6 F 50 57 8 A F 51 57 6 5 F Lower 30 Percentile 52 56 10 3 F 53 55 26 5 M 5A 53 7 3 F 55 50 8 3 M Lower 25 Percentile 56 A5 11 2 F 57 A1 10 1 F 58 A0 13 A M 59 A0 26 2 M 60 39 7 1 M 61 38 6 1 F 62 38 21 3 M 63 35 13 1 M 6h 32 11 1 F 65 31 10 6 M 66 28 27 11 F 67 27 22 11 M 68 25 2O 3 M 69 23 9 1 M 70 21 10 1 F 71 21 11' 3 F 72 20 10 2 F 73 15 12 6 F 206 TABLE A.A F STATISTICS FOR CLIMATE, DOGMATISM, AND INTERACTION IN RELATION TO CONCERNS OF THE FOUR GROUPS OF NEW TEACHERS FROM THE TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Concerns Discipline Teacher-student relations Grading A Classroom instruction Building policies Teacher-principal relations Teacher—self autonomy Teacher-parent relations Teacher-community relations Teacher-teacher relations df 3/68 Sig. .05 = 2.7A Sig. F Statistics 92.11332. Dowtism .10956 A.A2373** .56628 A.13A66** .07855 A.7A692** .00A21 1.751A6 .51679 2.71378 .A87A2 17.AA815** .A079A 3.882A1* .09901 1.36018 .07698 2.0567A .A5517 3.9h36o* Interaction .29679 .1A629 1.0A921 .17216 .05378 .19866 .17777 .20691 .5A566 1.075A3 flSig. at .01 207 TABLE A.S F STATISTICS FOR CLIMATE, DOGMATISM, AND INTERACTION IN RELATION TO SATISFACTIONS OF THE FOUR GROUPS OF NEW TEACHERS FROM THE TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE F Statistics Satisfactions Climate Dogmatism. Interaction Salary compared to other Jobs 2.A2857 .2007 .1806A Supplies and equipment 3.91367* .2hA60 .2Ah60 Discipline 1.16503 .59AA1 .21399 Time spent on duties .09605 .09605 .86AA1 School building .h8907 .17606 .17606 Working conditions compared 1.90583 .07623 .68610 Community attitude 1.AOOOO .02857 .2571A Interest shown by students A.56098** .33925 .33925 Teaching load 3.A8718* .87179 .00000 Helpfulness of supervision 3.02056* A.21880'” .22A67 Position (including salary) 1.92908 .00000 .A8227 Adequacy of supervision 2.1A873 2.15873 .53968 Non-teaching responsibilities 2.29118 1.38602 .25A58 Parent relations .OA000 .OAOOO .OAOOO Position (except salary) .95937 .03837 1.88036 Relations with administrators .15A55 1.39091 1.39091 Relations with students .00000 .95775 .00000 Relations with other teachers 2.39062 2.39062 .26562 Fairness with which duties are distributed 3.18129* 3.18129' 1.789A7 df 3/68 Sig. .05 = 2.7h Sig .01 = h.o8 “Sig. .05 *‘Sig. .01 208 TABLE A.6 F STATISTICS FOR CLIMATE, DOGMATISM, AND INTERACTION IN RELATION TO FREQUENCY OF CONTACT WITH PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE OF THE FOUR GROUPS OF NEW TEACHERS FROM THE TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE F Statistics Frequency of Contact Climate Dogmatism Interaction Teacher same grade, same building 5.87219** 7.10535** .93955 Teacher another grade, same building .91582 2.06061 .22896 Principal .26511 2.38596 1.65692 Teacher another building or system .21691 3.A7OA9* .05A23 Other administrative leader .2h071 .06018 .2h071 df 3/68 Sig. .05 = 2.7h Sig. .01 = h.08 *Sig. at .05 nSig. at .01 209 TABLE A.7 F STATISTICS FOR VARIABLE SEX OF NEW TEACHERS IN RELATION TO CONCERNS, SATISFACTIONS, AND FREQUENCY OF CONTACT F Statistic Significance Concerns - Rank Order Discipline 7.52630** .01 Teacher-student relations 5.610AO* .05 Grading 8.21052** .01 Classroom instruction 9.836A8** .01 Building policies A.25597* .05 Teacher-principal relations 2.38A82 Teacher-self autonomy 3.7705A Teacher-parent relations .51187 Teacher-community relations .5A671 Teacher-teacher relations 3.8A861 Satisfactions Salary compared A.A0388* .05 Supplies 2.30760 Discipline .2A551 Time on duties 1.71157 School building .05119 Working conditions compared 6.A1181* .05 Community attitude .67057 Interest shown by students .66503 Teaching load 3.56093 Helpfulness of supervision .A2600 Position (including salary) 2.11921 Adequacy of supervision .0208A Non-teaching reSponsibilities 1.05580 Parent relations 10.17197** .01 Position (except salary) 3.91319 Relations-administrators .02A52 Relations-students .15660 Relations-other teachers 1.68030 Fairness of duties .32790 Frequency of Contact Teacher same grade, same building .00807 Teacher another grade, same building 3.29966 Principal .00A58 Teacher another building .00850 Other administrative leader .00110 df 1/70 Sig. .05 = 3.98 Sig. .01 = 7.01 210 TABLE A.8 F STATISTICS FOR VARIABLE AGE OF NEW TEACHERS IN RELATION TO CONCERNS, SATISFACTIONS, AND FREQUENCY OF CONTACT F Statistic Significance Concerns - Rank Order Discipline .A86AA Teacher-student relations 3.76626“ .05 Grading 1.30910 Classroom instruction 5.32810““ .01 Building policies 3.AO282“ .05 Teacher-principal relations A.62126““ .01 Teacher-self autonomy 3.99718“ .05 Teacher-parent relations 5.5992A““ .01 Teacher-community relations A.59121““ .01 Teacher-teacher relations 7.83822““ .01 Satisfactions Salary compared 2.75159“ .05 Supplies .A1653 Discipline 1.52972 Time on duties .99123 School building 1.62570 Working conditions compared 1.85500 Community attitude .96867 Interest shown by students 1.70003 Teaching load 1.03716 Helpfulness Of supervision 1.10367 Position (including salary) .393A8 Adequacy of supervision 1.63279 Non-teaching responsibilities .96012 Parent relations 1.2A90l Position (except salary) .68839 Relations-administrators .90192 Relations-students .5A52A Relations-other teachers 2.18119 Fairness Of duties .71173 Frequency of Contact Teacher same grade, same building .18156 Teacher another grade, same building 1.78599 Principal .58612 Teacher another building .53775 Other administrative leader 1.10981 df 3/68 Sig. .05 = 2.75 Sig. .01 = A.12 211 TABLE A.9 F STATISTICS FOR VARIABLE TRAINING OF NEW TEACHERS IN RELATION TO CONCERNS, SATISFACTIONS, AND FREQUENCY OF CONTACT .F Statistic Significance Concerns - Rank Order df A/67 Sig. .05 = 2.51 Sig. .01 = 3.62 Discipline 3.10A31“ .05 Teacher-student relations .llAOO Grading .2A7l3 Classroom instruction .28167 Building policies .301A7 Teacher-principal relations .52216 Teacher-self autonomy .376OA Teacher-parent relations .A9812 Teacher-community relations 1.08253 Teacher-teacher relations .33930 Satisfactions Salary compared 1.63159 Supplies 1.2A338 Discipline 1.51002 Time on duties 1.0A837 School building 2.07080 Working conditions compared .06082 Community attitude 2.7A961“ .05 Interest shown by students 1.01656 Teaching load | .67209 Helpfulness of supervision 2.89A79“ .05 Position (including salary) 1.80369 Adequacy Of supervision 2.2OOA2 Non-teaching responsibilities .2A916 Parent relations .87156 Position (except salary) 1.17709 Relations-administrators .1995A Relations-students .37562 Relations-other teachers .A868A Fairness of duties 1.52658 Frequency of Contact Teacher same grade, same building .83392 Teacher another grade, same building .6AA15 Principal .76110 Teacher another building .9731A Other administrative leader 1.17012 112 TABLE A.10 F STATISTICS FOR VARIABLE EXPERIENCE OF NEW TEACHERS IN RELATION TO CONCERNS, SATISFACTIONS, AND FREQUENCY OF CONTACT df 8/63 Sig. .05 = 2.09 Sig. .01 = 2.85 F Statistic Significance Concerns - Rank Order Discipline 3.77595““ .01 Teacher-student relations 1.78831 Grading 1.89823 Classroom instruction 3.35053““ .01 Building policies 1.12500 Teacher-principal relations .99308 Teacher-self autonomy 1.732OA Teacher-parent relations 1.A9156 Teacher-community relations 2.A3696“ .05 Teacher-teacher relations 2.A67A6“ .05 Satisfactions Salary compared 3.A9999““ .01 Supplies 1.855A3 Discipline 1.0852A Time on duties 1.52692 School building 1.73379 WOrking conditions compared 2.11930“ .05 Community attitude 1.12898 Interest shown by students 1.550A6 Teaching load .7297A Helpfulness of supervision 1.96230 Position (including salary) .96203 Adequacy of supervision .79273 Non-teaching responsibilities 1.28202 Parent relations .92691 Position (except salary) 2.23072“ .05 Relations-administrators .39A60 Relations-students .96613 Relations-other teachers 1.19596 Fairness of duties .57286 Frequency of Contact Teacher same grade, same'building 1.39526 Teacher another grade, same building 373507 Principal 1.067Al Teacher another building .88968 Other administrative leader 1.07A2A 213 TABLE A.11 F STATISTICS FOR VARIABLE EXPERIENCE IN SYSTEM OF NEW TEACHERS IN RELATION TO CONCERNS, SATISFACTIONS, AND FREQUENCY OF CONTACT F Statistic Significance Concerns - Rank Order Discipline 1.31AO6 Teacher-student relations 1.56836 Grading 1.0A685 Classroom instruction 1.0A605 Building policies 1.66508 Teacher—principal relations 2.AA931“ .05 Teacher-self autonomy 2.19876“ .05 Teacher-parent relations 1.39361 Teacher-community relations -- Teacher-teacher relations 3.12A8A““ .Ol Satisfactions Salary compared 1.99316 Supplies 2.36520“ .05 Discipline .9A796 Time on duties 1.630A7 School building 1.66A76 Working conditions compared 1.3AA1A Community attitude 1.0A982 Interest shown by students 1.139A5 Teaching load 1.05155 Helpfulness of supervision 2.1723A“ .05 Position (including salary) 1.01526 Adequacy of supervision .70706 Non-teaching responsibilities 1.6622A Parent relations .5A967 Position (except salary) .38075 Relations-administrators .59100 Relations-students .35676 Relations-other teachers .78780 Fairness of duties 1.98A85 Freguency of Contact Teacher same grade, same building 2.A5A72“ .05 Teacher another grade, same building 2.87OAA“ .05 Principal 1.27761 Teacher another building 1.72969 Other administrative leader 1.A38A9 df 7/6h Sig. .05 = 2.16 Sig. .01 = 3.09 1Average of concerns for one classification by previous experience was zero (no answer). Computer could not work variance. 21A TABLE A.12 F STATISTICS FOR VARIABLE SIZE OF SCHOOL OF NEW TEACHERS IN RELATION TO CONCERNS, SATISFACTIONS, AND FREQUENCY OF CONTACT df A/67 Sig. .05 = 2.51 Sig. .01 = 3.62 F Statistic Significance Concerns - Rank Order Discipline 1.13927 Teacher-student relations .5887A Grading .6070A Classroom instruction .18763 Building policies .30729 Teacher-principal relations .A9A36 Teacher-self autonomy .A8A15 Teacher-parent relations .51996 Teacher-community relations 1.67027 Teacher-teacher relations .79762 Satisfactions Salary compared 3.AO23A“ .05 Supplies 2.A2789 Discipline 3.39516“ .05 Time on duties 1.53513 School building 2.8A250‘ .05 Working conditions compared 3.09861“ .05 Community attitude .63A78 Interest shown by students 2.50906“ .05 Teaching load .80292 Helpfulness of supervision 2.13776 Position (including salary) 1.12737 Adequacy of supervision 1.20909 Non-teaching responsibilities .683A9 Parent relations .58518 Position (except salary) 1.767A0 Relations-administrators .AO719 Relations-students 2.8756A“ .05 Relations-other teachers 3.88266““ .01 Fairness of duties .9388A Frequency of Contact Teacher same grade, same building 1.17737 Teacher another grade, same building .73A28 Principal .33958 Teacher another building .71082 Other administrative leader 1.10232 215 TABLE A.13 F STATISTIC FOR VARIABLE NUMBER OF NEW TEACHERS PER BUILDING IN RELATION TO CONCERNS, SATISFACTIONS AND FREQUENCY OF CONTACT F Statistic Significance Concerns - Rank Order Discipline 1.50859 Teacher-student relations 1.2595A Grading .69010 Classroom instruction .A6767 Building policies .71897 Teacher-principal relations .50911 Teacher-self autonomy .27319 Teacher-parent relations .79256 Teacher-community relations .69897 Teacher-teacher relations .3A519 Satisfactions Salary compared .31712 Supplies .70200 Discipline 1.13288 Time on duties .23952 School building 2.33317“ .05 Working conditions compared .6A738 Community attitude .515A0 Interest shown by students .81136 Teaching load .5A128 Helpfulness of supervision 1.9636A Position (including salary) 1.071A6 Adequacy of supervision 2.99706“ .05 Non-teaching responsibilities .807lA Parent relations 1.03072 Position (except salary) .59268 Relations-administrators 1.11908 Relations-students .53786 Relations-other teachers 1.19715 Fairness of duties 1.A81A6 Frequency of Contact Teacher same grade, same building 1.A09l9 Teacher another grade, same building .7207A Principal 1.11698 Teacher another building 2.26833“ .05 Other administrative leader 1.6A998 df 7/6h Sig. .05 = 2.16 Sig. .01 - 3.09 216 TABLE A.1A SUMMARY OF THE NUMBER OF CASES IN EACH CATEGORY OF THE SEVEN VARIABLES Seas. Male 16 Female 56 852. Teachers Up to 30 50 30 to 39 16 A0 to A9 ,3 50 to 59 3 Over 60 0 Training 2-3 Years 7 3—A Years 12 A Years A6 5 Years 6 5+ Years 1 Egperience Not in Present System“ Year A Years Years Years Years 6-10 Years 11-20 Years 21-30 Years Over 30 Years \J'I-fi'UONH HNC’NHS’VDHUJ Previous Experience in System Before 1963:6A Years 5 Year Years Years A- Years 6-10 Years 11-20 Years 21-30 Years Over 30 Years \anl-‘O l—‘OI—‘MNNUOPN “Beginning teachers in May were counted as having had one year experience. 217 TABLE A.1A--Continued Size of School - Number Of Regular Teachers Number Regular Teachers Schools 6-10 21 11-15 17 16-20 12 21-25 10 Over 25 12 Number of New Teachers in Schools New Teachers Schools 1 2 2 9 3 11 A 5 5 11 6 13 7—8 8 11 and over 13 218 TABLE A.15 SIGNIFICANT AREAS IN RELATION TO CLIMATE, DOGMATISM, AND OTHER VARIABLES .- .. in System School Experience Size Climate Dogmatism Training) Teaching Experience No. New Teachers Rank Order CERNS Disci line Teac er-S re a ons Gradi Classroom nstruct on Buildin licies Teacher- rinc re a ons Teacher-3e Teacher— t relations Teacher-communi relat ons O H SFACTIONS c es Disci Time on duties School buildin Worki conditions t a Interest students .01 Teachin load . e ess o s s on . on c ng s ary O s s on on- e re 5 Parent relations Position exc sal t ons- n stra rs t ons- s Relat ons-Other teachers CY OF CONTACT er same , same‘buil er another grade, same buil c » er r Other administrative leader 219 ommaa m: mm oaa do HHH mmm omm sea mam sum masses mom ma m mm mm mm a» om mm so me @UWOHU UGwOHU mom w 4 0H PH ma mm as em ow 4m some . oomoao mo: on: :H m z m H: mm om Hm mm am H» mm we mm mm a: or mm mm so choose .mmmm some mono «H8909 moofipoaou honooopnuonoooa escapades hofissasoouuonoooa mnowpoaou pnouomluonoooa 550s095o maomluonoooa escapades Homwosfiumluonomoa unseeded msaoaasm soapoohpmnw soonmmoao mafiooho msowpsaon uncoopmlaomoooe oofiamwouan Hmomovoo AQmGDnozH mmoHomo manBADZV mumm ho momDom.m< nmaomamm mfls Ammmmo mHZHB ho mamZDz ma.< mammmmmo Hm mammfozHMmmm mmDomo aoomomlmmmodma mDom mo moOH NO. on» no OoquOHmstHm sou nwsoso ONMoH OsHmb o oooHOHh Omen» no onoz th ebH NH NH mH mH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH 5 2 NH NH NH 888 Iowa. UmmOHO UUNOHU MPH NPH NH NH NH eH pH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH 888 NNNN sumo sumo mHoHOB nnoHeoHon nonooopunonoooa mooHpoHou hpassssooluonoooa moOHomHon pnouomlnonodoa hsosoaso “Homnuonoooa msOHpoHou Homaosaumlhonomoa mOHuHHom wnHoHHsm SOHposnpmsH abounmoHo NsHoouo mooHHSHOH pooospnlhonoooa OnHHmHomHn NmomOpmo mmzHB meS mo 039:82mzomph 230 oszD um.mzmamomm mHmms 02H>aommm mmDomN aoomumlmmmo