' A STUDY TO DEEERMINE SEEECTEDZ DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS IDENTIFIED AS INNOVATORS Thesis for the Degree of Ph D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVFRSITY * JACK WILLSEY ‘ 1.971 THE'H'C LIB R A R Y Michigan State University w?— " *- —-‘ This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY TO DETERMINE SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS IDENTIFIED AS INNOVATORS presented by Jack Willsey has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Secondary Education and Curriculum degree in CEQOL&1 O 8/2.! £14m (lam-J Major professor Date May 1971 0-7639 _, -____‘ 7 . .4 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1293 10447 ABSTRACT A STUDY TO DETERMINE SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS IDENTIFIED AS INNOVATORS BY Jack Willsey The purpose of this study was to determine if a relationship exists between selected demographic character- istics and innovativeness in high school teachers. Inno- vative teachers were those identified as such by their colleagues, using the criteria developed for this study. In considering the list of characteristics, nine hypotheses were formed around twelve variables. These variables were: age; years of teaching; years of teaching on the present high school staff; number of school systems taught in; number of quarter hours beyond the highest degree earned; recency of the last class taken; sex; subject taught; under- graduate majors and minors; whether or not the respondent was working toward an advanced degree; and, if a Master's Degree had been earned, whether it was in education or a subject matter field. Jack Willsey The nine null hypotheses were: H 1: There is no difference in age between teachers identified as high innovators and teachers identified as low innovators. There is no difference in the number of years of teaching experience between teachers iden- tified as high innovators and teachers iden- tified as low innovators. There is no difference in the number of years as a teacher on the present high school staff between teachers identified as high innovators and teachers identified as low innovators. There is no difference in the number of school systems previously taught in between teachers identified as high innovators and teachers identified as low innovators. There is no difference in the length of time since the last class was taken between teachers identified as high innovators and teachers identified as low innovators. There is no difference in innovativeness between male and female teachers. There is no difference in subject matter taught between teachers identified as high innovators and teachers identified as low innovators. Jack Willsey H 8: There is no difference in innovativeness be- tween teachers who have continued their edu- cation beyond the Baccalaureate Degree in pursuit of a higher degree and teachers who have not continued beyond the Baccalaureate Degree. H 9: There is no difference in innovativeness between teachers who have earned a Master's Degree in Education and teachers who have earned a Master's Degree in a teaching field. The population for this study consisted of all high school teachers in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan in high schools with professional staffs numbering between twenty- five and forty teachers. For purposes of drawing a sample, Michigan was divided into four regions. Three schools were then randomly selected from each region. Two instruments were used to gather the data: a Teacher Data Sheet, designed for this study, and a modified Q-sort. Upon completion of the Q-sort, a mean teacher inno- vativeness score was computed for each teacher. Computation of such a score is recognized as a deviation from regular Q-sort procedures, which do not produce a score. This de- parture was necessary to provide a basis for ranking all teachers. The score obtained is a reflection of the number of times an individual teacher was identified as innovative by all other teachers included in the study at that school. Jack Willsey Because the variables noted were of two rather dis- tinct types, two statistical procedures were used in the analysis. For the quantitative variables, multivariate analysis of variance was used. Analysis of the data in this study did not produce results that allowed rejection of the five null hypotheses tested by this procedure. The other variables were qualitative and a Chi- square test of association was used in their analysis. The tabled Chi-square values derived were not large enough to reject the null hypothesis for the four hypotheses tested. The following conclusions were drawn from the results of this study: as far as the demographic character- istics considered in this study are concerned, no distinc- tion can be made between high innovative and low innovative teachers; teachers who scored the highest on the innovative— ness scale were teachers concerned with the students and the effect the educational program was having on them as evi- denced by informal conversation with the researcher; and teachers appear to be able to identify innovative colleagues using a list of prepared criteria. A STUDY TO DETERMINE SELECTED DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS IDENTIFIED AS INNOVATORS BY Jack Willsey A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1971 To Dad who wanted me to be; For Mom who knew I could; And Sanda, who made it possible. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To convey the depth and extent of one's feelings in a letter is a difficult task. This writer wishes to ac— knowledge his deep sense of gratitude for those people who helped in the preparation of this document. For Dr. Louise Sause, a warm thank you for the many hours spent and the penetrating questions asked. To Dr. Lawrence Borosage, a heartfelt thank you for his unique con- tributions in providing the extra dimensions this writer sought. To Dr. George Myers, a thank you for reminding the writer of the importance of people in every undertaking. Finally there is the Committee Chairman, and for Dr. Charles Blackman there is a very special thank you. His guidance, wisdom, and patience have been a source of strength relied upon many times. His ability to see the problem in many perspectives is appreciated, and without his supervision it could have been a far more difficult task. Every writer must recognize and acknowledge the part a family plays in his endeavors. Memories of those passed on are often inspirational in this type of undertaking, but difficult to acknowledge. Without the help and SUpport of all of my family none of this would have been possible. For iii my wife Sanda, and our five children, Matthew, Lucinda, Joseph, Elson, and Rose Ann, goes a thanks that every "family" writer understands. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING . . . . . . Background and Setting . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of the Study. . . . . . . . 3 Statement of Hypotheses. . . . . . . 3 Importance of the Study. . . . . . . 7 Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Limitations 0 O O O O O O O I O 0 11 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . 11 Organization of the Study . . . . . . 12 II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE. . . . . . 13 Teachers in the Innovative Process . . . l6 Characteristics of Innovative Teachers. . 20 sumary O O O O O O O I O O O O 2 8 III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . . . 29 Identification of Innovative Teachers . . 29 The Pilot Study . . . . . . . . 32 Steps Used in the Collection of the Data . 34 Source of the Data . . . . . . . . 39 Instruments Used . . . . . . . . . 40 Methods of Data Analysis . . . . . . 44 smary I O O O I O O O O O O O 44 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . 46 The Problem Restated. . . . . . . . 46 Analysis of the Quantitative Data . . . 50 Analysis of the Qualitative Data. . . . 53 . . . 55 smary O O O O O I O O O Chapter V. BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX Summary. Design Limitations of the Study Analysis of the Observations Conclusions Recommendations Survey Instrument SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS vi Page 58 58 59 60 62 63 65 67 69 81 A-So A-6. LIST OF TABLES Total Number of Schools in Each Geographic Region and the Number of Teachers Included from Selected Schools . . . . . . . Numbers of Teachers Surveyed by Subject Area Numbers of Teachers Identified as High Innovators and Low Innovators . . . . Multivariate Probability of Selected variables 0 O O O O O O O O O O The Probability of High and Low Innovators Having the Same Characteristics as Deter- mined by Analysis of Seven Selected Variables . . . . . . . . . . . .Chi-Square Analysis of Variables Related to Innovativeness . . . . . . . . . Correlation Matrix. . . . . . . . . Regional Distribution of Sex of Teachers Inc lUded O O O O O O I O O O 0 Regional Distribution of Age of Teachers Included . . . . . . . . . . . Regional Distribution of Number of Years in Teaching and Number of Years on the Present Staff. . . . . . . . . . Regional Distribution of Subjects Taught . Regional Distribution of Respondents With a Master's Degree in Education or a Master's Degree in a Subject Matter Field and Those Working Toward an Advance Degree . . . vii Page 35 41 49 51 53 55 85 86 87 88 89 90 Table A-7 0 Regional Distribution of Number of Quarter Hours Earned Beyond Highest Degree Held by Respondent . . . . . . Regional Distribution of Recency Last Class for Respondents. . Tally Tally Tally Tally Tally Tally Tally Tally Tally Tally Tally Tally Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet for for for for for for for for for for for for School School School School School School School School School School School School viii 1 2 of the Page 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 99 100 101 102 104 106 107 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 3-1. The Geographic Division of the State for Purposes of Drawing a Sample . . . . . 36 ix CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING Background and Setting An investigation of the professional journals of the last decade indicates there has been much consideration given to educational innovations. The breadth and depth of educational innovations is apparently limitless. It can extend from a single teacher's use of a particular time period, through the cooperative efforts of separate school districts to offer a unified summer program, and beyond. Many of the studies dealing with innovations center around the administrative staff or school district char- acteristics, and do not deal directly with the innovations themselves. A great deal of time is given to explaining the role of various levels of the administration in foster- ing, facilitating, and finalizing innovative programs. Some studies have attempted to sketch the innovative school ad- 1,2 ministrator, his professional characteristics, and 1John Childs, "A Study of the Belief Systems of Ad- ministrators and Teachers in Innovative and Non-Innovative School Districts" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965). 2Allen Klingenberg, A Study of Selected Administra- tive Behaviors Among Administrators From Innovative and various facets of the role he plays in the innovative pro- cess.1 Almost equal to the attention given to delineating administrators and their role is that given to describing the characteristics of the school or school district. Such studies have ranged from the organizational climate of the central administrative office2 to the size of the school district and the per pupil expenditures.3’4 One factor many of these studies seem to lack is consideration of one of the most important people in the educational scene--the classroom teacher.5 If there has Non-Innovative Public School Districts (Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Education, 1967). 1Harold Sargent, "A Test of Motivational Appeals Judged Effective by Chief School Administrators to Induce Teacher Acceptance of Educational Innovation" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1965). 2Larry Hughes, "The Organizational Climate Found in Central Administrative Offices of Selected Highly Innovative and Non-Innovative School Districts in the State of Ohio" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1965). 3Jan Jacobs, "Leadership, Size, and Wealth as Re- lated to Curricular Innovations in the Junior High Schools" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1965). 4Thomas Kendig, "An Analysis of the Relationships of Certain Educational Conditions to Curriculum Breadth and Innovation in Selected Pennsylvania School Systems" (un- published Ed.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1965). 5Robert Fox and Ronald Lippitt, "The Innovation of Classroom Mental Health Practices," in Innovation in Edu— cation, ed. by Matthew Miles (New York: Teachers College Press, 1964), p. 27lff. been a great deal of time and effort expended to explore the school building, district, and administration, there has been an almost conspicuous lack of attention focused on the teachers, who are involved with developing innovative pro- grams, or who may participate in their implementation. If teachers are going to be encouraged to innovate, and if the implementation of their innovations is a desired and worthwhile goal, it is necessary to know more about the teachers who may be the initial innovators, or who may be inextricably linked to the success or failure of adminis- tratively originated innovations. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to determine if teachers identified as innovative share any common demographic char- acteristics. The characteristics will include: age, sex, educational and experiential background. Statement of Hypotheses The following hypotheses form the basis of this study: H 1: Teachers identified as innovative will have taught in more than one school system. H 2: Teachers identified as innovative will have had more years teaching eXperience than those not identified as innovative. H 3: Teachers identified as innovative will have taught longer on the present high school staff than those not identified as innovative. These three hypotheses are all related to experience in the field of education as a factor affecting a teacher's incli- nation to be innovative. The literature review in Chapter II will present in more detail the relative importance re- searchers have given this particular factor and its influ- ence on innovative behavior in a teacher. H 4: Teachers identified as innovative will have continued their education beyond the Baccalaureate Degree. H 5: Teachers identified as innovative possessing a Master's Degree will have earned it in edu- cation rather than a subject matter teaching field. H 6: Teachers identified as innovative will be found proportionately in all subject matter areas. H 7: Teachers identified as innovative will have been enrolled in a class more recently. Preparation for teaching, both pre-service and in-service, is another possible facotr when considering innovative be- havior in teachers. Hypotheses 4 - 7 identify some specific areas that may influence this behavior. H 8: Teachers identified as innovative will be found in all age categories. As will be pointed out in Chapter II, age is a matter of great concern where innovators are concerned, and because of this a decision was made to include this factor in the study. H 9: Teachers identified as innovative will be prOportionately of both sexes. Although there is little related research on this particular item, it was considered an important part of the study. The review of related literature in Chapter II will show there is little consensus on the demographic character- istics of innovative teachers, and little attempt has been made to determine empirically what these characteristics might be. That there is still a measurable time lag1 be- tween the development of a useful educational practice or theory and its adoption evidences a need to know more about innovative teachers. The knowledge that the failure of some innovative practices can be attributed to teachers' attitudes and behaviors2 only increases the urgency. If education is to continue to be an important in- fluence in our society then teachers must be able to adjust to the rapidly changing nature of society and its needs. 1G. Ernest Anderson, "Estimated Time for Accepting Educational Ideas: 30 Years," The Nations Schools, LXXVIII (December, 1966), 50. 2Edward Nussel and Mildred Johnson, "Who Obstructs Innovation?" Journal of Secondary Education, XVIV (January, 1969), 3-11. The need for innovative educational practices has never been more acute, and it is possible that adoption of educational innovations can be hastened by innovative teachers staffing innovative schools. But peOple cannot be ordered to inno— vate, in a true sense of the word, for innovation implies change and a willingness to move along untried pathways. The possibilities of failure and misunderstanding are always great when new grounds are being traversed. This fact is frequently the reason why it is easier to employ a teaching style that does not involve risks. Some teachers, however, will, and do, engage in the risky business of educational innovation, and some adminis- trators are looking more and more for this characteristic in members of their teaching staffs. The innovative person who proceeds in a thoughtful, vigorous manner does so not be- cause of some preprogrammed formula; he probably does so because of the type of person he really is. Knowledge of some of the characteristics that would distinguish that type of person, such as a group of demographic characteristics, could help in their identification. As far as the characteristics of innovative teachers are concerned, there seems to be little agreement on the effect of any one characteristic on this aspect of behavior. Rogers1 was able to identify some characteristics associated 1Everett Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (I11.: Free Press of Glencoe, 19627. with innovative behavior, but his works are concerned with innovators from a variety of fields other than education. A similar identification has not been made for teachers alone. Teaching experience, type of pre-service and in- service education, and age have all been rated important by some writers and downgraded by others when considering inno— vative behavior in teachers. Perhaps the pertinent questions are: Is it a multiplicity of characteristics, which may differ from teacher to teacher, that is necessary for any one teacher to be innovative? Or are there some character- istics of a demographic nature shared by all innovative teachers? If such a commonality does exist it needs to be discovered. Importance of the Study If there are some characteristics that distinguish the innovative teacher, knowledge of them could be invalu- able to school administrators. It was reported by Overlyl that the major reason for abandonment of curriculum inno- vations was teacher opposition to the continuance of the practice. Assuming not all teachers are opposed to the practice, a strategy might be developed that will increase 1Donald Overly, "Comparative Analysis of North Central Accredited Indiana Secondary School in Relation to Educational Innovations" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1968). the possibility of success. When an administrative deci- sion is made to proceed with an innovative practice, it would be desirable to be able to select by empirically proven methods teachers most amenable to working with, and furthering, the innovative practice. Indiscriminate selection of teachers to be involved in an administratively originated innovative practice prob- ably lowers the possibility of success. With the increasing amount of criticism being levelled at schools such a gamble is unthinkable. Being able to select teachers for initial inclusion in an innovative practice, and then broadening the base of support should raise the possibility of success, improve the quality of the educational offering and lessen the amount of criticism being directed at schools. Knowledge that there are characteristics which dis- tinguish innovative teachers could also benefit colleges and universities. Awareness of the existence of such a distinction could indicate areas of professional education that need to be added, strengthened, or modified; it could indicate the relationship between the recentness of course work and innovative behavior; and, it could indicate the desirability of further research to determine the relation- ship of this list of characteristics to other personality characteristics, and the possible effects such a relation- ship might have. The implication that there may be some common char- acteristics that could identify innovative teachers, and the implications such an existence has for pre-service and in-service use is too great to be overlooked any longer. Jenkins1 found three variables that distinguish innovative from non-innovative teachers, but these variables, general intellectual preparedness, originality, and ideational fluency, are difficult to define and additional work is necessary to define these distinguishing characteristics in more easily understood terms. Procedures To determine if innovative teachers can be identi- fied by a list of demographic characteristics the following procedures will be carried out: 1. Selection of sample high schools for inclusion in the study. 2. Completion of teacher data sheets by the teachers. 3. A Q-sort by teachers in each of the high schools to identify those persons they describe as inno- vative. 4. Analysis of the data. The population for this study consists of all high school teachers in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan in lJohn Jenkins, "A Study of the Characteristics Associated with Innovative Behavior in Teachers" (unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Miami, 1967). 10 schools with a professional staff numbering between twenty- five and forty persons. There are eighty-seven schools of this size in the Lower Peninsula. For purposes of drawing a sample Michigan was divided into four regions. The north-south dividing line was highways US 27 and 127, the east-west dividing line was Michigan Highway 20. Using a table of random numbers three schools were chosen from each region. Permission was then secured from the superintendent and principal to spend a day, or whatever time was necessary, at the school conducting the investigation. Prior to this date a cover letter was given to each teacher explaining the purpose of the study and briefly outlining the procedures to be followed,1 This same method was employed during a pilot study2 to provide a basis for evaluating the data gathering proce— dures. None of the teachers questioned during the pilot study found any of the survey questions offensive or objec- tionable, so it was felt teachers could fill the data sheets out immediately prior to the Q-sort. Since there was no direct relation between the survey sheet and the Q-sort, doing both consecutively would not appear to contaminate results of either one. 1A more detailed description of the procedures will be found in Chapter III. 2See Chapter III for a description of the pilot study. 11 Limitations The following limitations are recognized and noted for this investigation: 1. The investigation is restricted to high schools with a teaching staff ranging from twenty-five to forty professional members. The study is limited to teachers who have taught at least one year in the building of their present assignment. The study is restricted to teachers with a mini- mum teaching assignment of three classes per day in the high school building. In this study only the high school teachers were surveyed. The selection procedures used may be a limiting factor from the standpoint that no justification was asked for, or given, by respondents, of their choice of innovative teachers. Definition of Terms To avoid misunderstanding, the following definition is offered for the term innovation as used in this study. This term and definition is not particularly unique, nor is it being used in a different context, but to focus it in a particular fashion the following is offered. Innovation is: a deliberate, novel Specific change, which is thought to be more efficacious in accomplishing goals. It seems 12 helpful to consider innovations as being willed and planned for, rather than occurring haphazardly.1 The innovative teacher is the teacher involved with this change. The source of the innovation is not a factor for consideration in this study, it is, rather, the inno- vative actions of the teachers that is being considered. As a complement to this, a practice which has been accepted in one school may be in the innovative stage in a second school. While this innovative process may involve both teachers and administrators, it may be manifest in the actions of only one or the other. Organization of the Study Chapter I has dealt with the background, purpose, and need of the investigation. In Chapter II a review of the pertinent literature will be presented. Chapter III contains a more detailed explanation of the procedures fol- lowed. Chapter IV includes the findings and results of the investigation, and Chapter V deals with a summary, conclu- sions, and recommendations. lMatthew Miles, Innovation to Education (New York: Teachers College Press, 1964), p. 14. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the liter- ature which has a bearing on the various aspects of this investigation. The hypotheses formulated suggested the review be divided into two parts: the teachers involved in the innovative process and their personal characteristics, and a discussion of the literature dealing with desirable or preferred characteristics in teachers to allay suspicions or fears that the innovative characteristic in teachers was being valued above all other characteristics. In discussing the problem of identifying good teachers, Ryans makes the distinction between assessment and evaluation: In assessing a characteristic of a teacher, we are try- ing to estimate the extent to which that defined char— acteristic is manifest by the teacher . . . [evaluation] has to do with judgement relating to the "goodness" of teacher behavior, judgement that should be derived from assessments of clearly defined observable teacher char- acteristics considered in light of agreed-upon educa- tional objectives and the expectancies of individuals or groups with respect to teacher behavior.1 lDavid Ryans, "Teacher Behavior Can Be Evaluated," in The Evaluation of Teaching, ed. by Jane Hill and Betty Humphry (Washington, D.C., 1967), p. 50. 13 14 Inasmuch as other writers did not appear to make this distinction, this review does not concentrate exclu- sively on either evaluation or assessment. The purpose of this study is to determine whether or not the characteris- tic, innovation, is present and identifiable; it is not intended as a value judgement in either case. Knowing the background of the person searching for information about a teacher's abilities is a factor Kerlinger reports on in several studies:1’2 To ask a judge to tell what an effective teacher is like requires, for an understandable answer, knowledge of the judges basic educational orientation and knowl- edge of the underlying criteria (factors) he is using in making the judgements. Brown reached a very similar conclusion and stated that understanding what is meant when someone says, "This is a good teacher" or, "This is a poor teacher" requires an understanding of the values and position of the person 1Fred Kerlinger, "Attitudes Toward Education and Perception of Teacher Characteristics: A Q Study," Ameri- can Educational Research Journal, III (May, 1968), 159-68. 2Fred Kerlinger, "The First--and Second--Order Structures of Attitudes Toward Education," American Edu- cational Research Journal, IV (May, 1967), 191-206. 3Fred Kerlinger, "The Factor Structure and Content of Perception of Desirable Characteristics of Teachers," Educational and Psychological Measurement, XXVII (Autumn, 1967), 643-56. 15 making the judgements.l Brown also contends that we must know something of the teacher's values too, and that if we do we are able to explore more adequately the relative positions of the judge and the teacher and the possible relationships and interactions affecting judgements of the teacher's effectiveness.2 The difficulty in reaching any decisive conclusions about evaluating teachers is compounded by the fact that an analysis of the evaluation forms used to evaluate teaching and/or teachers indicates as many as five major categories of evaluations may be included: (1) personal character- istics; (2) professional qualifications; (3) instructional efficiency; (4) staff relationships; and, (5) community relationships.3 Del Popolo may have summed up the problem when he wrote It is believed that there is no single teacher per- sonality pattern superior to all others, but rather there are several that are felt to be desirable. 1Bob Brown, "Bringing Philosophy Into the Study of Teacher Effectiveness," Journal of Teacher Education, XVII (Spring, 1966), 35-40. 21bid., p. 40. 3Guy Wagner, "Identifying Components of Good Teach- ing," Education, LXXXIX (February, 1969), 280-85. 4Joseph Del Popolo, "Teacher Personality: A Con- cern of Teacher Education," Peabodngournal of Education, XLIII (July, 1965), 50-55. 16 Teachers in the Innovative Process Not all writers and researchers are convinced teachers occupy a strategic position in the innovative process. Most of the writings critical of the teachers role, are aimed primarily at teachers as the source of innovations1 or at teachers as controllers2 and dissemi- nator/sharers3 of innovation. Due to the bureaucratic structure of today's secondary schools such a critical look at the role of the teacher could not be left out of a review of the literature. As Klingenberg noted: "research indi- cates administrators are control elements in deciding whether new practices should be used."4 There are indications from other research that sug- gests this same bureaucracy, if not actually working against the administration in the development and implementation of lRobert Pickering, "Change and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act," in Fostering and Reinforcing Innovative Behavior in Select School Personnel, ed. by David Smith, Monograph of Selected Papers presented at Two Institutes (Tucson, 1966), p. 4. 2Allen Klingenberg, A Study of Selected Administra- tive Behaviors Among Administrators From InnovatIVe andion- Innovative Public School DIstricts (Lansing, M1652: Michi- gan Department of Education, 1967), p. 17. 3Pickering, "Change and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act." 4Klingenberg, A Study of Selected Administrative Behaviors Among Administrators From InnovatIve and Non- Innovative Public School Districts. 17 innovations, at least tends to negate their control over innovative teachers and the introduction of new practices. Corl reported on a study, conducted by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, which iden- tified 300 innovative practices, in five schools, which were unknown to any one but the teacher who identified the prac- tice.:1 This would seem to support the contention that a teacher's isolation and autonomy "suggest that the teacher is in a key position to exert the major amount of influence on the fate of the innovation."2 A study by Pellegrin reported on ten existing and potential sources of educational innovations. Heading the list as most influential were teachers, with administrators being placed second.3 Other writings range from those stating the recognized importance of teachers in the inno- vative process4 to those identifying teachers as the "key lSamuel Corl, "The Relationships Between Student Teacher Innovative Behavior and Selected Attitudes, Percep- tions and Personality Characteristics" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1969). 2Edwin Bridges and Larry Reynolds, "Teacher Recep- tivity to Change," Administrators Notebook, XVI, February, 1968. 3Roland Pellegrin, An Analysis of Sources and Pro- cesses of Innovation in Education (Eugene, Ore.: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, 1966). 4Gordon MacKenzie, "The Process of Innovation," National Education Association Journal, LVI (May, 1967), 27-31. 18 variable in education,"1 or as the most important resource in the school in putting innovations to use.2 In consider- ing the matter of adoption or rejection of innovations, "Individuals concerned with the problem contend that every major step in education includes the effort and cooperation of the classroom teacher."3 Once the concept of teacher importance and involve- ment in the innovative process is accepted it is possible to deal with the further question of the nature and extent of the involvement. Much of the literature seems to support the premise that the teacher is only a part of the inno- vation team, albeit an important part, involving teachers and administrators. Given administrative support and encouragement teachers can develOp islands of creativity within the school. Lee reported as a similar conclusion, the result of his study of opinions of teachers and administrators, that lWalter Anker, "What Has Happened to Effective Teaching?" ClearingiHouse, XLI (May, 1967), 527-28. 2Robert Slaughter, "Can the Schools Put Innovations to Use?" in The Unfinished Journey: Issues in American Education (New York: The John Day Comapny, 1968), p. 121. 3Edward Nussel and Mildred Johnson, "Who Obstructs Innovation?" Journal of Secondary Education, XLIV (January, 1969), 3-11. 4Eugene Howard, "How to be Serious About Inno- vating," Nations Schools, LXXIX (April, 1967), 89-90. 19 successful innovations are those which have had the support and active involvement of teachers and administrators.1 In reporting the results of his study on the effects of flexible scheduling on teachers, students and adminis- trators, Cawelti noted: There is wide recognition that innovations have a much better chance of succeeding if teachers as well as administrators have been authentically involved in planning for the change. While some would argue that many of today's educational innovations were introduced via the charismatic administrator, the evidence from this study suggests this is simply not the case.2 Griffin and Devlin also noted that when seeking justifica- tion for innovating, "it would be far better for teachers and administrators to work as partners."3 In separate studies dealing with the implementation of new curricular materials Eye, et a1.4 and Johansen5 1William Lee, "A Study of the Educational Opinions of Selected Teachers and Administrators" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967). 2Gordon Cawelti, "Does Innovation Make any Differ- ence?" Nations Schools, LXXXII (November, 1968), 60-63. 3Gary Griffin and Rev. Joseph Devlin, S.J., "The Teacher Evaluates Innovations," National Education Associ- ation Journal, LVI (December, 1967), 26-8. 4Glen Eye, et a1., Relatignship Between Instruc- tional Change and the Extent to Which School Administrators and Teachers Agree on the Location of Responsibilities for AdmihiStratiVe Decisions (Madison, Wisc.: The University of Wisconsin, 1966). 5John Johansen, "An Investigation of the Relation- ships Between Teacher's Perceptions of Authorative Influen- ces in Local Curriculum Decision-Making and Curriculum Implementation" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, North- western University, 1965). 20 reported that the more teachers were involved and felt they were influential in curricular decisions the greater the likelihood and incidence of those changes taking effect in the classroom. Oliver offered a slightly different dimension to the subject of teacher-administrator partnership: One of the most significant facts in curriculum making is the discovery that teachers can make contri- butions to curricular planning. Increasingly larger numbers of administrators are looking to teachers for both ideas and details.1 There is mounting evidence of the need for all levels of education to become involved in the innovative process. Characteristics of Innovative Teachers Some characteristics of innovators in fields other than classroom teaching are known, and to review the litera- ture on this would be to replicate the work of people like Everett Rogers,2 Matthew Miles,3 and Allen Klingenberg.4 lAlbert Oliver, Curriculum Improvement: A Guide to Problems, Principles, and Procedures (New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1965), p. 53. 2Everett Rogers, Bibliography on the Diffusion of Innovations (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State Uni- versity, Department of Communications, 1967). 3Miles, Innovation in Education. 4Klingenberg, A Study of Selected Administrative gehaviors Among Administrators from Innovative and Non- Innovative Public School Districts. 21 What seems to be lacking are the characteristics of class- room teachers, and while there may be some similarities between teachers and innovators in other fields We are discovering that the innovation and spread of high quality teaching practices is a different proc- ess from the spread of new developments in agriculture, medicine, and industry. One of the most controversial characteristics of innovative teachers is the length of teaching experience. Some writers and practitioners believe that receptivity to change is negatively related to the amount of experience in teaching a person has. If one is interested in encouraging any form of innovation, the chances are that he will be most successful if he directs his efforts toward teachers whose years of experience are few. These teachers are the most receptive to changes in role expectations and behavior. This view is based on indirect evidence from other studies that show more experienced teachers were less concerned about being involved in decision making than were the less I 3 experienced teachers. 1Ronald Lippett, et a1.,"The Teacher as Innovator, Seeker and Sharer of New Practices," in Perspectives on Educational Change, edited by Richard Miller (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967), p. 308. 2Robert Carson, Keith Goldhammer, and Roland Pellegrin, Teacher Participation in the Community (Eugene, Ore.: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Admin- istration, 1967), p. 37. 31bid. 22 A study by Wiley was more specific about the ex- perience level. He reported that curriculum workers could expect to find teachers with fewer than ten years teaching experience more ready for curriculum change than those with more than ten years of experience.1 Chesler and Fox may have narrowed the span of years even more by suggesting teachers fresh from college or advanced training may be eager to try new ways upon entering into a teaching situ- ation.2 Miller approached the subject from another point of view. In listing the factors inhibiting educational change, he placed "the rut of experience" at the t0p of the scale.3 Other writers are less inclined to write off older, more experienced teachers as innovators. In one study, Lippett found what appeared to be an age-background split with regard to teachers involved in innovations. The younger and older teachers appeared to be doing most of the innovating. He concluded this may mean younger teachers, recently out of college, or older teachers who have come lFrank Wiley, "A Study of Teacher Relationships Considered to be Associated with Readiness and Non-Readiness for Curriculum Change" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, 1965). 2Mark Chesler and Robert Fox, "Teacher Peer Rela- tionships and Educational Change," National Education Asso— ciation Journal, LVI (May, 1967), 25-6. 3Richard Miller, Perspectives on Educational Change (New York: Appleton-Century—Crofts, 1967). 23 back to teaching after raising children are more likely to experiment and to try new ideas. It may be that the younger teachers do not know the accepted or understood professional standards and tactics and, therefore, try a number of new things; while older teachers who are bored with doing the same things in the classroom year after year seek out new ideas. Kochnower reached a somewhat similar conclusion: It would also seem wise to involve teachers of varying degrees of experience. More experienced people will provide a background which permits comparison. Newer teachers will be less constrained by tradition and less hampered by inertia.2 When John Goodlad, who has a long history of work- ing with educational innovations and innovative teachers, was asked if he found older, more experineced teachers less likely to innovate he replied, We can't generalize about the amount of experience or age or what not in regard to innovation. Beginners, for example, try very often to model themselves after people who are already well established. They tend not to innovate, because this would be deviation from es- tablished patterns. Sometimes well established, secure people have the freedom within themselves and the strength and the ego to be able to innovate. Some studies have stated similar conclusions in more definite manner. For example, in those conducted by Bridges lLippett, et a1., "The Teacher as Innovator, Seeker and Sharer of New Practices," p. 322. 2William Kochnower, "Educational Progress or Tur- moil?" Educational Forum, XXX (March, 1966), 273-76. 3John Goodlad, "Every Teacher Has the Opportunity to Innovate," The Instructor, LXXVII (October, 1967), 30-31. 24 and Reynolds,1 Chambliss,2 and Jenkins3 experience was not found to be a significant variable in a teacher's involve- ment in innovations or change. Another characteristic of innovative teachers that has drawn attention is their peer relationships. In some cases innovators have been greatly influenced by the reac- tion of other teachers to what they were doing. In an analysis of an elementary school, to show how even minor give-and-take can affect behavior, Smith and Geoffrey re— ported strong norms in the school against innovative be- havior. Teachers new to the school who experimented with teaching procedures were ridiculed by their peers. The newcomers learned quickly to rely upon recitation as their major instructional technique, and not to try new ideas and practices.4 Not all innovative teachers will be stopped by negativism from their peers, however. Christiansen reported 1Bridges and Reynolds, "Teacher Receptivity to Change." 2E. J. Chambliss, "Attitudes of Teachers Toward Adopting Innovations and the Relationships of These Atti- tudes to Other Variables" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Texas Technological College, 1968). 3Jenkins, "A Study of the Characteristics Associ- ated with Innovative Behavior in Teachers." 4Louis Smith and W. Geoffrey, The Complexities of an Urban Classroom (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1967). 25 that experienced teachers in a high innovative category are less influenced by their peers than are the teachers in the lower innovative categories.l Pickering,2 and Rogers,3 in different studies, reached the conclusion that innovators disregard the Opinion of their peers. A third characteristic or factor of innovative teachers that has been investigated and commented on is their preparation, both pre-service and in-service. Peter- man gathered data from sixteen suburban high schools and found that teachers with a higher frequency of participation in in-service programs have a higher number of innovations in their classrooms than those with lower frequencies.4 In a study designed to discover the effectiveness of a particu- lar in-service program, Good found that all seventeen teachers involved reported using some educational practices 1James Edward Christiansen, "The Adoption of Educa- tional Innovations Among Teachers of Vocational Agriculture" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1965). 2Pickering, "Change and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act." 3Everett Rogers, "What are Innovators Like?" Theory Into Practice, II, No. 5 (December, 1963). 4Lloyd Peterman, "The Relationship of In-Service Education to the Innovativeness of the Classroom Teacher in Selected Public Secondary Schools in Michigan" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1966). 26 not used before, and eleven of the seventeen increased their use of desirable practices.1 This would seem to indicate that in-service education can promote innovative behavior. In a study of pre-service training and ideational fluency, True found that knowledge accumulated through a training program did not appear to affect the number of ideas an individual could generate; however, initial ability determined the extent to which an individual could benefit from the training. With respect to initial ability, he reported that the aptitude to produce a large number of ideas did not seem to be related to vocabulary, reading, mathematics, English, or speech skills.2 Symonds wrote about a similar aspect of the results of preparation: Methods and procedures learned during college preparation may influence teaching superficially but they do not determine the nature of the relation of a teacher to his pupils or the teachers basic attitude toward teaching. There are many other characteristics that have been associated with innovative teachers but often there is 1Vera Good, "An Examination of an In-Service Edu- cation Operation to Determine its Potential for Effecting Change in Teaching Practices" (unpublished Ed.D. disser- tation, Columbia University, 1964). 2G. Herbert True, "Creativity as a Function of Idea Fluency, Practiceability, and Specific Training" (unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1956). Percival Symonds, "Teaching as a Function of the Teacher's Personality," Journal of Teacher Education, V (1954). 79-83. 27 little agreement as to the effect a particular character- istic may have. Rogers states that innovators are gener- ally younger than others,1 but Goodlad,2 Lippett et a1.,3 and Bridges and Reynolds4 claim age is not a significant variable. Lippett noted the various characteristics asso- ciated with innovative teachers! There are forces within each teacher which make him more or less Open to new classroom practices. Some of these are personality characteristics such as attitudes, values and general Openness; others are a function of background and training, such as awareness of current professional develOpments, grade level or subject spe- cialization, age and family commitments. One of the first considerations that should be given to a discussion of teacher characteristics is the relative importance of those characteristics, and who will be judging, evaluating, or assessing them. So it is with innovative behavior in teachers. It is only one characteristic that may or may not be deemed desirable. lRogers, Bibliography on the Diffusion of Inno- vations. 2Goodlad, "Every Teacher Has the Opportunity to Innovate." 3Lippett, et al., "The Teacher as Innovator, Seeker and Sharer of New Practices." 4Bridges and Reynolds, "Teacher Receptivity to Change." 5Lippett, et al., "The Teacher as Innovator, Seeker and Sharer of New Practices," p. 310. 28 Summary Although there may be people who play a more visible role in the realm of educational innovation, or whose role may make it possible to reach and affect more people with their innovations, there is a growing body of research giving recognition to the importance of the classroom teacher in the innovative process. The most recurrent theme is that innovation is often a team enterprise, involving an innovator-teacher and sympathetic administrator, or an innovator-administrator and an adopting teacher. The most successful and far reaching innovations recognize the im- portance of both positions. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY One of the crucial elements of many studies, and certainly of this one, is the procedure used to gather the data. The nature of this investigation was such that one of the crucial areas was the method used to identify inno- vative teachers. Another concern was whether or not the procedures would work in actual practice. The method used to identify innovative teachers, the pilot study conducted to field test the data gathering procedures, the steps used in the collection of the data, the source of the data, a description of the instruments used, and the methods of data analysis are described in order. Identification of Innovative Teachers In Jenkins' study dealing with innovative behavior in teachers,1 nine criteria were developed to be used in identifying innovative teachers. Those nine criteria were: 1. He/she is constantly searching for new ways of doing what he/she must do anyway. lJenkins, "A Study of the Characteristics Associ- ated with Innovative Behavior in Teachers." 29 30 2. He/she expresses a willingness and desire to participate in programs that are labelled "experimental." 3. He/she is willing to try things out regardless of the likely outcome. 4. He/she enjoys uncertainty and encourages his/ her students to enjoy uncertainty also. 5. He/she frequently diverges from the norm and goes off in new directions when it seems appro- priate to do so. 6. He/she works beyond any prescribed time period or work schedule. 7. He/she uses a variety of approaches in teaching and adjusts his/her teaching to the task being undertaken and the students being taught. 8. He/she exhibits a positive attitude toward teaching and toward students. 9. He/she solves his/her teaching problems with imagination. For this study, four of the criteria, numbers 2, 4, 5, and 9, were used with only a minor revision, consisting of elimination of the second his/her designation. A fifth criterion, number 1, was included after changing the ending to read "what must be done." This change was made to avoid any suggestion of resignation on the part of the teacher that certain tasks may be distasteful, but must be done. 31 Jenkins' criterion three was not used because it was felt it may indicate a negative perseverance to the extent a teacher would follow through on a plan even when unpleasant or highly questionable results were indicated as being the likely outcome. Criterion six was eliminated to avoid any conflicts with teacher organizations that had negotiated strict time clauses. Item seven was felt to be repetitious when taken in context with the other criteria, particularly number one. Criterion eight was not included because this concept seemed to be implicit in many of the criteria that would be used. To this revised list of criteria to be used in this study, a sixth criterion was added to give the di— mension of concern for the effects of a new program on the entire school system, as opposed to concern for only a single school building. This became criterion four in the revised list. The criteria used to identify innovative teachers, for purposes of this study were presented to teachers in the following form: 1. He/she expresses a willingness and desire to participate in programs that are labelled "experimental." 2. He/she frequently diverges from the norm and goes off in new directions when it seems ap- propriate to do so. 3. He/she enjoys uncertainty and encourages stu- dents to enjoy uncertainty also. 32 4. He/she is concerned with the far reaching effects of his/her methods and techniques on the entire school system. 5. He/she solves teaching problems with imagi- nation. 6. He/she is constantly searching for new ways of doing what must be done. The criteria and the Q-sort procedures were then field tested in a pilot study. The Pilot Study Three reasons affected the choice of a particular local school as the site for a pilot study. First, there was a personal acquaintance with both the Superintendent and the High School Principal; second, the school was geo- graphically close, and in the event unusual problems were encountered that would necessitate a return visit, time and distance would not be a compounding factor; third, there were twenty-nine teachers listed on the high school roster, which put it within the range of schools chosen for this study. Contact was made with the administrators and an ap- pointment was made to discuss the details of the pilot study and to set a date for gathering the needed information. At the subsequently arranged faculty meeting, the purpose of the survey instrument, the Q-sort procedures,l 1See page 40. 33 and the pilot study were explained to the teachers and they were asked to cooperate. It was explained that the infor- mation gathered would be confidential, but no one need participate if it was felt the study violated their personal principles. No attempt was made to prevent the counsellors, librarians, or first year teachers from filling out a data sheet. On a following visit, teachers were asked to go through the Q-sort procedures. The faculty lounge was chosen as the operational site because most of the teachers would normally visit that room at some time during the day. Teachers were asked to do the Q-sort no more than two at one time to avoid confusion. Two days were required to ad- minister the Q-sort to the twenty—two teachers involved who met the requirements established for the study. The major problem observed in the pilot study was the hesitancy of the investigator to seek out teachers to take the Q-sort. This was the primary reason a return visit was necessary. The two major changes the pilot study indicated were elimination of a letter to the teacher's bargaining group explaining the study, and having the Teacher Data Sheet filled out at a faculty meeting. The proposed letter to the teachers' group>was eliminated because of the high degree of cooperation on the part of the teachers, most of whom first learned of the study at the faculty meeting, and because it was felt in 34 smaller systems there would be a closer working relation- ship between faculty and administration, removing some of the tensions that might demand a communication of this sort. It was also decided to have teachers fill out the Teacher Data Sheet immediately prior to doing the Q-sort. This would eliminate one visit to each school, would lessen the chance of antagonizing teachers by adding time to faculty meetings, and would allow greater flexibility in scheduling schools for the data collection procedures. Steps Used in the Collection of the Data The first step in data collection was the decision to use schools with between twenty-five and forty teachers on the staff. Schools of this size were chosen because this size school would be large enough to offer a compre- hensive and diversified curriculum, but small enough to allow staff members from various departments to become familiar with the total school staff and be acquainted with the entire school program. A listing of all schools in Michigan was obtained1 and from this was distilled the list of schools suitable for inclusion in the study. There were eighty-seven schools of this particular size in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. 1The Michigan Education Director and Buyer's Guide, Michigan Education Directory, Lansing, Michigan, 1969. 35 The next step in the collection of the data was to divide the Lower Peninsula of Michigan into four regions. Such a division would prevent drawing a sample of schools clustered around and influenced by a single college or uni- versity or a large metropolitan area, and would provide the widest possible geographical spread. The selection of dividing lines was made to provide each geographical region with a metrOpolitan area and a college or university if possible. Geographical size of the regions was not a pri- mary consideration. The north-south dividing line was highways US 27-127, the east-west dividing line was Michigan Highway 21. The map in Figure 3-1 shows the geographical division achieved for this study. Table 3-1 shows the number of schools and teachers for each region. The schools in each region were numbered and listed. Working from a table of random numbers1 six schools from TABLE 3-l.--Tota1 number of schools in each geographic region and the number of teachers included from selected schools. Region 1 2 3 4 Totals Number of schools 23 23 21 20 87 Number of teachers in selected schools 63 68 75 65 271 1William L. Hays, Statistics (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 19637. 36 “FF- '-—"—“-*“‘ ' u“_"’ '""——' ”M11011 camouu F sou jwasurmw—I-mvue I , I o . US ‘ 3.3-1-11- 127! I l ' ST JOSEPH ' .mucu m. fiiE—N-A—Wf - FDR‘s-('1 manta. ' ' ' "__i__uui_u__L__nu& i l .i 2 Figure 3-l.--The geographic division of the state for purposes of drawing a sample. 37 each region were selected. The first three schools in each region were to be the schools used and the second three were to provide substitutes if that became necessary. The in- clusion of a substitute school will be covered in the section dealing with the source of the data. Once the schools were identified, a letter1 was sent to the superintendent outlining the nature of the study and asking for permission to conduct the study in the high school. Included was a statement that the researcher would follow-up the letter with a telephone call to make an appointment with the superintendent, and if possible, later with the principal of the high school, to discuss the study and answer any questions that might arise. The interviews that followed the telephone calls did not follow any particular pattern as far as adminis- trators in attendance was concerned. In four systems the letter had been referred directly to the high school prin- cipal after the superintendent read it and approved of the study; three superintendents indicated they wished to dis— cuss the study with the investigator, and after their questions were answered the matter was turned over to the principal. In two schools the principal was out of the district on the date the superintendent indicated he wished to discuss the study, and after having the procedures 1See Appendix. 38 explained, assurances were given that the principal would be informed of the procedures by the superintendent's office, and that a telephone contact could finalize per- mission to conduct the study. In two instances the super— intendent and principal were both in attendance, and in the final instance the matter was turned over to an assistant superintendent. These discussions with the administrators took place over a two-week period of time. In the ten school districts where the principal was contacted personally a date was arranged for a return visit to gather the data. Copies of an introductory letterl were left with the principal for distribution to the teachers shortly before the return visit. The superintendent re- ceived these letters in the other two schools, to provide the same continuity in the distribution of these intro- ductory letters to the teachers in the high school build- ings. Sufficient copies were left to provide distribution to the entire staff, with the principal to use his dis- cretion in the matter of informing non-participating staff members. In three cases this step of the procedure (passing out letters) was not carried out, but announcements over the public address system or personal contact by the principal on the day of the visit were used as substitutes. 1See Appendix. 39 At one of these conferences with administrators in- formation was presented that made the selection of a sub— stitute school desirable. The district was a recently con- solidated, geographically large one, in a predominately rural area. In this district, the high school was split into two distinct groups: the ninth and tenth grades met in one location, and the eleventh and twelfth grades met at another site several miles away. The entire high school staff met only infrequently and for brief periods of time. Because of this split and separation, and the nature of the study, it was mutually agreed that selection of another school might be advisable. The school that was first on the list of substitutes for that region was contacted and the same procedures as above were followed. Source of the Data The data used in this study were gathered from teachers in twelve schools throughout the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The schools were selected using area random sampling procedures. The map in Figure 3—1 indicates the approximate geographical location of the twelve school districts. The type of community served by these schools ranged from predominately rural in nature to urban schools adjacent to metrOpolitan areas. Some of the districts are relatively new, having been created as a result of recent reorganization. Other schools have been in existence a 40 much longer time, dating back to the original creation of a high school to serve that particular community. At least two of the schools were created within the last ten years to serve growing urban areas around large cities. Table 3-2 indicates the number of teachers included for each of twelve subject matter areas. The teachers in the study were those who have com- pleted at least one year of teaching on the present high school staff. Only people with primary teaching contact with students were included, and this contact time had to amount to a minimum of three classes per day in the high school. Instruments Used The two instruments used in this study were the Q-sort for identifying innovative teachers, and the Teacher Data Sheet. A two pile initial sort was used in the Q-sort procedures to lessen apprehension on the part of partici- pants. It was emphasized that the descriptive character— istics, noted in the selection criteria, were regarded as favorable characteristics or attributes. Upon completion of the Q-sort, by all respondents in a school, a mean teacher innovativeness score was com- puted for each teacher. The following steps were utilized to arrive at this score, which is recognized as a deviation from normal Q-sort procedures, because normally these pro- cedures produce no score: TABLE 3-2.--Numbers 41 of teachers surveyed by subject area. Subject Geographic Region Total 1. Lang. Arts 12 7 14 12 45 2. Soc. Sci. 9 l3 l4 7 43 3. Science 5 6 10 9 3O 4. Math 5 7 6 7 25 5. For. Lang. 3 3 2 2 10 6. Business 5 6 9 5 25 7. Agric. l l -- l 3 8. Ind. Arts 5 9 7 5 26 9. Music 1 -- l -- 2 10. Home Econ. 3 4 2 2 11 12. Arts/Crafts 3 3 2 2 10 12. Phys. Ed. 4 5 4 4 17 13. Combinationa 7 4 3 9 23 TOTAL 63 68 75 65 271 aItem 13 (Combination) is used to designate in- stances of teachers having class in more than one of the twelve listed subject matter areas. 1. Following the directions given each partici- pant, the first step for the respondent was to divide the deck of cards (containing the names and teaching assign- ments of the involved teachers) into two piles. consisted of the teachers the respondent felt met the majority of the six criteria; pile B contained those Pile A 42 teachers not meeting the criteria, or those teachers not known well enough by the respondent to enable the respondent to make a valid judgement. No further use was made of pile B because this study was not concerned with the degree to which teachers did not meet the criteria. 2. The next step was a re-sort of pile A into three subgroups to describe the degree to which each of the teachers in pile A met the listed criteria. As this re— sorting was completed by each teacher, a tally was made, by the researcher, of which teachers were placed in each pile. This tally is summarized on the tally sheets in the Appendix. 3. When the Q-sort was completed by all the re- sponding teachers a score was assigned to each of the three subgroups: +3 for the highest degree; +2 for the lesser degree; and +1 for the least degree. The tallies for each category were added up and combined, giving a total score. This score was changed to a percentage, using as a base the number of teachers that had taken part in the Q-sort pro— cedures. For example: Teacher A in school 1 was placed in the least group six times, in the lesser group twice, and in the highest group once. Eleven respondents placed teacher A in pile B, for which no score at all was given. The total score for this teacher: 6 + 4 + 3 = 13; 13 divided by 20 (the total number of teachers doing the 43 Q-sort) = 21%. The 21 per cent was then used as a basis for determining into which group the teacher would be placed: the high innovative group--50 per cent or higher, or the low innovative group--less than 50 per cent. Each teacher, whether or not he had actually gone through the Q-sort procedures himself, was placed in pile A at least once. This indicated that every teacher was per- ceived as meeting a majority of the criteria for inno- vativeness by at least one teacher. Table 4-1 shows the breakdown of teachers, according to the high innovator-low innovator categories. The Teacher Data Sheet was designed for this inves- tigation to provide the information necessary to test the hypotheses stated in Chapter I.. Some information was available about the teachers from another research source.1 This allowed omission of questions related to age and sex. Confirmation of information from the Teacher Data Sheet was also made possible by using this information. Three sources of information were then used to identify individual teachers: (1) the Teacher Data Sheet, filled out by the teachers; information from the previously noted additional research source; and (3) the teachers schedules, as provided by the school district. Using these 1Supplied by Dr. Stanley Hecker, Department of Administration and Higher Education, Michigan State Uni— versity, East Lansing, Michigan. 44 sources of information it was possible to identify indi- vidual teacher data sheets for the purpose of putting them in rank order for analysis. Methods of Data Analysis The data were first transferred from the question- naires and tally sheets to mechanically sorted cards. These cards were then fed into an IBM 3600 computer. The Finn1 program for multivariate analysis of variance was used to analyze the qualitative data, and a routine nucross program was used in a Chi-square analysis of the quanti- tative data. The researcher had established specific limits to eliminate chance error. The selection of a specific re- jection region was dependent upon certain practical aspects of the study--samp1e, size, and circumstances of the effect of particular levels of significance. The level of sig- nificance fixes the relative number of chance outcomes the researcher is willing to interpret mistakenly as real ef- fects in the study. It was for this reason that the .05 level of significance was chosen. Summary This chapter explains the procedures used in col- lecting the data for this study. The first step was an 1Multivariate Analysis of Variance, Programmed by Jeremy Finn, State University of New York at Buffalo. 45 adaptation of Jenkins' criteria for identifying innovative teachers. A field test of all procedures to be followed in the study was conducted. Upon completion and analysis of this field study, the full investigation was undertaken. To insure geographical balance of selected schools, the state was divided into four regions. Schools with teaching staffs numbering between twenty-five and forty teachers were then listed for each region and from this list twelve schools, three per region, were chosen for in- clusion. Contact was made with the school administration, permission was received to conduct the study, and on the agreed-upon date teachers were interviewed. The interview consisted of filling out a Teacher Data Sheet and going through a Q-sort to identify innovative teachers. After the data were gathered it was subjected to a multivariate analysis of variance for analysis of the qualitative data, and a Chi-square analysis of the quanti- tative data. In Chapter IV an analysis of those data will be presented. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The procedures used in analyzing the data are of prime importance in judging the value of a study such as this. For this reason the most powerful statistical pro- cedures available were used in the data analysis. The nature of the data indicated two types of procedures; each is recognized for its validity. The Problem Restated As stated in Chapter I, the purpose of this study was to determine if a relationship exists between a list of selected demographic characteristics and innovativeness in teachers. In considering the list of characteristics, nine hypotheses were formed around twelve variables. These variables were: age; years of teaching; years taught on the present high school staff; the number of school systems taught in; the number of quarter hours beyond the highest degree earned; the recency of the last class taken; sex; subject taught; undergraduate majors and minors; whether or not the respondent was working toward an advanced degree; 46 47 and, if a Master's Degree had been earned, whether it was in education or a subject matter field. The nine null hypotheses were: H l 3 There is no difference in age between teachers identified as high innovators and teachers identified as low innovators. There is no difference in the number of years of teaching experience between teachers identified as high innovators and teachers identified as low innovators. There is no difference in the number of years as a teacher on the present high school staff between teachers identified as high inno- vators and teachers identified as low inno- vators. There is no difference in the number of school systems previously taught in between teachers identified as high innovators and teachers identified as low innovators. There is no difference in the length of time since the last class was taken between teachers identified as high innovators and teachers identified as low innovators. There is no difference in innovativeness between male and female teachers. There is no difference in subject matter taught between teachers identified as high 48 innovators and teachers identified as low innovators. H 8: There is no difference in innovativeness be— tween teachers who have continued their edu- cation beyond the Baccalaureate Degree in pursuit of a higher degree and teachers who have not continued beyond the Baccalaureate Degree. H 9: There is no difference in innovativeness be- tween teachers who have earned a Master's Degree in Education and teachers who have earned a Master's Degree in a subject matter field. Upon completion of the Q-sort by all teachers a mean teacher score was computed for each teacher. Compu— tation of such a score is recognized as a deviation from regular Q-sort procedures, which do not produce a mean score. This departure, as noted in Chapter III, was necessary to provide a basis for ranking all teachers. The score obtained is a reflection of the number of times an individual teacher was identified as innovative by all the other teachers included in the study at that school. Using this score teachers were then divided into two groups--those identified as high innovators, as indi- cated by a score of 50 per cent or higher, and those iden- tified as low innovators, as indicated by a score of less 49 than 50 per cent. Table 4-1 shows the number of teachers in each group. TABLE 4-l.-—Numbers of teachers identified as high inno- vators and low innovators. Area 1 2 3 4 Total % High Innov. 21 21 20 21 83 30.6 Low Innov. 42 47 55 44 188 69.4 TOTALS 63 68 75 65 271 100.0 Examination of the demographic variables indicated the need for two types of analysis procedures. One group of variables were variables of a quantitative nature that could be analyzed by multivariate analysis of variance. These included the following variables: age, years in teaching, years taught on the present high school staff, the total number of school systems taught in, the number of quarter hours beyond the highest degree held, and the recency of the last class taken. The second group of variables were qualitative and could be analyzed using the Chi-square test of association. These variables were: sex; subject taught; undergraduate majors and minors; whether or not the respondent was work- ing toward an advance degree; and, if a Master's Degree had been earned, whether it was in education or a subject matter teaching field. 50 The following sections deal with the treatment of these two groups of variables. Analysis of the Quantitative Data The first group of variables to be analyzed were those of a quantitative nature. Included in this group were age, number of years in teaching, number of years on the present high school staff, total number of school sys- tems taught in, number of quarter hours earned beyond the highest degree held, and the recency of the last class taken. To determine if there was a relationship between these seven quantitative variables and the variable of inno- vativeness, a multivariate analysis of variance, using the Firm1 program, was computed. Multivariate analysis of variance was used because it provides for the computation of an overall probability level for a set of dependent variables. Composite F ratios and univariate F ratios are achieved simultaneously. This procedure allows the researcher to go beyond the mere statement that differences do or do not exist between the groups and to determine their relative contributions. The use of multivariate analysis of variance was deemed appro- priate because of the multivariate nature of the variables involved in the study. lFinn, Multivariate Analysis of Variance. 51 Table 4-2 includes the summary data on this multi- variate probability. TABLE 4-2.--Multivariate probability of selected variables.a F-Ratio for Multivariate Test of Equality of Mean Vectors 0.6320 D.F. +7 and 263 Probability less than 0.7826 aVariables tested are: age, number of years in teaching, number of years on the present high school staff, total number of school systems taught in, number of quarter hours earned beyond the highest degree held, and the recency of the last class taken. The hypotheses tested in this part of the data analysis were: H 1: There is no difference in age between teachers identified as high innovators and teachers identified as low innovators. H 2: There is no difference in the number of years of teaching experience between teachers iden— tified as high innovators and teachers iden- tified as low innovators. H 3: There is no difference in the number of years as a teacher on the present high school staff between teachers identified as high inno- vators and teachers identified as low inno- vators. 52 H 4: There is no difference in the number of school systems previously taught in between teachers identified as high innovators and teachers identified as low innovators. H 5: There is no difference in the length of time since the last class was taken between teachers identified as high innovators and teachers identified as low innovators. Using the .05 level of significance, a probability of 0.7286 indicates there is no relationship between the group of seven quantitative variables and innovativeness. The null hypothesis is not rejected in each instance. Table 4-3 presents a breakdown of the analysis by variables and indicates the probability factor for each of the variables involved in this analysis. It is recognized that these alpha levels are actually too small, having been deflated by the statistical procedures used, but even these levels are large enough to indicate there is no significance on any of the variables taken as a group or taken indi- vidually. Considered individually the variables with the least influence on innovativeness are age, total number of years in teaching, number of years on the present high school staff, total number of school systems taught in, and the number of quarter hours earned beyond the Baccalaureate Degree. The two areas that might have the greatest effect on innovativeness were the number of hours earned beyond the Master's Degree, and the recency of the last class taken. 53 TABLE 4-3.--The probability of high and low innovators having the same characteristics as determined by analysis of seven selected variables. Variable Univariate F Probability Less Than 1. Age 0.1845 0.7004 2. Years in Teaching 0.0570 0.8115 3. Years on Present Staff 0.2398 0.6248 4. Number of Schools 0.0570 0.8116 5. Term Hours Beyond BA 0.1784 0.6723 6. Term Hours Beyond MA 1.6078 0.2059 7. Recency of Last Class Taken 1.0905 0.2973 Analysis of the Qualitative Data The second group of variables to be considered in this study were: sex, subject taught, undergraduate majors and minors, whether or not the respondent was working toward an advanced degree, and, if a Master's Degree had been earned, whether it was in education or a subject matter field. Because these variables were qualitative the Chi- square test of association was used. There were four hypotheses to be tested relating to these variables. They were: H 6: There is no difference in innovativeness between male and female teachers. 54 H 7: There is no difference in subject matter taught between teachers identified as high innovators and teachers identified as low innovators. H 8: There is no difference in innovativeness be- tween teachers who have continued their edu- cation beyond the Baccalaureate Degree in pursuit of a higher degree and teachers who have not continued beyond the Baccalaureate Degree. H 9: There is no difference in innovativeness be- tween teachers who have earned a Master's Degree in Education and teachers who have earned a Master's Degree in a subject matter field. Table 4-4 presents the summary data for the four hypotheses involved.l While the Chi—square values were not large enough to reject the null for any hypotheses tested, it should be recognized that the small number of degrees of freedom would make it difficult to reject the null hypothesis. The tabled Chi-square values for .05 and .01 are given to demonstrate just how far the results were from the significant values. 1Hypotheses were tested using the NUCROS routine program available at the Michigan State University Computer Laboratory. 55 TABLE 4-4.--Chi-square analysis of variables related to innovativeness. Computed Variable Chi-square df Tabled Values At Value 1. Sex 3.123 ' 1 .05 .01 2. Subject Taught 29.553 12 5.22 3.57 3. Undergraduate Major 28.687 12 5.22 3.57 4. Undergraduate Minor 10.675 12 5.22 3.57 5. Working on Advanced Degree 0.363 1 .003 .00015 6. MA in Education 2.239 1 .003 .00015 7. MA in Subject Matter 0.286 1 .003 .00015 Summary This chapter has presented an analysis of the data gathered from the survey instruments used in this study. The two instruments were a Teacher Data Sheet, designed for this study, and a Q-sort procedure used to identify inno- vative teachers. The study was designed to gather information on twelve variables and to test the relationship of those variables to innovativeness. The variables of interest were: age, years in teaching, number of years on the present high school staff, total number of school systems taught in, the number of quarter hours beyond the highest degree held, the recency of the last class taken, sex, 56 subject taught, undergraduate majors and minors, whether or not the respondent was working toward an advanced degree, and if a Master's Degree had been earned, whether it was in education or a subject matter field. This list of variables was the basis of nine hy- potheses to be tested. Briefly stated the hypotheses were: There is no difference between teachers identified as high innovators and low innovators as far as: age number of years of teaching experience number of years as a teacher on the present high school staff number of school systems previously taught in length of time since the last class was taken sex subject matter taught working toward an advanced degree having a Master's in Education or subject matter field are concerned. Because the variables noted were of two rather dis- tinct types, two statistical procedures were used in the analysis. For the quantitative variables multivariate analysis of variance was used with the level of significance 57 set at .05. The resultant probability of 0.7286 was not significant and the five null hypotheses tested were not rejected. This indicates there is no relationship between these variables and innovativeness. The other variables were qualitative and a Chi- square test for association was used in their analysis. The tabled Chi-square values derived were not large enough to reject the null hypothesis for the four hypotheses tested, indicating here too, no relationship between the variables and innovativeness. For the nine null hypotheses tested to determine the relationship of twelve demographic characteristic to inno- vativeness, the figures were not large enough to reject the null for any of the hypotheses. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This chapter is a summary of the study from its inception through the interpretation of the data. A number of specific recommendations for possible action and future study will also be presented. Summary This study was designed to gather empirical evidence to determine whether there are some demographic character- istics that distinguish between teachers identified as high innovators and teachers identified as low innovators. The study developed from a desire to determine if innovative teachers in different schools had similar characteristics and from a desire to provide a better process for adminis- trators to identify the innovative teachers. Part of the problem of trying to decide who is the most innovative teacher, or who will operate best in an innovative setting, is that much of the empirical research has been centered on parts of the innovative process other than that of the person most often directly involved in the innovation--the classroom teacher. The role of other 58 59 elements, or persons, involved in the innovative process, such as the administrative staff, school boards, and school district size and financial capability, have been well documented. The type of person who makes the most inno- vative teacher in such a setting, or in any setting, lacks such careful scrutiny. The problem on which this study has centered is whether or not there are selected demographic character- istics which distinguish highly innovative teachers. The judges of who is an innovative teacher for this study were other teachers working in the same building and under the same circumstances. Design It was decided that schools with between twenty-five and forty teachers would be the best source of the data necessary to test the hypotheses under consideration in this study. Schools of this size were chosen on the a priori basis of having greater opportunity for communication be— tween the various departments comprising the school and also having the size necessary to offer a complete academic program. Following the decision on the size of the school was the decision to divide the Lower Peninsula of Michigan into four regions to insure as wide a geographic repre- sentation as possible in the study. The regions were not of equal geographic size, but there were approximately the 60 same number of schools of the desired size in each region. An additional factor taken into consideration when making the geographic division was the desire to avoid drawing a sample of schools clustered around a large university or metropolitan area. Two instruments were used to gather the data for the study--a Teacher Data Sheet and a Q-sort of identifying innovative teachers. These instruments were administered to selected teachers in three schools randomly selected within each of the four regions of the state. The teachers selected were those who had taught at least one year on the high school staff. An innovativeness score was determined for each teacher using a modified Q-sort with the teachers in each school. Using this score, two groups of teachers, high innovators and low innovators, were formed. The data gathered were then analyzed using multi- variate analysis of variance for the quantitative data and chi—square test of association for the qualitative data. Limitations of the Study One of the first recognized limitations of this study is that it deals only with high school teachers. In some instances this designation included grades 9-12, in others grades 10-12. This variation was the result of local designations for the various levels of education. No attempt was made to exclude teachers in the lower grade level (9), because in most instances the schedules of 61 teachers involved also included some teaching in the upper grade levels. The criteria used to identify the innovative teacher must also be taken into consideration. These criteria are not considered as either the only or the best criteria available to determine innovativeness. However, the fact that some of these criteria have been used before,1 and that respondents in this study were able to use them to identify a particular group of teach- ers seems to lend some support to their use as one of many possible ways of identifying a group of innovative teachers. The size of the schools selected for inclusion in the study can also be considered a limitation. The a priori basis for selecting schools of this size, which involved interdepartmental communication and knowledge of total school program, and completeness of the academic offering should be given some consideration. Another limiting factor was the condition that had to be met before a teacher was included in the study. In general this condition was that the teacher must have taught in the building at least one year. The second part was that the teacher must have a schedule that included teaching at least three hours in the high school. The lJenkins, "A Study of the Characteristics Associ- ated with Innovative Behavior in Teachers." 62 effect of the first limitation, at least one year on the staff, may have been to exclude from consideration inno- vative persons who moved, either by their choice or be- cause of pressure at their previous school. The number of first-year teachers in each of the schools included was small enough, however, that it was felt this restriction would have little, if any, effect on the results of the study. Sampling procedures used in selecting schools may have created a limiting factor for the study. Although division of the state preceded the listing and numbering of schools within the four regions, without such a division an entirely different distribution of schools would probably have occurred. In spite of these limitstions it is felt the study was broad enough to provide a good basis for examination of the hypotheses. Analysis of the Survey Instrument Data Examination of the data analysis indicates the selected items included in this study as demographic characteristics cannot be used to distinguish.between high and low innovative teachers. The low probability obtained in the multivariate analysis of variance, and the failure to obtain a significant chi-square value on the test for association indicated that the null hypothe- sis of no significant difference between the two groups 63 could not be rejected for any of the nine hypotheses tested. Of the six quantitative variables, the two which came closest to significance in affecting innovativeness were the number of quarter hours earned beyond the highest degree held and the recency of the last class taken. The variables least likely to affect innovativeness were age, total number of years in teaching, the number of years on the present high school staff, and the total number of school districts taught in. Observations One of the first observations to make, regarding this study, is the conclusion, unsupported by the data and procedures of the study, that there are innovative teachers on every high school staff. It should be noted and empha- sized, however, that there are no absolute standards for determining what an innovative teacher is. The methods used in this study forced the identification of an inno- vative teacher within each school included, but there is no reason to assume that an innovator in school A would be perceived as an innovator in school B. In the appraisal of the researcher, as a profes- sional visiting the schools to collect data, the schools included in this study ranged from very progressive/ innovative to conservative/traditional. The most inno- vative appearing high school was organized on a flexible 64 schedule, modular time unit basis. This plan called for team teaching, small group discussions, and a great deal of apparent student freedom. The opposite end of the scale was a school that seemed very dominated by the superintendent, and that was organized in a very tra- ditional manner. In this particular school the adminis- tration made all the decisions, regarding every apparent phase of the school program, even to the design of the class ring purchased by the students. But, on every high school staff, regardless of where the school was located on the philosophic scale, there were teachers who were identified by their colleagues as innovators. If the two schools described above represent the extremes, the majority of the schools included would fall close to the center of the scale. In the majority of the schools there were many examples of both types of edu- cational philosophies. A very noticeable condition in these schools was the willingness of the administrators to allow teachers to try new ideas, and to encourage teachers to seek out different ways of improving the educational program. The fact that the teachers on every high school staff were able to identify other teachers as innovators, using the same criteria in each case, would seem to indi- cate these criteria have some validity when used to identify innovative teachers. That the teachers so 65 identified were involved in people centered programs adds weight to the value of these criteria when used to identify innovative teachers. A research project involving students using the procedures to identify a group of teachers could add another dimension to the validity of these criteria. One uncertainty faced when considering this study was whether teachers could perform the most crucial task in the study--the identification of the innovative teacher. With the completion of the study this uncertainty is re- moved for this investigator. Conclusions The following conclusion can be drawn from the statistical analysis of the results of this study: as far as the demographic characteristics considered (age, years of teaching, years taught on the present high school staff, the number of school systems taught in, the number of quarter hours beyond the highest degree earned, the recency of the last class taken, sex, subject taught, undergraduate majors and minors, whether or not the re- spondent was working toward an advanced degree, and if a Master's Degree had been earned whether it was in edu- cation or a subject matter field) are concerned, no dis— tinction can be made between high innovative teachers and low innovative teachers. An additional conclusion drawn from the results of the study is that the teachers who scored the highest 66 on the innovativeness scale were teachers concerned with the students and the effect the educational program was having on them. Their expressed concerns, in conver- sations with the researcher and with other teachers dur- ing the data collecting, were not so much with the process of the program they were involved with, as it was with how it affected the students exposed to it. The concern most frequently expressed to the researcher, of these highly rated teachers, involved develOping a program that would appeal to more students and that would involve more students in a meaningful learning activity. A final conclusion is that if there are innovative teachers on every school staff, one of the best ways to identify them is to ask the other teachers who they are. At some point in size, however, a consideration would have to be given to breaking the search down into a form of departmentalization. In schools of the size used in this study there was a great deal of idea interchange between the members of different departments. In a larger school such broad communication, between the members of various departments, may not exist. Lack of this type of com- munication may necessitate limiting the search for inno- vative teachers to the members of a particular department, or by some other method. 67 Recommendations In view of the conclusions and observations of this study, a recommendation is made to replicate the study removing the size limitation placed on schools to be included. Inclusion of schools of varying size may produce different results. The possibility exists that in smaller schools the closeness of the staff relations may inhibit many teachers from making even the slightest of unkind, uncomplementary, or derogatory statements, or judgments. A recommendation is also made that a study be conducted to determine the concerns of innovative teachers in regard to the effect their program was having on the students. Such a study may have to take into consider- ation the perceptions of many people: teachers, students, and administrators to mention a few, but it could prove to be a valuable addition when considering innovative programs and teachers, and the effects these programs and teachers are having. A further recommendation would be a study to measure the attitude, with respect to trying new methods, developing new programs, or being involved in new programs, of teachers identified as innovators. If innovators cannot be identified by demographic characteristics, then perhaps a study related to attitudes and other modes of behavior, and innovativeness, would reveal a relationship. 68 A last recommendation would deal with the charac- teristics of innovative teachers within a particular aca- demic discipline. It is possible that teachers within a given discipline form guidelines for evaluating people within that discipline and have difficulty fitting teachers of other subjects into that frame of reference. A study of the teachers in one subject area might avoid this conflict. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Agger, Robert, and Marshall Goldstein. Educational Inno— vations in the Community. Eugene, Ore.: Uni- versity of Oregon, 1965. Alexander, William. The Changing Secondary School Curricu- lum. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967. . The High School of the Future: A Memorial to Kimball Wiles. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill PubliShing Company, 1970. and Paul Halverson. Effective Teaching in Second- ary Schools. New York: Rinehart and Company, 1956. Brickell, Henry. "The Dynamics of Educational Change." The Changing Secondarnychool Curriculum. Edited by William Alexander. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967. Carlson, Richard, et al. Change Processes in the Public Schools. Eugene, Ore.: University of Oregon, Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Admin- istration, 1965. Carson, Robert, Keith Goldhammer, and Roland Pellegrin. Teacher Participation in the Community. Eugene, Ore.: University of Oregon, Center for the Ad- vanced Study of Educational Administration, 1967. Dees, Bowen. "Innovation" Invention Plus Implementation." Fostering and Reinforcing Innovative Behavior in Selected School Personnel. Edited by David Smith. Tucson, Ariz.: 1966. Eye, Glen, Donald Francke, Russell Gregg, James Lipham, and Lanore Netzer. Relationship Between Instructional Change and the Extent to Which School Administrators and Teachers Agree on the Location of Responsibili- ties for Administrative DecisiOns. MadiSon, Wisc.: The University of Wisconsin, 1966. 69 70 Fox, Robert and Ronald Lippett. "The Innovation of Class- room Mental Health Practices." Innovation in Education. Edited by Matthew Miles. New York: Teachers College Press, 1964. Klingerberg, Allen. A Study of Selected Administrative Behaviors Among Administrators From Innovative and Non-Innovative Public School Districts. Lansing, Mich.: ’Michigan Department ofiEducation, 1967. Lippett, Ronald, et al. "The Teacher as Innovator, Seeker and Sharer of New Practices." Perspectives on Educational Change. Edited by Richard Miller. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967. McCann, Lloyd. "Research: The Classroom Orientation." Fostering and Reinforcing Innovative Behavior in Selected School Personnel. Edited by David Smith. Tucson, Ariz.: 1966. McLimans, Dorothy. Teacher Innovativeness. Doctoral dis- sertation, University of Wisconsin, 1967. Mackenzie, Gordon. "Curriculum Change: Participants, Power, and Process." Innovation in Education. Edited by Matthew Miles. New York: Teachers College Press, 1964. Miel, Alice. Changing the Curriculum. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1946. , . "Innovation and People." The Changing Secondary School Curriculum. Edited by William Alexander. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967. Miles, Matthew. Innovation in Education. New York: Teachers College Press, 1964. Miller, Richard, ed. Perspectives on Educational Change. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967. Oliver, Albert. Curriculum Improvement: A Guide to Prob- lems, Principles, and Procedures. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1965. Ovard, Glen. Administration of the Changing Secondary School. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966. Pellegrin, Roland. An Analysis of Sources and Processes of Innovation in Education. Eugene, Ore.: Center for tHe Advanced Study of Educational Administration, 1966. 71 Rogers, Everett. Bibliography on the Diffusion of Inno- vations. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, Department of Communications, 1967. . Diffusion of Innovations. Ill.: Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Ryans, David. Characteristics of Teachers. Washington, D.C.: Council on Education, 1960. . "Teacher Behavior Can be Evaluated." The Evalu- ation of Teaching. Edited by Jane Hill and Betty Humphrey. Washington, D.C.: Pi Lambda Theta, 1967. Saylor, J. Galen and William Alexander. Curriculum Planning for Better Teaching and Learning. New York: Rinehart and Company, 1955. Smith, B. Othanel. "Teaching: Conditions of its Evalu- ation." The Evaluation of Teaching. Edited by Jane Hill and Betty Humphrey. Washington, D.C.: Pi Lambda Theta, 1967. Smith, David. Fostering and Reinforcing Innovative Behavior in Selected School Personnel. A Monograph of Selected Papers Presented at Two Institutes, Tucson, 1966. Smith, Louis, and W. Geoffrey. The Complexities of an Urban Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1967. Torrance, E. Paul and R. E. Myers. Creative Learningyand Teaching. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1970. Tyler, Ralph. "What Price Quality in Education?" The Unfinished Journey: Issues in American Education. New York: The John Day Company, 1968. Wenzel, Evelyn. "Finding Meaning in Teaching." Creativity in Teaching. Edited by Alice Miel. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1961. Periodicals Anderson, G. Ernest. "Estimated Time for Accepting Edu- cational Ideas: 30 Years." Nations Schools, LXXVIII (December, 1966), 50. 72 Anker, Walter. "What has Happened to Effective Teaching?" Clearing House, XLI (May, 1967), 527-28. Bienenstok, Theodore. "Resistance to an Educational Inno- vation." Elementapy School Journal, LXV (May, Blackburn, Jack. "The Junior High School Teacher We Need." Educational Leadership, XXIII (December, 1965), Bridges, Edwin and Larry Reynolds. "Teacher Receptivity to Change." Administrator's Notebook, XVI (February, 1968). Broudy, Harry. "Innovation and Curriculum Decisions." CTA Journal, LXIII (January, 1967), 14-16. Brown, Bob. "Bringing Philosophy into the Study of Teacher Effectiveness." Journal of Teacher Education, XVII (Spring, 1966), 35-40. Cawelti, Gordon. "Does Innovation Make any Difference?" Nations Schools, LXXXII (November, 1968), 60-63. . "Innovative Practices in High Schools: Who Does What—~and Why--and How." Nations Schools, LXXIX (April, 1967), 56-88. Chesler, Mark and Robert Fox. "Teacher Peer Relations and Educational Change." NEA Journal, LVI (May, 1967), 25-26. Combs, Arthur. "The Personal Approach to Good Teaching." Educational Leadership, XXI (March, 1964), 369-77. Del Popolo, Joseph. "Teacher Personality: A Concern of Teacher Education." Peabody Journal of Education, XLIII (July, 1965), 50-55. Dyer, H. S. "Art of Unwrapping Curriculum Packages; or, How to be an Educational String Saver." National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, LII (May, 1968), 141-58. Ellena, William, Margaret Stevenson, and Harold Webb. "Who's a Good Teacher?" American Association of School Administrators, 1961. Foster, Richard. "Poise Under Pressure." Educational Leadership, XXII (December, 1964), 149-54. 73 Galloway, Charles and Robert Strom. "Becoming a Better Teacher." Journal of Teacher Education, XVIII (Fall, 1967), 285-92. Glines, Don. "Changing A School." Phi Delta Ksppan, XLVIII (December, 1966), 166-68. Goodlad, John. "Every Teacher Has the Opportunity to Innovate." The Instructor, LXXVII (October, 1967), 30-31. "Innocations in Education." Educational Forum, XXXI (March, 1967), 275-84. Greider, Calvin. "Attention Innovators: Don't Ignore These Promising Areas." Nation's Schools, LXXIX (March, 1967), 79. Griffin, Gary and Rev. Joseph Devlin, S. J. "The Teacher Evaluates Innovations." NEA Journal, LVI (December, 1967), 26-28. Heywood, Stanley. "Toward a Sound Theory of Innovation." Elementapy School Journal, LXVI (December, 1965), 107-14. Holdaway, E. A. and John E. Seger. "The Development of Indices of Innovativeness." Canadian Education and Research Digest, VIII, 366-79. Howard, Eugene. "How to be Serious About Innovating." Nations Schools, LXXIX (April, 1967), 89-90. . "Organizing the High School for Change." North Central Association Quarterly, XLI (Spring, 1967), 293-39. Johnson, David. "Influences on Teachers' Acceptance of Change." Elementary School Journal, LXX (December, 1969), 142-53. Jordan, Daniel. "Innovations." Teachers College Journal, XXXVIII (January, 1967), 170-73. Justiz, Thomas. "A Reliable Measure of Teacher Effective- ness." Educational Leadership, XXVII (October, 1969), 49-55. Kerlinger, Fred. "Attitudes Toward Education and Perception of Teacher Characteristics: A Q Study." American Educational Research Journal, III (May, 1968), 159-68. 74 Kerlinger, Fred. "The Factor Structure and Content of Per- ception of Desirable Characteristics of Teachers." Educational and Psycsological Measurement, XXVII (Autumn, 1967), 643-56. Kochnower, William. "Educational Progress or Turmoil?" Educational Forum, XXX (March, 1966), 273-76. McCurdy, Donald. "Tomorrow's Teacher: New Role?" Peabody Journal of Education, XLV (May, 1968), 348-50. Mackenzie, Gordon. "The Process of Innovation." NEA Journal, LVI (May, 1967), 27-31. Morse, Grant. "Treasure Superior Teacher." American School Board Journal, CLIII (October, 1966), 55-56. Newell, Peter. "Innocators Produce Hotch Potch." Times Educational Supplement, MMCCCCCCCLXXXIX (November 1, 1968), 964. Nussel, Edward and Mildred Johnson. "Who Obstructs Inno- vation?" Journal of Secondary Education, LXIV (January, 1969), 3-11. Patton, Robert and Paul De Sena. "Identification Through Student Opinion of Motivating and Non-Motivating Qualities of Teachers." Journal of Teacher Edu- cation, XVII (Spring, 1966), 41-45. Rogers, Everett. "What are Innovators Like?" Theopy Into Practice, II, No. 5 (December, 1963). Stinnett, T. M. "The Revolution and Teacher Education." gsurnal of Teacher Education, XVII (Fall, 1966), 279-81. Sun, H. C. "Current Innovations in Education." School and Society, XCVI (November, 1968), 402-04. Symonds, Percival. "Teaching as a Function of the Teacher's Personality." Journal of Teacher Education, V (1954). Wagner, Guy. "Identifying Components of Good Teaching." Education, LXXXIX (February, 1969), 280-85. Dissertations Addis, Winston. "An Analysis of the Perceptions of Princi- pals of High and Low Innovative Schools." Unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, (1968). 75 Anderson, James. "The Relationship of Teacher Belief Sys- tems to Teacher and Pupil Factors Related to School Goals Cathexis." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Bickert, Roderick. "Selected Organizational Values and Characteristics of Innovative and Non-Innovative School Systems." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 1967. Bishop, Lloyd. "Bureaucracy and the Adoption of Edu- cational Innovation." Unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, Claremont Graduate School and University Center, 1966. Camaren, Ruben. "Innovation as a Factor Influencing the Diffusion and Adoption Process." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1966. Chambliss, E. J. "Attitudes of Teachers Toward Adopting Innovations and the Relationships of These Attitudes to Other Variables." Unpublished Ed.D. disserta- tion, Texas Technological College, 1968. Chesler, Mark. "Social Structure and Innovation in Ele- mentary Schools." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1966. Childs, John. "A Study of the Belief Systems of Adminis- trators and Teachers in Innovative and Non- Innovative School Districts." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. Christiansen, James. "The Adoption of Educational Inno- vations Among Teachers of Vocational Agriculture." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State Uni- versity, 1965. Corl, Samuel. "The Relationships Between Student Teacher Innovative Behavior and Selected Attitudes, Percep- tions and Personality Characteristics." Unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1969. Curry, Craig. "Secondary School Principal's Assessment of the Importance of Personal and Situational Factors in the Adoption of Innovations." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, 1966. 76 Dal Santo, John. "School Administrators' Perception of Critical Factors of Planned Change in Selected Illinois School Districts." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1968. Davidson, Shirley. "Development of a Program of Super- vision for Implementing Non-graded Classroom Practices." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni- versity of Pittsburgh, 1968. Downey, Lorren. "The Relationship of Teaching Patterns to Organizational Climate and Teacher's Belief Systems." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni- versity of Arizona, 1966. Eibler, Herbert. "A Comparison of the Relationships Between Certain Aspects or Characteristics of the Structure of the High School Faculty and the Amount of Cur- riculum Innovation." Unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, University of Michigan, 1965. Elliott, Arthur. "An Investigation of School Organization Variables and Their Relation to the Principals Receptivity to Innovation: An Exploratory Study." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1967. George, Philip. "A Study of Select Innovative Programs and Services Adopted by Public High Schools in the State of Idaho." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Idaho, 1968. Good, Vera. "An Examination of an In-Service Education Operation to Determine Its Potential for Effecting Change in Teaching Practices." Unpublished.Ed.IL dissertation, Columbia University, 1964. Hanson, John. "A Descriptive Study of Basic Data and the Educational Innovations Found in Twenty-Two Selected North Dakota Small Schools." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Dakota, 1966. Hardenbrook, Robert Francis. "Identification of Processes of Innovation in Selected Schools in Santa Barbara County." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1967. Hawkins, Wilber. "Some Factors Which Contribute to Successful Educational Innovation." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1968. 77 Heck, James. "An Analysis of Change in Public Education." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State Uni- versity, 1967. Howell, Felix. "The Significance of Educational Planning of the Physical Plant in Adapting to Curricular Innovations." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1967. Hughes, Larry. "The Organizational Climate Found in Central Administrative Offices of Selected Highly Innovative and Non-Innovative School Districts in the State of Ohio." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1965. Jacobs, Jan. "Leadership, Size, and Wealth as Related to Curricular Innovations in the Junior High Schools." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1965. Jenkins, John. "A Study of the Characteristics Associated with Innovative Behavior in Teachers." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Miami, 1967. Jenks, Houston. "A Study of Innovation Adoption by Teachers From a Consortium of Schools." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1968. Johansen, John. "An Investigation of the Relationships Between Teachers' Perceptions of Authoritative Influences in Local Curriculum Decision-Making and Curriculum Implementation." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1965. Kendig, Thomas. "An Analysis of the Relationship of Certain Educational Conditions to Curriculum Breadth and Innovation in Selected Pennsylvania School Systems." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Pennsyl- vania State University, 1965. Knedlik, Stanley. "The Effect of Administrative Succession Patterns Upon Educational Innovation in Selected Secondary Schools." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, New York University, 1967. Kohl, John. "Adoption Stages and Perceptions of Character- istics of Educational Innovations." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Oregon, 1966. Kunzler, William. "A Study of Factors that Facilitate and Inhibit Instructional Change as Perceived by Princi- pals." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iowa, 1968. 78 La Mar, Ronald. "In-Service Education Needs Related to the Diffusion of an Innovation." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1966. Lamont, Arnold. "The Effect of Teacher Participation in Preparing Curriculum Materials on Subsequent Use of the Materials." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1964. La Plant, James. "School District Innovativeness and Ex- pectations for the School Board Role." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1966. Lawrence, Clifford. "Personality Characteristics of School Superintendents Who Implement Innovation in the Public Schools." Unpublished.Ed.D. dissertation, Utah State University, 1968. Lee, William. "A Study of the Educational Opinions of Selecte Teachers and Administrators." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. McDonell, Kenneth. "Innovation as a Factor in Teacher Attitudes and Performance." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1968. Martin, Mary. "The Teacher in Cooperative Curriculum De- velopment." Unpublished.Ed.D. dissertation, Uni- versity of Southern California, 1965. Mechling, Kenneth. "The Differential Adoption and Diffusion of Selected Elementary Science Curriculum Innova- tions Among Elementary School Teachers." Unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Mims, Crawford. "Attitudes of Arkansas School Adminis- trators Toward the Adoption or Rejection of Inno- vations in Education." Unpublished Ed.D. disser- tation, University of Arkansas, 1968. Nylin, Donald. "An Investigation of the Relationship Between Self-Perceived Traits Associated with Inno- vators and Assessment of Climate, Satisfaction and Limitations on Satisfaction." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1967. Overly, Donald. "Comparative Analysis of North Central Accredited Indiana Secondary Schools in Relation to Educational Innovations." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1968. 79 Peach, Samuel. "Relationships Between Certain Factors in the Role of the School Principal and the Adoption of Innovative Instructional Practices." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1967. Peterman, Lloyd. "The Relationship of In-Service Education to the Innovativeness of the Classroom Teacher in Selected Public Secondary Schools in Michigan." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1966. Preising, Paul. "The Relationship of Staff Tenure and Administrative Succession to Structural Innovation." Unpublished.Ed.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1968. Reese, William. "A Study of the Differences in Role Percep- tion of Educators in a Highly Innovative Educational Environment as Compared with Educators in Less Inno- vative Educational Environments." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Utah, 1967. Ritchie, Douglas. "An Analysis of Four Secondary Schools in an Urban Setting: Expectations, Effectiveness and Innovation." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Uni- versity of Wisconsin, 1967. Rowley, John. "The Personality Characteristics of Team Teachers Selected by Their Peers for Team Member- ship." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Rutgers, The State University, 1967. Sargent, Harold. "A Test of Motivational Appeals Judged Effective by Chief School Administrators to Induce Teacher Acceptance of Educational Innovation." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1965. Slocum, Clyde. "An Exploration of the Perceptual Relation- ship Between Peer and Principal Ranking of Teachers!‘ Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, 1965. Smith, Duane. "A Study of Elementary Teachers' Attitudes Toward, Beliefs About, and Use of Newer Instruc- tional Materials." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1966. Spencer, Eugene. "Variables Affecting the Adoption Rates of Educational Innovations in Selected School Dis- tricts of Oakland County, Michigan." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1967. 80 Thacker, James. "A Study of Relationship Between Principals Estimates of Teaching Efficiency and Scores on 'National Teacher Examinations,’ Academic Averages, and Supervisors' Estimates of Potential for Selected Teachers in North Carolina." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1964. True, G. Herbert. "Creativity as a Function of Idea Flu- ency, Practicability, and Specific Training." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1956. Van Alfen, Curtis. "A Study to Develop an Instrument Measuring the Perceptions of Educators and Teachers as it Relates to Innovative, Transitional, or Tra- ditional Educational Environments." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Utah, 1967. Weiss, John. "Awareness of Change: A Study of Factors Related to Knowledge of Educational Innovation." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1967. Wiley, Frank. "A Study of Teacher Relationships Considered to be Associated with Readiness and Non-Readiness for Curriculum Change." Unpublished Ed.D. disser- tation, University of Missouri, 1965. APPENDIX October, 1971 Mr. Samuel Somebody, Supt. Somewhere Public Schools Sometown, Michigan Dear Mr. Somebody: There is presently a controversy over whether teach- ing styles can be identified by certain teacher character- istics. I am presently engaged in a study to determine if the teaching style labelled "innovative" is associated with the teacher characteristics dealing with educational and experiential background. The results of this study should be useful to many administrators and teacher education institutions. To determine the existence of this possible rela- tionship it is necessary to survey a large number of high school teachers. This survey is a two-step process: (1) filling out a Teacher Data Sheet, concerned with the char- acteristics mentioned above; and (2) completion of a Q-sort, in which teachers separate a deck of cards with teachers names and assignments into three piles according to criteria developed for this study. Completion of both items, by teachers, should take less than ten minutes and should not interfere with teaching responsibilities. I will contact you by telephone sometime during the next few days to arrange an appointment to discuss the possibilities of including the high school teachers on your staff in the study. If inclusion meets with your approval I would also like to speak with the High School Principal about the study and the procedures to be followed. Respectfully, Jack Willsey 2225 Luwanna Drive Lansing, Michigan 81 IV In! 82 DIRECTIONS FOR THE Q-SORT FOR IDENTIFYING GROUPS Listed below are characteristics associated with some teachers. Read the characteristics carefully and pro- ceed to Section B. l. He/she expresses a willingness and desire to par- ticipate in programs that are labelled "experi- mental." He/she frequently diverges from the norm and goes off in new directions when it seems appropriate to do so. He/she enjoys uncertainty and encourages students to enjoy uncertainty also. He/she is concerned with the far reaching effects of his/her methods and techniques on the entire school system. He/she solves teaching problems with imagination. He/she is constantly searching for new ways of doing what must be done. Using the stack of 3 x 5 cards with the names and teaching assignments of all members of the faculty, sort the cards into two piles. 1. Cards of the teachers you believe meet all or most of the listed characteristics. 83 2. Cards for teachers you believe: (a) meet few or none of the listed characteristics, or (b) who do not know well enough to make a valid judgement. Resort pile one into three additional subgroups to describe the degree to which each of the teachers in this group meets the established characteristics. 1. Highest degree 2. To a lesser degree 3. To the least degree. ‘1'. IIIIIFII4 j 10. ll. 84 TEACHER DATA SHEET Code What subject or subjects are you teaching? What subject do you prefer to teach? How many years have you been a teacher? How many years have you taught in your present build- ing? In how many other school systems have you served as a full time teacher? What was your undergraduate major(s)? Minors? Are you now enrolled in an advanced degree program? Yes NO If you now hold a Master's Degree is it in: Education: Subject matter (Hist., Eng., etc.) - Indicate the number and type (semester, term) of gradu- ate hours you have earned beyond your highest degree: Beyond Bachelor's Beyond 6 year degree or Specialist Beyond Master's When did you complete your last class (month and year)? 85 oooo.H moaa.o ommo.o wmmm.o mmmm.o monm.o mvmm.o cmxme . mmmao ummq mo moccomm .n oooo.a vamm.ou mama.o mmma.o moma.o moam.o «z ccomom mnsom .m oooo.H mvva.o mmoa.o eawo.o mmmo.o «m ccommm musom .m oooo.a emma.o mmoe.o moke.o msmumsm Honuo umnfisz .v oooo.a Hman.o mvom.o mmmum :0 memo» .m oooo.a mmam.o Honomme m we mummy .m oooo.a com .H coxma mmmau «z «m mEoummm mmmum Hosomoe ummq mo ccomom ccomom “capo co H mm cod mocoomm mnsom musom Monssz mumow mummy .xflhuma soapmHmHHooll.HI< mqmo I He II m II II II N II H II N ov I mm v OH H h N II H II II m mm I Hm m OH H H II o m H H N om I oN m HH II m II m N N H H mN I HN H Nm II o II HH H m II n ON I mH NH Nm N m H HH v HH m e mH I HH NH mN m e m m H HH N N OH I w vH mH N e H II m N m m m I H mmH NOH mm HN mm mN we om He mN o N H N H N H N H nN «H mommwmmsz m N H mHmuoa . conom m.usmpcommmu an chn omnmmc ummann ccommn cocumm muson pounced Mo Henson mo coHuanHuch HmsonomII.nI¢ mqmda 92 TABLE A-8.--Regional distribution of recency of the last class for respondents. Region Recency Totals 1 2 3 4 Presently 21 21 20 22 84 Enrolled 1 year 12 15 ll 14 52 2 years 4 10 14 8 36 3 - 5 years 12 ll 11 ll 44 6 - 9 years 2 2 7 4 15 10 years or more 5 4 5 3 17 93 TABLE A-9.--Tally sheet for School 1. Te::“' 1... . c:::::. score % Rank Least Lesser Highest A 6 2 l 9 15 25 15 B l 7 10 18 45 75 2 C 1 9 9 '19 46 77 l D 5 10 3 18 34 57 6 E 2 7 10 18 38 63 4 F 0 l 0 1 2 3 20 G 0 0 1 1 3 5 19 H l 5 7 13 32 53 8 I 3 6 4 13 25 42 11 J l 9 3 13 28 47 9 K 0 4 0 4 8 13 18 L 3 6 6 15 33 55 7 M l 9 2 12 25 42 11 N 8 4 l 13 19 32 14 O 2 , 6 3 ll 23 38 12 P 2 5 5 12 27 45 10 Q 3 3 0 6 9 15 17 2 5 0 7 12 20 16 S l 4 9 14 36 60 5 T 3 3 0 6 9 15 17 U 4 5 2 ll 20 33 13 V 3 6 8 17 39 65 3 94 TABLE A-10.--Tally sheet for School 2. Item Tezsh' . cfizizi. score % Rank Least Lesser Highest A l 2 1 4 8 17 12 B l 1 2 4 9 19 11 C 4 5 1 10 17 35 6 D 4 4 1 9 15 31 8 E 3 2 2 7 13 27 10 F 4 2 2 8 14 29 9 G 1 l 0 2 3 6 14 H l 6 l 7 16 33 7 I 4 0 0 4 4 8 13 J l 6 5 12 28 58 2 K 2 1 0 3 4 8 13 L l 6 2 9 19 40 4 M 0 1 0 1 2 4 15 N 0 4 9 13 35 73 l O 2 2 3 7 15 31 8 P l 7 4 13 25 52 3 Q 3 5 2 10 19 40 4 R 2 5 2 9 18 38 5 S 0 3 l 4 9 19 ll 95 TABLE A-ll.--Tally sheet for School 3. T623“ . £3222... % Least Lesser Highest A l 2 5 8 20 33 12 B 2 3 4 9 20 33 12 C 2 4 2 8 16 27 15 D l 6 7 14 34 57 6 E l 8 5 14 32 53 8 F l l 2 4 9 15 18 G 5 3 8 16 35 58 5 H 2 5 5 12 27 45 10 I l 0 4 5 13 22 17 J 2 4 3 9 19 32 13 K 0 7 ll 18 47 78 2 L l 6 6 13 31 52 9 M l 5 l 7 14 23 16 N 2 5 2 9 18 30 14 O 1 3 2 6 13 22 17 P 3 4 ll 18 44 73 3 Q 2 5 7 14 33 55 7 R 0 0 18 18 54 90 l S l 4 3 8 18 30 14 T l 4 3 8 18 30 14 U l 4 5 15 39 65 4 V 1 5 4 10 23 38 ll 96 TABLE A-12.--Tally sheet for School 4. T62?- . (2:32;. % Least Lesser Highest A 3 9 5 17 36 55 6 B 4 8 8 20 44 67 3 C 2 5 2 9 18 27 17 D 2 5 5 12 27 41 12 E 3 4 10 17 41 62 4 F 4 6 5 15 31 47 10 G 0 4 15 19 53 80 1 H 4 5 3 12 23 35 14 I 0 10 8 18 44 67 3 J 3 7 8 18 39 59 5 K 4 5 2 ll 20 30 15 L 0 2 l 3 7 10 20 M 5 4 2 ll 19 29 16 N 4 4 6 14 30 45 11 O 2 5 4 ll 24 36 13 P 4 8 4 16 32 48 9 Q l l 8 10 27 41 12 R 2 5 9 14 35 53 7 S l 8 6 15 35 53 7 T 2 l 4 7 16 24 19 U 2 4 3 9 19 29 16 V l 8 ll 19 50 76 2 W 2 3 3 8 17 26 18 97 TABLE A-13.--Tally sheet for School 5. “2:“- . .332; % Least Lesser Highest A l 0 O l l 2 24 B 2 1 l 4 7 ll 22 C 2 8 9 19 45 71 5 D 2 10 8 20 46 73 4 E l 9 10 20 49 78 2 F 3 5 0 8 13 21 18 G 3 6 5 14 30 48 8 H 3 0 O 3 3 5 23 I 3 3 0 6 9 14 21 J l 8 3 12 26 41 10 K 0 5 15 20 55 87 l L 3 3 l 7 12 19 19 M 2 7 l 10 19 30 13 N 2 9 8 19 4 4 7 o 6 O l 8 10 19 47 75 3 P 3 4 0 7 ll 17 20 Q 5 3 2 10 17 27 15 R l 5 0 6 ll 17 20 S 4 9 2 15 28 44 9 T 2 5 4 11 24 38 11 U 2 12 4 18 38 60 7 V 4 6 0 11 18 29 14 W 3 4 l 8 14 22 17 98 TABLE A-l3.--Continued Item Tezsh- CH2i2is Score % Rank Least Lesser Highest X 3 3 4 10 21 33 12 Y 2 7 0 9 16 25 16 Z 2 6 11 20 47 75 3 99 TABLE A-l4.--Tally sheet for School 6. T92?“ . .5222; % Least Lesser Highest A 2 7 3 '12 25 44 7 B 2 5 3 10 21 37 8 C 3 3 l 7 12 21 12 D 2 0 0 2 2 4 16 E 2 2 10 14 36 63 3 F 2 6 l 9 17 30 10 G 2 3 6 ll 26 46 6 H l 3 l 5 10 18 13 I 0 2 l7 19 55 96 l J 0 5 2 7 16 28 11 K 6 3 3 12 21 37 8 L l 7 2 10 21 37 8 M 5 6 5 16 32 56 4 N 3 3 3 9 18 32 9 O 3 2 3 8 16 28 11 P 4 4 5 13 27 47 5 Q 0 6 12 18 48 84 2 R 0 l l 2 5 9 15 S 3 0 2 5 9 16 14 100 TABLE A-15.--Tally sheet for School 7. Item Tessh- . ngizés Score % Rank Least Lesser Highest A 10 l 2 13 18 26 13 B 4 3 3 10 19 28 12 C 4 6 3 13 25 36 9 D 3 3 2 8 15 22 16 E 4 5 4 13 26 38 8 F 2 4 6 12 28 41 7 G 2 7 6 16 36 52 4 H 3 6 l 10 18 26 13 I l 7 7 15 36 52 4 J 1 l 4 6 15 22 16 K 4 5 4 13 26 38 8 L 3 5 7 15 34 49 5 M 4 10 6 20 45 65 3 N l 7 10 18 45 65 3 O 4 3 2 9 16 23 15 P 4 5 5 14 29 42 6 Q 6 4 l 11 17 25 14 R l 2 0 3 5 7 18 S 3 4 3 10 20 29 11 T 4 6 2 12 22 32 10 U l 3 0 4 7 10 17 V 0 5 5 10 25 39 9 W 0 2 20 22 64 93 1 X 0 7 12 19 50 72 2 101 TABLE A-l6.--Tally sheet for School 8. Item “2:“ . .3322... % Least Lesser Highest A l 5 3 9 20 39 12 B l 4 1 6 12 24 16 C 4 8 7 19 44 86 3 D 0 5 ll 16 43 84 4 E 1 5 6 12 29 57 7 F 2 2 3 7 15 29 15 G 2 4 0 6 10 20 17 H 2 7 l 10 17 33 13 I 0 l 16 17 50 98 l J 0 2 15 17 49 96 2 K 1 l 0 2 3 6 19 L 2 4 0 6 10 20 16 M 0 6 3 9 21 41 11 N 0 1 0 l 2 4 20 O l 3 6 10 25 49 9 P 1 3 O 4 7 14 18 Q l 5 7 13 32 63 6 R 3 8 l 12 22 43 10 S 0 9 6 15 36 71 5 T 0 10 2 12 26 51 8 U l 8 0 9 17 33 13 V 2 4 2 8 16 31 14 102 TABLE A-l7.--Tally sheet for School 9. T.::.- . .332; % Least Lesser Highest A 1 7 12 20 51 59 3 B 2 7 7 16 37 43 10 C l 8 9 18 44 51 5 D 3 7 2 12 23 27 16 E 3 ll 9 23 52 60 2 F 4 6 5 15 31 36 12 G 3 5 l 9 l6 18 18 ' H 3 2 o 5 7 8 21 I 2 9 5 16 35 40 11 J l 3 10 14 37 43 10 K 3 8 2 13 25 29 15 L 2 5 1 8 15 l7 19 M 3 4 7 13 32 37 12 N 2 10 7 19 43 49 6 O 3 3 5 ll l4 16 20 P l 8 ll 20 50 57 4 Q 2 6 10 18 44 51 5 R l 8 13 22 56 64 l S 4 3 3 10 19 21 17 T 3 7 7 17 38 44 9 U 4 8 2 14 26 30 14 V 4 5 3 12 23 27 16 W 0 l3 6 19 44 51 5 103 TABLE A-l7.--Continued Item “2:“- . .3232}... % Least Lesser Highest X 4 12 3 19 37 43 10 Y 1 10 6 17 39 45 8 Z 1 3 8 12 31 36 13 AA 2 6 9 17 41 47 7 BB 1 8 9 18 44 51 5 CC 3 0 1 4 6 7 22 TABLE A-18.--Tally sheet for School 10. 104 Tezih‘ I... . cfifiiii. score % Rank Least Lesser Highest A 3 4 l 8 14 19 18 B 3 10 3 16 32 44 7 C 5 4 l 10 16 22 17 D 2 l3 1 16 31 43 8 E 2 2 15 19 51 71 1 F 3 6 5 14 30 42 9 G 2 8 9 19 45 63 3 H 5 9 1 15 26 36 11 I 2 10 3 15 31 43 6 J l 3 14 18 49 68 2 K 0 0 l l 3 4 22 L 4 7 l 12 21 29 13 M 5 8 0 13 21 29 13 N 3 9 l 13 24 33 12 O 3 6 l 10 18 25 16 P 2 6 2 10 20 28 14 Q l 2 2 5 ll 15 19 R l 7 6 14 33 46 6 S 1 3 0 4 7 10 21 T 4 12 3 19 37 51 5 U 1 7 9 18 40 56 4 V 4 5 5 14 29 40 10 W 3 6 2 ll 19 26 15 105 TABLE A-18.--Continued Item Tessh- CHgizis Score % Rank Least Lesser Highest X 2 3 l 6 ll 15 19 Y 4 2 0 6 8 ll 20 Z 3 9 4 16 33 46 6 TABLE A-l9.--Tally sheet for School 11. 106 . . Least Lesser Highest A 0 3 3 6 15 26 11 B 3 3 7 13 30 53 4 C 3 6 1 10 18 32 9 D 2 7 2 ll 24 42 7 E 1 5 7 13 32 56 2 F 5 4 4 13 25 44 6 G l 5 6 12 29 51 5 H 5 8 3 16 30 53 4 I 3 4 6 13 29 51 5 J 2 5 4 ll 24 42 7 K 2 6 6 14 32 56 2 L l 7 5 13 30 53 4 M 3 l 0 3 5 9 12 N 2 7 l 10 19 33 8 O 4 3 2 9 16 28 10 P 3 9 3 15 30 53 4 Q 2 5 7 12 29 51 5 R 2 9 6 17 38 67 l TABLE A-20.--Tally sheet for School 12. 107 “22’“- . £222; % Least Lesser Highest A l 5 6 12 29 48 7 B 2 3 4 9 20 33 11 C 3 8 6 17 37 60 3 D 3 9 2 14 27 45 8 E l 9 7 17 40 67 2 F 0 7 9 16 41 68 l G 3 l 10 14 35 58 4 H 3 8 2 13 25 42 10 I 4 3 0 7 10 17 18 J 2 5 2 9 18 30 13 K 6 3 l 10 15 25 16 L 4 3 3 10 19 32 12 M 5 3 0 8 ll 18 17 N 4 6 5 15 31 52 6 O 1 2 1 4 8 13 20 P 3 0 2 5 9 15 19 Q 3 4 2 9 17 28 14 R l 6 l 8 16 27 15 S 3 0 2 5 9 15 19 T 2 5 2 14 33 55 5 U 3 7 3 13 26 43 9